For weeks now User:Netscott has been agitating concerning this image uploaded by SlimVirgin. He kept insisting that the image be as "Anti-Semitic", against the objections of SlimVirgin and other editors. Netscott then tried to have it deleted as a derivative image; though the photographer had released it, Netscott claimed the poster in the photograph itself hadn't been properly released. Jkelly then proposed that the photograph be used under the photographer's release, and the poster image on the photograph itself under Fair Use. Netscott then objected, saying that we couldn't claim Fair Use on the poster unless we knew the name of the artist. SlimVirgin then went and discovered the name of the artist, and added it on the image page. Netscott then claimed it wasn't Fair Use based on "Counterexample 4". When this was shot down, he complained about the name of the image, insisting it was making claims of anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin then uploaded the image under a new "neutral" name that didn't mention anti-Semitism. Netscott then kept trying to attach the new image to the old name which contained the name anti-Semitism, trying again to make that linkage. When this was reverted, Netscott then tried to associate the name of the artist with ANSWER, a controversial group, and continually kept associating the poster creator's name with anti-Semitism on all sorts of Talk: pages and message boards, trying to get the image deleted again, ostensibly out of concerns about WP:BLP, but in actuality excacerbating any BLP concerns, since it was Netscott alone who kept making this connection, in a dozen different places. SlimVirgin then removed the name of the poster creater from the image page; at this point Netscott then insisted on listing the image as a Copyright violation, claiming the artist was no longer attributed.

The image itself is quite famous; it's been reproduced and discussed on a number of famous blogs and websites, and has been discussed in the media. Netscott's purpose here seems to be to troll as much as possible, agitating in any way possible to get the image deleted, while possibly endangering Wikipedia itself by deliberately associating an individual's name with anti-Semitism. In his relatively brief Wikipedia career Netscott has been blocked 8 times already. In fact he would still be under his last block, for a week, if not for the fact that an admin involved in a content dispute on Netscott's side unblocked him and re-blocked for a day instead. I'm suggesting a 1 week block at this point, though I'm open to the idea of an indefinite block as well. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscott was blocked for a week on August 25 by User:Blnguyen for persistent 3RR violations, but unfortunately user:Bastique, who was involved in that particular content dispute with Netscott, reduced the block to 24 hours. Otherwise none of this trolling would have happened. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Was mildly involved in some of the early issues, but would also support a week long block for persistent trolling and disruption. Given the user's other productive edits I do not think an indefinite block is called for at this point. JoshuaZ 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Total misrepresentation of the facts here. My efforts relative to this image has been to properly establish neutral point of view relative to it. This is what my first edit relative to this issue consisted of. Without any discussion whatsoever SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) reverted my addition. Because Wikipedia is not a soapbox we're not to be making statements about what a given piece of content is (this is clearly spelled out in WP:NOR). On every turn my efforts in this direction have been thwarted. I even went so far as to make a guide illustrative of how a caption needs to read in order for Wikipedia to meet neutral point of view. Unfortunately User:SlimVirgin and to a lesser extent User:Jayjg have demonstrated ownership on this article to the point that virtually all of my good faith edits were reverted. SlimVirgin even went so far as to say that SHE had to verify my edits. ???? With that image as the lead for new anti-Semitism and with no in article text about reliable and verifiable sources statements included Wikipedia is seriously in jeapordy of libel relative to branding this artist's work anti-Semitic and in consequence the artist himself. A good number of editors have been supportive of my efforts including User:AYArktos, User:Bastique, User:Gmaxwell, User:Fastfission (in WikiEn-i) , User:Liftarn, User:Geni to name a few. A number of responses to an RfC I started also were supportive of my suggestions. All of the editing I've done has been in good faith. I've made quite a few efforts to discuss this matter to try to come to a consensus and I've been shut down on all sides by these two editors. Here is the BLP discussion wherein I expressed the very real case that Wikipedia is in libel relative to the artist by publishing his work as the lead image and thereby implying that it is an example of new anti-Semitism (particularly when there's no sources cited in the article as saying that). Both SlimVirgin [1] and Jayjg [2] have themselves expressed concern about libel by contravening Wikipedia:Fair use policy #10 in removing the artist's name from the image page itself (for an image to qualify for fair use an artist or copyright holder must be attributed). I'll have more to say on this but I need to step out for a bit. (→Netscott) 03:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense. Geni, Gmaxwell, and FastFission did not support Netscott, and in fact several people questioned why he was posting to the mailing list about it. (Geni's position was that we needed the name of the copyright holder, and we now have it.) Liftarn did support Netscott, because Liftarn also wants the image gone at any cost. The image has been discussed with Jkelly and the matter settled.

The issue is not the image now, but the trolling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are using the word "trolling" to discount my efforts (in a very propagandistic way). The reality is that I spent the better part of the day replacing deprecated templates and editing on the infrastructure of the WP:BLP/N (like that shortcut itself) noticeboard (and {{editabuselinks}} template). I even made an announcement about it. It was only when you didn't transfer the old image's talk page to the newly named image that a dispute arose. I even sought comments about that. (→Netscott) 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User's editing style appears disruptive and tendencious. El_C 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that such disruptive behavior should be stopped. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just asked Netscott to walk away from the article and image in question. Waiting for his response.--MONGO 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked him for 48 hrs. He still should be able to edit his Talk page. Please LMK if you feel it was inappropriate. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicted for the fifth time - I was the original blocker and was briefed about an IRC conversation which lead to the unblock after Netscott was unblocked. At no time was I informed that Bastique was himself involved in editing the part of the article in question let alone the general sphere of Jewish editing. I am quite unimpressed by the excessive levels of agitation which have been employed, in particular when he tags the pic as a copyvio of wikipedia. Leaning 1 week, definitely not indef, as Netscott is a serious contributor. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an indef block, but I take issue with the serious contributor thing. Looking through his contribs, the signal-to-noise ratio isn't good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely with El_C and Blnguyen. The editing style emplyed by Netscott was overly aggressive, and he has been disruptive in this matter. I also note that I have asked Humus that Netscott be unblocked in the interim so that he can fairly address issues raised here. -- Samir धर्म 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Samir, if he is unblocked to discuss it, he'll just use this as the latest plaftorm for the disruption. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Should he disrupt here, SlimVirgin, he will be blocked. But I think it is only fair for him to get a chance to say his side civilly -- Samir धर्म 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It should not take a village to upload an image to Wikipedia. That Netscott has made it so troubles me. I support a week block. Netscott, you can email me with your concerns and ideas about the image and I will follow up. FloNight 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Humus sapiens for unblocking me. I will not post outside of this thread for the next 48 hours out of respect for you and Samir (the scope) (obviously it's other's perogative if I'm to be re-blocked). Seriously if I had not been treated with such disregard and lack of dignity when I first started editing on this article things probably wouldn't have come to this. At every turn my edits have been reverted first discussed second. How does that foster a good collaborative environment? (→Netscott) 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, so you tried to get the image deleted under 5 different bogus rationales because you were treated with "disregard and lack of dignity"? Thank you for comfirming your WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's not much left for that image. Its not 'free', but its no longer tagged as such anymore anyways. Netscott tagging {{copyvio}} with the url point to a revision of the image page is a rather strange way to dispute the image, but only thing left is dispution of the fair use rationale. Kevin_b_er 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, is it improper to insist that images are in compliance with Fair use policy? Is it improper to insist that Wikipedia not defame an artist with poorly sourced statements about his art being "anti-Semitic" (particularly not including such statements in the article). When I came to the article there was virtually no relevant text in it's caption relative to the image. Here's what the caption read when I started to call for NPOV on it:

"A placard at a February 16, 2003, anti-war rally in San Francisco. Photograph by zombie of zombietime.com. [3]"

Essentially the image was "there" as the perfect example of new anti-Semitism. Then after my efforts and comments by User:Gimmetrow about WP:CAP SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) added some text to at least establish the image's relevance to the rest of the article like so:

Photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist and anti-globalization imagery with some classic anti-Semitic motifs. Photograph taken by zombie of zombietime.com. [8]

But where are the reliable sources in that caption? This sets up negative details relative to the artist and as such reliable and verifiable sources need to be written into the article in support of such negative details. (→Netscott) 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's determined here that I'm to be reblocked for any length of time then I would just recommend indef. blocking me with the {{indefblock}} tag and all. I probably spend too much time on the project as it is and an indef. block would just motivate me to fully step away from it. I've put too much effort into this project to be treated so disrespectfully and with a lack of dignity the way that I have been in this circumstance particularly by User:SlimVirgin. The funny thing is that you almost can't go anywhere now on Wikipedia and not see an example my work in one of my creations. (→Netscott) 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

These are some of the so-called anti-imperialists we have today. "A war for Israel." So ignorant of the nature of imperialist-dependence, always up for the instant counterfeit Jew gratification. Netscott, you are editing tendenciously because you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy. That caption does not need reliable sources, it highlights what the image evokes, and some interpretive leeway is afforded there. It's unrealistic to expect one to find a source which says these things about that image, which makes that line of reasoning tendencious. Similarly, invoking WP:BLP is also tendencious, as it was in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. El_C 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the above, I feel that Netscott has been editing in an escessively agitatory and diruptive manner unconducive to teh improvement and production of quality articles, so I have enacted a block of 7 days, as this has been exhibited previously in many 3RR blocks. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscott is also the hidden hand behind User:His excellency’s evidence against established editors in his case before the Arbitration Committee. Netscott has cynically encouraged and used His excellency to rid Wikipedia of Jewish and insufficiently anti-Jewish editors, who he claims are using “Wikipedia as a tool to spread propaganda.”.Postmonger 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Slim, did you really mean to revert to keep that disgusting allegation from an obvious sock on this page? And "Postmonger", nice work against a blocked editor who can't defend himself here. Haven't you been insisting that I'm that hidden hand, or don't you find that quite as safe? The same accusation against me has more substance, if anything [4] [5] (although please note that the arbcom seems rather strikingly far from endorsing it). Bishonen | talk 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

Hi Bish, I don't know either of the players. I only reverted an anon who was removing a post. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this. Netscott gets blocked for 48 hours, and then you block him for 7 days without additional cause? This is extremely bad administative behavior on our part, and goes many lengths to support the claims that we are acting as a Cabal. You're being excessively punitive, and acting on mob mentality. Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Bastique, it was you who triggered this. You reduced Netscott's last block in violation of WP:BLOCK even though you were involved in the content dispute on his side. It's clear to anyone looking at this that Netscott has developed an unhealthy obsession and needs a substantial cooldown period. It was to be hoped he'd realize that on this own, but he didn't, and therefore the 7-day block was a very good idea. If you hadn't undone it, this latest situation wouldn't have occurred. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim, it was you who triggered this. Persistent goading of users with insults and threats, knowing that they won't take any action against you, because going up against you means going up against your gang. And any remarks about your own misuse of admin powers will certainly get a user blocked (like out of process oversight, etc.) Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Blame me. I should have blocked him for a week. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be blocking anyone involved on those pages. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not, given that you abused your admin tools in relation to Netscott. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrite. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what he's supposed to have done wrong. He was spot on that the image was originally incorrectly tagged as if it were a free image. His fair use concerns have been reasonable. He has been civil. I think he should be unblocked unless some solid evidence of misbehaviour is presented. Saying that he "is trolling" is too vague. He has certainly pursued the matter with determination but so have those on the other side of the argument. Haukur 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Haukur, please inform yourself fully before commenting. This has been among the most disingenuous trolling I've encountered on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The civility bit is actually subject to debate, but regardless, the tendencious editing-style is a problem — see my comment directly above. El_C 01:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The users in question, the ones calling for Netscott's unwarrented ban, have a habit of distracting from the actual issues. Netscott behaved badly, but in response to other users behaving just as bad. Netscott wasn't warring with himself, unfortunately, he caught a throng of POV warriors who will not tolerate any page other than the way they say it. I actually am very neutral on the particular topics, and try to remain so when working on these pages.

Furthermore, when I was willing to offer a compromise, to try to come to a middle point, I am responded to within minutes with cacaphony of aggression and antagonism, as if there are users repeatedly refreshing their watchlists. How someone can respond within three minutes [6] with such an incredible surge of energy is beyond me, unless they're doing exactly that. Note that I soon got off that article, which most sensible people will do, when faced with such an onslaught of animosity. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not nonsense. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis is factually inaccurate, and you're basing decisions and opinions on limited information. If you were to read all the diffs (going back a couple of weeks), you'd see that Netscott has been massively disruptive around this issue, and that others have not. You'd also see that he has caused similar problems elsewhere, based on a failure to understand our edit policies. You're doing people a disservice by equating behaviors that you've only spent a short time examining. That's all I'm going to say on the matter, because the amount of time spent on this has been ridiculous. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are users who make it impossible to take a neutral side in their articles, to try and take a common ground to make the articles less POV and more encyclopedic. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bastique, I find it difficult to believe that you would still attempt to edit under the veil of neutrality on the subject. In every single instance that you have come into contact with an article that even remotely relates to the wider topic, you take the same position and always end up defending the same people, all the while insisting you are a standard of impartiality. Furthermore you do this in such a way that implies authority that must be listened to. Frankly I cannot see a signifigant difference between you and Netscott.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Prior to this article, I was responding to complaints at m:OTRS that you, and others, owned certain articles and wouldn't allow anyone else to edit who had a difference of opinion from yours. This has happened a number of times with you. If you can't see a significant difference between me and Netscott, its your head is so stuck in your own limited worldview that you can't see anything beyond that. You do have a knack of completely pissing people off, Moshe, and my responses to you might have been tainted with a bit of rage at your accusations and insinuations.

Because I'm an admin, I don't edit articles in which I have a strong opinion, or haven't in a considerable time. I have a blog, that's linked from my user page. Try to find anything remotely connected with a pro-Israel or anti-Israel policy. I do have strong opinions. I try to remain objective, and that's why I don't edit articles in which I have strong opinions.

My opinion is that you guys are POV-pushing in a most nasty manner. When someone trolls and disagrees with your point of view, like Netscott, you get him blocked. When someone trolls and agrees with your point of view, you call him or her a contributor. There is a very large double standard on articles in which Slim Virgin and Jayjg have an opinion. People don't want to edit them if they have a Neutral point of view, because POV pushers like yourself will gather together and eat them alive.

Prior to this entire incident, I had at least a positive opinion of SlimVirgin. The incessant harping about my actions regarding Netscott, however, are hypocritical to say the least. Netscott deserved unblocking, because the actions should be applied unversally, not just to people whose opinions are not of your own. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I apoligize for how condescending this may sound, but I actually find it funny that you have chosen to take such a tone in your response. You couldn't have shown a better example of the false authority mixed in with inappropriate personal remarks and irrelevant commentary that I pointed to in my previous comment here. Furthermore it is utter nonsense- to add some backround for people who do not know, the "people" I have "pissed off" that Bastique is referring to is User:Alienus on the IRmep article. I seriously invite anyone to look at the record of that user, as he is currently banned for a year after a whole wiki-career of bad behavior. Bastique not only found himself on the same side of the above user, but he rigiously defended his actions while belittling and disrespecting me for not agreeing with him.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Bastique, who is supposed to be an administrator, directed Netscott to Wikipedia Review. [7] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Bastique meant that as ironic commentary. I hope that's the case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It was. I'm sure Netscott is more than aware of Wikipedia Review. Oddly enough, there are people who are "supposed to be administrators" that regularly comment at Wikipedia Review. At least Slim Virgin reads it. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're quite wrong there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny.. if you don't read it, why is it that every time they linked to an old edit of yours that Jay would turn around and oversight it?

I've had no more involvement in the issue since I realized that you and Jay had decided to be WP:OWNers of the article and I realized that the group there would soon be accusing me of being anti-jewish if I continued to push for NPOV in the article. ... But I must correct you above, I did support netscotts basic actions if not quite the level of haste and aggressiveness he's carried them with. If it were my call, I'd say the lot of you should be blocked, and the the article should be blanked until you can learn to behave like adults... but I tend towards the draconian like that.--Gmaxwell 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I came off too harsh here and it's not fair to the parties involved. To me it would appear to me that in some subject areas we have a group of dedicated and hardworking users who spending a huge amount of effort protecting the articles against outside bigots and POV pushers. The problem is real, and much of the work they do is good. However, it appears that the stress of this work is causing paranoia... where we see a lurking POV pusher behind every action, even actions by topically disinterested but hard working Wikipedias. This results in a situation where some editors, myself included, are honestly afraid that if they wade in again and argue for neutralizing edits on such articles that they will be cast as some sort of bigot by people who are trying to protect the articles from the actual bigots. This fear translates into frustration and results in a break down of cooperation and communication. So even in the absence of establish article protectors who are themselves POVpushing (which I do believe, from JayJG's unfortunate comments WRT NPOV not applying to images on the enwiki thread that we do have as well) we've still got an environment which is not friendly to cooperation. I don't know how to solve it, but my barb above certainly wouldn't help things. I apologize for that. --Gmaxwell 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I am sorry if some see Moshe, Jayjg or SlimVirgin as part of the problem, because IMHO they are a part of a solution. Not sure where is the right place to address this, but it would be hard to find an article related to Jews that is not under daily attacks: from subtle POV to blatant vandalism. WP's openness and popularity are great but someone needs to keep repairing and NPOVifying it. If you see this process as some kind of conspiracy, too bad. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Known vandal pattern of User:YaR GnitS and associated socks. [8][9][10]

May need to be semi-protected as Insane Clown Posse was last time this vandal struck.--Rosicrucian 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also vandalism of archived AFD [11] similar to vandalism pattern on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay ICP. Would suggest sprotect of this as well.--Rosicrucian 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This user keeps trying to recreate Talk about spyro, which was speedied twice (G3 and G4). He's removing speedy tags and posting copyvio images on Talk About Spyro, and has an extensive history of vandalism and trying to turn various Spyro the Dragon articles into discussion forums. He also has a history of posting linkspam in these articles. Probably needs a block, since he's been ignoring warnings for a while now. I would have reported him to AIV, but his vandalism is spread out over a period of several months. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV--Konstable 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Duke53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I made and honest mistake while cutting and pasting one of his comments in a discussion page (just so i could edit it and reply in similar manner) and forgot to remove his signature. He responded in a fury about someone posting under his name, and then i saw what happened, and immediately corrected the problem, said it was a mistake, and apologized. Well, because i guess of our edit warring before hand, he seized the opportunity and threatened to report me for impersonating him, and has been vandalizing my talk page with threats ever since. This guy is out of control. 2nd Piston Honda 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• 2nd Piston Honda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After he posted to a talk page he deleted my posts commenting on his behavior. He then attacked me personally, calling me 'douche',' asshole' and 'ass' at various times. I put up warnings at his user talk page (as per Wikipedia policy) which he promptly deleted; while at his talk page I noticed another editor had previously admonished him for deleting material elsewhere.

A brand new administrator took up this case and 'compromised' by deleting everything. He said that 2nd Piston Honda had 'made 2 mistakes' but (apparently) 'no harm, no foul'.

Everything he says that I did, he did. He must be taught that he has no right to be impersonating other editors and that it isn't his right to delete materials, which he now has a history of doing. I feel that he should be suspended for a while to think about his actions at Wikipedia. Thank You"Duke53 | Talk" 00:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I was the administrator involved. Here's a link to the talk pages of both Duke53 and 2nd Piston Honda before I blanked their warning warring.

My take of the situation: 2nd Piston Honda made a mistake and forgets to remove Duke53's signature after cutting and pasting on Talk:George W. Bush [12] for which he apologises for at [13]. Duke53 refuses to accept Honda's apology and takes further offense when Honda tries to return the thread back on topic [14] and begins "WikiLawyering" accusing Honda of impersonation, talk page vandalism and starts issuing warnings on Honda's talk page. Honda loses his cool and calls Duke53 an "asshole" [15] for refusing his apology.

Both users then proceed to war over issuing warnings to each other for vandalising each other's talk pages and for removing each other's warnings from their respective talk pages. Honda then makes the above report to WP:AIV requesting that Duke53 be blocked. I refuse to block either of them citing that they were both "making mountains out of molehills." In attempt to de-escalate the situation, I offer both of them the chance to remove all the warnings that they've given to each other over this whole incident so that they can both walk away like nothing ever happened. KojiDude (talk • contribs) recommends that both users accept my compromise. Neither takes the opportunity to do so, so I intervene and remove all warnings issued related to this conflict stating that it was over and signalling that I was to take no disciplinary action against either. Honda agrees, but Duke53 disagreed with my handling of the situation and now we are here. What an "eventful" first day as an administrator I have to say. *sigh* --  Netsnipe  ►  01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You got part of it right, but I never removed a single thing he wrote on my talk page. The truth about that puts some things into a different light, don't you think? Little details about the truth matter to some of us. "Duke53 | Talk" 04:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Ever consider the fact that the reason that "Honda agrees" is that he's the one who made the personal attacks and broke Wikipedia policies at will? Just a thought. "Duke53 | Talk" 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I commend Netsnipe for a careful investigation and a cool-headed mediation (especially in the face of sniping criticism from one of the parties). Good job for a first day. — ERcheck (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Duke53, you've said a few times that 2nd Piston Honda has never apologized - is it possible that you missed the apology he made in the edit summary of this early edit? If so, that would explain your adamant pursual of the topic on the GWB talk page, which Honda in turn interpreted as belligerence, and which then spun the situation out of control. I think Netsnipe has done a fine job here, and was right on the money when he said "mountains out of molehills." Just my two cents. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting quite ridiculous. Duke53 needs to read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA, especially for the comment [16] that Netsnipe has much to learn about being an admin and "dropped the ball" on this issue, apparently for not punishing Honda to his liking. Yes, very nice, insulting the person who's trying to mediate the conflict in the first place. Don't be dense about it, Duke53. Hbdragon88 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I will answer Peruvianllama and Hbdragon88 both in this paragraph. The apology for calling me a 'douche', an 'asshole' and an 'ass' is still forthcoming. I believe that those names could be considered a personal attack under Wikipedia policy. Deleting items from a talk page is also against Wikipedia policy; he did it repeatedly. I followed Wikipedia policy. As for insulting the administrator, well, it's not my fault that he's new at it. I'm not about to put a 'class' of people here on a pedestal, simply because they have a title. If that administrator thinks he did a good job then he's got low expectations of how Wikipedia should be administered... ignoring numerous instances of Wikipedia policy being broken is not good administrating, no matter what your friends may tell you. If I were to be banned I would hope it is for breaking policy, not for telling the truth about a situation that arises (or for someone's 'interpretation' of my words). "Duke53 | Talk" 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. I am civil when treated civilly; after that, all bets are off.

Nowhere on WP:CIVIL does it say you can be uncivil to others if they are uncivil with you first. Danny Lilithborne 06:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it says about the "other party". The guideline is about every user, and specifically it says incivility is: Rudeness (dragging this out), Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (accusations against Netsnipe to learn how to administrate), Personal attacks ("imposter" and other terms), and calling for bans or blocks (2nd Honda, repeatedly). Hbdragon88 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting items from a Talk Page is not always strictly against Wikipedia policy. The first time Honda deleted items, it was to keep the discussion moving as s/he thought the issue had been resolved. The subsequent times were (I presume) because Honda interpreted your persistence on the matter as a sign of belligerence. Honda shouldn't have called you names - that was out of line, and there are channels of dispute resolution that can be followed if you still feel slighted. For your part however, the better strategy would have been to try communicating with Honda instead of repeatedly posting templated warnings on her/his talk page. The warnings are there to standardize our (the Community's) message to those new to Wikipedia, or to those who don't yet understand the basic policies. Once you grab their attention with the warnings, it's almost always better to then engage the other party in more dynamic discourse to resolve the issue if there's been a misunderstanding. You both handled things poorly near the end by calling every edit made by the other party "vandalism", and responding only with template warnings and alerts to WP:AIV. Initially, it was you that forced the issue with your persistent posts; later, it was Honda that stepped over the line with the foul language. They might not have been equal transgressions, but I agree with Netsnipe that for now, there isn't much more to be gained from pursuing the matter. If you'd like formal mediation, I think you know where to go, but if you'd like something more informal, if there's anything I can do, I'd be happy to help. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:The truth hurts?.jpg certainly does not promote a positive wiki-environment. -- tariqabjotu 06:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, sauce for the goose and all that. It's easy to talk about all these ideals & policies, but here is proof that those ideals & policies can be ignored to fit one guy's version of that individual situation. I really, really don't appreciate getting lied to, and that has happened a few times in this incident. Duke53 06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are "beating a dead horse". There is nothing more you can say or do to get 2nd Piston Honda blocked. What happened has happened and my decision has now been reviewed by other administrators as you've requested. So far, I haven't received any criticism over my handling of this incident by anybody else. You've been so caught up in your own self-righteousness that you haven't even realised that it could have easily gone the other way and you could have been blocked instead if I hadn't exercised self-restraint and accepted Honda's WP:AIV report at his word. Instead, I tried mediation and neither of you got blocked as a result. By wasting more of our time here with you incessant complaining you are now entering Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point territory. Move on and get back to writing an encyclopedia. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would liked to have heard it from those 'other' administrators' myself; not that I don't believe you, but .... Yeah, I was deathly afraid of getting blocked for following Wikipedia policies. Move on, and start learning how to administrate. "Duke53 | Talk" 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

...wow. Just, wow. Danny Lilithborne 07:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Netsnipe, on your sensitive handling of this. --Guinnog 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the matter has been handled very effectively by Netsnipe. Metamagician3000 08:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"I really don't care who gets angry" [17]. I think this is a rather alarming comment. Hbdragon88 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You all probally know me form Wikinews. Well we have a problem there. It has been confirmed, via checkuser, that wikinews:User:RadioKirk shares the same ip adress as wikinews:User:MyName. I just wanted to share this with you so you can figure out where to go from there. PVJ 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the IP? ForestH2 t/c 01:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

216.164.203.90 PVJ 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. I seem to remember a similar incident a few days ago where a troll came on WP:AN or WP:AN/I and claimed RadioKirk was vandalizing on another wiki. Turns out he wasn't. — The Future 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Disregard that, it seems as if the account was created to impersonate RadioKirk, was discovered and then transfered over, thats why the ip's matched. I still have my resrvations though :) 65.78.87.120 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PVJ's blocked. Exactly what I thought.. — The Future 02:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See here and here; this is the same person who has repeatedly impersonated me and now is trying to claim I'm somehow behind the whole thing. I've indef-blocked PVJ as yet another sock of 216.164.203.90. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, there is no n:User:PVJ. Big surprise, eh? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Per continued harassment by this user and the decided lack of valuable edits (even most of the seeming good edits are interrelated), I have blocked 216.164.203.0/24 for 6 months. Review is appreciated. Please. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> The only problem I see is that you commented and replied to yourself three times above </sarcasm> :) No problems otherwise. — The Future 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL okay, remove indent ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better :) — The Future 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with talking to yourself? NoSeptember 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. NoSeptember 13:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. NoSeptember 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, sure... nothing wrong here. :) — The Future 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, please see this RFCU and the oh-my-God-I'm-stunned-NOT! revelation that my block of PVJ affected 65.78.87.120 (see above) and Old TI-89 (see my talk page history and the users' contribs). The sock farm continues... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yea, that was shocking *sigh* Well, at least if he creates any sockpuppets, this IP range (static?) will be blocked from editing. — The Future 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* indeed. I'm trying to maintain a sense of humor through all this but, you know, sometimes a fucktard will always be a fucktard and a little boy will always be a little boy. The trick is to keep laughing at the pathos that is this prime example of herd-thinning, lest it think it's "winning" somehow... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Old TI-89? I was under the impression that he was a good faith contributor. I encountered him last night on vandalism patrol, and I contacted him on his talk to congratulate him on his vandal reverting efforts and ask him about his username. He seemed a pretty civil user. I think the only strike against him is that he has a similar sig as RadioKirk. Just my 2¢. »ctails!« =hello?= 03:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And the fact he was picked up as collateral damage after a block RadioKirk gave out to a recurring vandal, nope no other strikes against him :) — The Future 04:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This vandal has a history of appearing to be a good-faith contributor and then "turning"; I fully intended to WP:AGF until the "coincidences" became too much to ignore. The fact that PVJ and Old TI-89 "share" an IP (all IPs in this case return to RCN Corporation and resolve to [IP#].atw-ubr1.atw.pa.cable.rcn.com), and that all "editors" in this case share certain idiosyncrasies which I would ask others to investigate, demonstrate a commonality that is beyond question. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: despite the active {{unblock}} request on his talk page, Old TI-89 wants this known, including the call into question of my competence (invoking the incorrect block of Ferick [an innocent user targeted by this vandal], which was a specific block, not a user caught in an IP block designed to stop in-progress trolling, as in this case). This vandal has attempted several different paths toward what he hopes is my desysopping: impersonating me and asking to be desysopped, impersonating me and vandalizing other Wikis, reporting "me" here, self-identifying as Ferick to affect that user (the vandal since registered TheFerick—I blocked under WP:USERNAME), and generally calling my abilities into question. Note also that Old TI-89 asks of someone else is "goeing to look at this, besides this RadioKirk, who blocked me for no reason in the first place" in identical language to other such requests by other established socks, and as if he's never heard of me before despite admittedly copying my signature and monobook.js file. If indeed this user is not yet another reincarnation of this excessive vandal/troll, then he sure seems to be going to a lot of trouble to look/sound like it... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we were contacted on freenode, in #wikipedia, by User:Old TI-89, who claims that he has nothing to do with User:PVJ. After checking the vandal's past contribs, I really don't know what to do with this. If I had to suggest, I would say to go ahead and unblock the user, then keep a careful eye on them. It's really the only thing we can do right now, seeing as PVJ has a history of acting civil, then turning around to vandalize. Shadow1 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just been advised that there's a RadioKirk on the Polish Wiki; registered 25 August if "sie" is the abbreviation of "sierpnia", this is the user's only contribution as I type this. I have no clue at this point if there's a relationship to these goings-on. Meantime, I will unblock Old TI-89 as a show of good faith, which has been extremely difficult under these circumstances. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh this is nice, thank you! I was pretty disapointed in this incident, and I HOPE it won't happen again. I would like to thank shadow1 for helping me out. Feel free to keep a close eye on me, you can be assured I seek no trouble. Old TI-89 (u|t|c) 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Given PVJ's use of the same IP, would you have an objection to my attempting an anon-only, stop-account-creation block on that IP? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If that means I can just edit if I logon; no, that won't be a problem. Old TI-89 (u|t|c) 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what it's supposed to do. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Be advised of Essjay's comments regarding this IP address at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nookdog. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This refers to 216.164.203.90, the IP orginally mentioned in this section. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. It seems that Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · count) is running a bot through his main user account yet again.[18] He currently has an open request for arbitration for just this sort of behavior. Do we need to warn him/block him? I don't claim to be the leading expert on bots at the moment, but this certainly does not seem proper. Grandmasterka 03:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No judgement on Maru's overall actions, but offhand this looks like just software-aided human editting, fixing links to disambiguation pages (a common task). See a few seconds after your diff: [19], the work being done in the last batch of edits almost certainly was done with human judgement. --W.marsh 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh... Okay, I didn't see that one, the ones I looked at all looked the same to me. Still seems like a pretty poor time to be running any kind of "robot" edits through the main account, when it's part of the subject of his open RFAR. Grandmasterka 06:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of these changes are occurring as fast as 10 per minute. Is this really a human-assisted bot? I would certainly add this to the evidence page in the arbitration case. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, glancing at about 10 of them, they all made the correct decision, and this is the kind of stuff an AI would not be able to do (making decisions based purely on context). So I think it's reasonable that it was just human-assisted. I've heard people on IRC claim speeds about that fast with the python disambiguation solver. Most edits do seem to have been at a more reasonable 3-5/minute pace. --W.marsh 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently almost an hour's backlog. »ctails!« =hello?= 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's mostly cleared up at the moment. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am specifically one of the people involved in Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mr.Pelican Shit. I want to apologise for our misdeeds which we actually stopped doing a long time ago - about late 2005. The pelican shit thing began as a joke after a night out when we came back from a club in Stockton-on-Tees and we ended up covered in white stuff (actually foam, but one Australian guy said "bugger all, that's pelican shit!" and we found Wikipedia when researching info on Middlesbrough for coursework in college.

Anyhow, we hope we can be forgiven for it, we want to contribute positively. Can you recover the deleted Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mr.Pelican Shit page and move it to my userspace for posterity.

We want to make encyclopedic contributions on North-East England and Teesside-related topics.

Hopefully all can be forgiven. BTW, those on Wiktionary and Commons were imitators, and not us. --Langwath 09:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If one would really want to keep the past behind them, why would they want a page on their past vandalisms moved to their own userspace? RN 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is for transfer to a MediaWiki installation I run - which is sort of like a 'Best of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense' extended version - for our local area network! Anyhow, no more 'pelican shit/bluxo/asspus' stuff! --Langwath 09:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone could just e-mail it to you? RN 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have email working from this account soon enough. Also see if the WoW/Communism/Johnny the Vandal/ncv/marmot pages can be recovered, the GFDL doesn't stop us from using them, does it?? I can say that at college the hits for the WoW and Communism pages resulted in them getting blocked by sysadmins in college!

But anyhow, is there a WikiProject on North East England I could get involved in?? --Langwath 09:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, yet more proof that WP:DENY is working. All the more reason to not cave in and give them back their vandalism page "for posterity". Yeesh. --Cyde Weys 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he's apologizing only because he wants the page. Anomo 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:WolfStar2 is apparently a bot operated by the banned user User:Thewolfstar. None of the edits it has made seem to be productive, and it reverts attempts to undo its edits. --Stemonitis 10:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone please ban this immediately indefinately as a sockpuppet. See diff [20] for example. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your post ate mine[21]. I have blocked indefinitely. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 10:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And I edit conflucted with you... —Xyrael / 10:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I literally waited 3 and a half minutes for my edit to go through due to a routing error on my end. I figured something like that would happen. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And now we have WolfStar3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AnnH ♫ 10:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh> Let's all sing: "I ain't gonna tolerate Maggie's farm no more." (And, of course, we still have her arguing and disrupting, just one heading below.) Geogre 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that there is no RFCU filed on WhiskeyRebellion; it could merely be another editor interested in anarchism and human rights. Until that suspicion is cleared up (which I hope it will be; hence posting the reminder about the previous AN/I discussion), we should try to assume some good faith. Captainktainer * Talk 12:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is strangeness going on here, and I'm hoping someone can sort it out.

I've blocked SN for 3RR. SN says he was reverting socks of R Lopez (). User:T Turner says [22] that SN may well be RL. But T Turner is indef blocked as an attack account. Meanwhile D Sanchez [23] is going around adding SN to the list of RL socks...

William M. Connolley 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked D Sanchez indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet and I've reverted his edits about Stirling. I have no idea about the Lopez sockpuppet tags he added, so I've left them in place until I can work out what's going on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're both right--there is something strange going on here, and I've been having trouble figuring out exactly what is going on. There is at least one abusive user who is certainly at work making sockpuppets to attack and harass Stirling (User:T Turner is an obvious example, and Ray Lopez (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) himself is an obvious impostor/sockpuppet (this delightful edit [24] says it all). Here's another fine user Coqsportif (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who might be involved, since "Ray Lopez" became active shortly after he was blocked. On some of the most recent stuff -- such as 87.19.140.175 (talk • contribs) -- who is in Italy and doesn't appear to be an open proxy -- I dunno. I think there's more than one person harassing Stirling.

I think a checkuser on the Stirling-harassers, at least the recent ones, might be in order. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK... on this basis I'm going to unblock SN for 3RR, whilst reminding him to be a bit more cautious William M. Connolley 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

An edit war has been ongoing concerning the into of the Muhammad article. Some editors have been changing the longstanding intro (which achieved a concensus some time ago) to a new version. (I'll hold my opinion on this affair.) It appears FayssalF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has locked the page due to the edit war. While I have no problem with this, I am concerned about the specific administrator who locked the page. The page lock states, "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version." However, FayssalF himself was involved in the revert war, reverting at least twice from the previous consensus version. And rather than locking the page outright, he reverted once more to his desired version before full-protecting the page. I think this is a clear endorsement of a version and another example of administrator abuse from a user who has himself been involved in multiple revert wars on this very article. —Aiden 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the article should indeed have been protected, I object to FayssalF's use of the rollback tool to revert non-vandalism, as well as his revert prior to protection. He definitely should not have performed the protection himself, and the tone used by FayssalF on User talk:62.25.96.105 in response to the IP's comprably polite (and correct) statements on FayssalF's talk page is unnecessarily harsh. -- tariqabjotu 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Has this what it's come down to? IP addresses are immediately seen as sockpuppets or their edits treated in bad faith? Hbdragon88 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:V, users may not remove legitimate warnigns from their Talk pages. User:Ian Pitchford has received numerous warnings - for 3RR, for misuse of anit-vandal tools etc.. - which he keeps removing from his Talk page. he has been warned not to do this, yes keeps one doing it, and claiming he is "archiving" - though no archive exists on his page Isarig 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I too warned him on WP:3RR several weeks ago about some very questionable reverts he was making to 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He immediately blanked his entire userpage including the discussion on his edits, calling it "archiving". —Aiden 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fix Bayonets! (talk • contribs) has, in the last hour, made a legal threat against me[25], violated WP:3RR at Sons of Confederate Veterans[26], blanked my comments on that article's talk page multiple times[27], and removed multiple warning messages on his/her user talk page.[28] I have also reported suspected sock puppetry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fix Bayonets!. I would like an admin to review this user's actions. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, I'd do indef but I kind of want to beat into him civility. It may yet be possible. --Golbez 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The block was changed to an indef per the legal threats, fyi. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to announce vandalism on my user page. --Peter IBM 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Peter IBM has been indefinitely blocked as a Bonaparte sockpuppet. — ERcheck (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is another revert war brewing at Battle of Bint Jbeil. I had to protect the page a few days ago, due to a revert war about the same thing this revert war is about, sources. User:Isarig continues to revert, citing articles and advocating a page version that is not backed up by the same articles he cites. I am too involved in this matter to execute the protection myself, but if the revert war escalates, I see no choice. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to mention that you are part of that revert war, having earlier pretended to be a disinterested editor. This is not a revert war, but a content dispute. I have added new sources, new information and quoted your sources verbatim, to remove the POV you had introduced. You have refused to justify your edits on talk, and recent editors have sided with me on that Talk page. Not every content dispute needs to lead to a page block - feel free to explain yourself on Talk before resorting to extreme measures. Isarig 23:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indrancroos has turned the indian martial arts discussion page from a discussion about the merits of the article to a discussion about me... he has accused me of racism on multiple occasions, and yet has yet to substantiate anything about any statements that i have said that are racist... he has yet been able to bring in any statements of racism that i have made... i have attempted to tell him to stop doing this and yet he continues... two whole pages of the discussion panel consist of his ramblings...Kennethtennyson 03:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --SPUI (T - C) 05:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait since you lost? 41% isn't consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With more discussion, perhaps a clearer result could ensue - perhaps for a better policy not discussed yet. Stephen B Streater 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You got it right first time. Consensus descisions are strongly non-zero sum. In a debate with only rational agents, nobody actually loses. (though some might not be perfectly happy, of course).

If you think that a majority vote is the only solution to resolving this particular dispute, well ... I don't know... but ok, I'll grant you that point for the sake of conversation today. I'm not going to argue with your actions.

But let's agree that it definately isn't consensus! :-)

Kim Bruning 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On many issues, it doesn't matter in the end which decision is made as long as a decision is made. This applies especially to trivial matters. If you check the principles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways, you'll see that this is exactly the tack taken by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 09:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted an attempt to close that as "no consensus", since the admins in question appear to still be discussing it... For the record, my opinion is that consensus is a goal, not an absolute requirement; when something has come to a boil (as with the hint from arbcom) and we count heads on it, a clear majority is acceptable if it'll just stop the arguing. Shimgray | talk | 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've warned SPUI (User_talk:SPUI#State_route_naming_conventions_poll) about his try to close and he has replied with an interpretation of ArbCom's directives in this matter that I do not think is supported. If he reverts back to that "rejected" template, I will consider it disruption and will issue a block. His contributions throughout this matter have, in my view, attempted to stymie the functioning of the process to get to an outcome, any outcome so that this trivial matter can be put to bed. ++Lar: t/c 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Could the remainder of the page be locked from editing to prevent any future vandalism or unwanted editing? I don't think anymore discussion is needed on Part 1 until after the admins cast all of their votes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is that that page and proper wikipedia policymaking don't really have much correlation with each other.

Now as to achieving consensus, I wonder if the arbcom ever looked into King Solomon for ideas?

Well, whatever the case... as a start, I propose deletion of all highwaycruft. That'll end the situation swiftly. <looks innocent> Kim Bruning 12:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Arbcom, an arbitrary decision is better than no decision, and per common sense, 59% is better than arbitrary. Accept it, or get banned. Sorry. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote the relevant passage that says I'll be banned please! :-) Kim Bruning 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI is one of several Wikipedians who takes the tack that "It ain't a consensus unless it agrees with me!" *Dan T.* 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also the only person ever blocked for successfully violating WP:IAR ;-) Kim Bruning 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Ed Poor get blocked for deleting AfD? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, as Angela suggested on Wikien-l, we ought to try consensus polling. --bainer (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a solution to this issue: Block anyone who isn't a highway expert. Block anyone who's ever named a highway article wrong. Block anyone who's ever gotten frustrated and made bad edits in the middle of a highway naming dispute. Block anyone who's part of the 59%. The reasoning? Anyone who's made mistakes in the past is likely to make mistakes again, and that constitutes disruption.

Yes, this may be an extreme viewpoint to take. I don't care -- this whole thing is frustrating. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Relax, SPUI, it's just some non-binding poll. Right?

“

Decisions which are made about articles or policies should not be regarded as binding. ... everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later date. Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding. — Wikipedia:No binding decisions

”

That's official policy for you, and a pretty good description of reality around here too. This has annoyed me often enough in the past, it's just about impossible to just make a decision and move on. Someone will always show up and say: "Hey! I wasn't a part of that 'consensus', it's utterly wrong - let's do things another way." Haukur 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Its supporters are treating it as fully binding, and plan to move all the highway pages once the details are hammered out. --SPUI (T - C) 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI: Perhaps if you (and to a lesser extent, others) had collegially worked with everyone else to reach a consensus prior to this, instead of having it have to go to ArbCom, it wouldn't have come to this. It certainly would have wasted far less time on everyone's part. But you and others did not and ArbCom acted. What I see here is disruptive wikilawyering on your part after the fact, trying to block implementation. You need to accept that this is how it's going to play out.

Note that one way to achieve consensus is to block or ban those who are disruptively interfering with the attempt to reach it, until only reasonable people remain. Your contributions to the encyclopedia are enormous. Yet, no less a personage than Jimbo himself has asked you to change your disruptive, contentious ways, remember? No one person is indispensible to this project and if the project has to get along without your positive contributions in order to also get along without your negative contributions, so be it. There are a number of admins who are prepared to block anyone who is contentiously and tendentiously disrupting this process. I suggest you internalise that and move on. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree emphatically with Lar here. This bloody stupid dispute keeps popping up on WP:AN, AN/I, RfC, and now RfArb. Pick one convention – any convention that's not patent nonsense will do – and get on with all your lives. (It seems that the ArbCom-imposed process has generated such a result. I haven't looked at the poll to see what that result is, but from previous exposure to this issue I know that both of the favoured alternatives were reasonable.) Please add me to the list of admins who are sick and tired of this, and who are likely to block any editors who are responsible for this utterly pointless fight returning to WP:AN or any of its subpages. There are lots of useful things to do on Wikipedia. Pick one of them and stop bothering the rest of us with this issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe it even made it this far. I'm sorry to say that, as a result of this naming mess, we have loss a great number of contributors to the highway projects because of edit warring, mass page renames, and attacks on character as a result of only one or two people on Wikipedia. It's very sad that these warring individuals spend so much time worrying about something so trivial that it devolves the quality of the encylopedia, through contributors leaving, rather than improve upon it. As a result, many articles are no longer being formed or created out of fear that their contributions will be made meaningless as a result of a shift in the page, or a renaming that makes it inaccessible, or whatever is their reason.

I am sick of this as well and would like to see a consensus made once and for all, even if it upsets one or two heavy contributors. These same opposers to this legitimate vote are also the most vocal, sadly, but they are merely editors as we are all. And as such, I will agree with Lar, that no one person is indispensible to the highway project (or editing on Wikipedia in general), that any disruption in the process of this vote, or disruption after a consensus has been reached (through edit warring) should be blocked and that this nightmare be put behind us. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the poll is 59/41 shows there is considerable support for SPUI's position and we shouldn't belittle him for that. However it is important to consider the Arbcom ruling (which seems to me common sense) that sometimes a decision has to be made and in those cases an arbitrary decision is better than no decision. Of course no decision is final but that does not mean continually fighting over it. To me it means accepting a decision, living with it for a few months, and then revisiting the issue. At this point the only viable options are to close as no decision, meaning the highways articles will remain at status quo ante and perpetuating the argument indefinitely, or closing as decided, resulting in a plausible solution that may nevertheless disappoint or even infuriate one editor. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would have accepted a 59/41 had it gone the other way. We have a definite majority that while not quite 66% generally used for consensus, it is damn close. And it is definitely the clearest will ever expressed in the highway argument and probably the clearest there will ever be. There was nothing uncouth about the vote, it was performed fairly, there was discussion involved and a decision has been reached as arbcom demanded. This should put an end to it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know SPUI and I don't know the long and horrid background, but is there a reason SPUI has not yet exhausted the community's patience? He's got a block log as long as your arm, and he seems to acting in an intentionally disruptive manner today. Friday (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I find myself asking that same question regularly. I think Wikipedia would be more credible and attract better writers if we dropped our bad habit of coddling and enabling sociopathic behavior. You can't blame SPUI - he hasn't been sent the message that disruptive behavior is actually uncacceptable. At least, that's how it looks from where I'm standing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the bottom line here is that some admin (not already involved) needs to be bold, close the poll per Arbcom ruling that a plausible decision is better than none at all, and be prepared to back up the decision with blocks. SPUI will either accept the result or contest the page moves, in which case he should be blocked. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the process currently in effect. The poll is closed and admins are weighing in. Ashibaka tock 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Benefit to the project. Disruptiveness and stubbornness aside, most of us are extremely reluctant to lose his expertise on highway topics. Powers ^T 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of us? Should we run a poll? I'm thoroughly fed up with this endless conflict over something so utterly trivial, all caused by SPUI refusing to accept that he could ever have to compromise about anything, that he has to work with others, and that he doesn't have unlimited licence to do whatever the hell he wants. I fully support Lar's block, and if SPUI persists in this sort of behaviour after the block expires, I'd support making it permanent. I see very little benefit to the project in keeping him around. --ajn (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm exhausted. I warned him and he argued about what the meaning of the warning is about. Blocked for 31 hours. I invite review of my actions. I assume this needs to go on the ArbCom case page too... I'm not ready for a permanent block at this time, I still hope this valuable contributor can be convinced to not be so abrasively tendentious. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should he? We keep making it abundantly clear that he can do anyting he wants, and it will all be accepted. Would you change? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He won't. As you stated above, no one person is indispensible to this project. If that means SPUI must be blocked, even if temporairly, to gain some ground on this project and hopefully keep some editors from bailing ship, then by all means, go ahead and do it. I'm sick and tired of going on this merry-go-round of a chase to get SPUI to conform to policy, because it hasn't worked since day one. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reduced the block to 5 hours saying "Block shortened to 5 hours out of consideration that you are engaged in a number of important discussions, but when you look at the sort of forest fire you tried to start I think it is pretty necessary. Ashibaka tock 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)". That's fine by me, but if when I get home late tonite, it hasn't worked and SPUI is back at it, I'm reblocking. For longer. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd support the next block being indefinite- I've no idea what his credentials are as a highway expert but it's blatantly obvious that he's been a very disruptive editor for a very long time. Friday (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No user is indispensible - Wik showed us that. SPUI is very similar to Wik, in both his disruptive abilities and the high quality of his many edits. It would be sad to see SPUI go - then again, it was sad to see Wik go, too. I hope things can be worked out. --Golbez 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While SPUI has contributed much to the highway article system at Wikipedia, other users can fill his shoes. The amount of people that we have lost as a result of this debate, SPUI's edit warring, and general mess should tell you there are obvious trade-offs for keeping him on here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't shed any tears over SPUI's self-inflicted travails. But, you know, he does have at least a small point. That naming convention poll was vague and confusingly constructed and garnered a weak majority - it should in no way be taken as license to run rough-shod over any remaining objections. But despite my reservations about the actual poll, SPUI has proven time and again to be a real PITA. older ≠ wiser 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I second all of the above. I happen to largely agree with SPUI on the poll: it's confused as to its scope (started off as being on "US state routes", then wandered into Canada and US territories after the first round of voting), its process (is a non-consensus outcome on the first part binding on the options for the second part? are some states exceptions on the basis of having unique common names that contradict the part one majority, while other common names are precluded by it?), and its basic mandate (is it to determine the common name, or pick a naming convention that's able to override that principle? is there a consensus to accept a non-consensus? has arbcom mandated picking an NC, regardless of consensus? do the judging admins in fact determine if there's consensus?). But let's face it, SPUI has gotten away with murder in the past (industrial-scale incivility, rampant WP:POINT -- including nomination of deletion processes for deletion, signature-spamming campaigns against a certain Wikiproject, and doubtless much else I've blocked out of my mind), so it's hard to argue that he's being done a huge injustice if he's for the time being out of "community patience". Alai 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The poll was more than vague and confusingly constructed... it was written almost entirely by SPUI's primary adversary in all this, that user's preferred format was listed first, when SPUI objected to some of the judging admins the requirement that they be accepted by all participants mysteriously vanished, one of the people supporting SPUI's proposal was badgered into withdrawing his vote by a mob over a minor point of protocol, et cetera. The poll has been atrocious. However, a solution which is preferred by a significant majority, at least acceptable to most others, and strongly opposed by only a handful is a consensus... and that appears to be the case here. I think it could have been a much stronger decision if either side had been a bit more willing to work towards overcoming the concerns of the other, but as it stands it seems a disputed consensus is the best we are likely to get. --CBD 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So what would you have proposed, moving Principle II to the top? Oh wait, that would seem like favouritism towards that principle and then we would all be complaining about that, right? Give me a break, I can't even believe you are complaining about the order. People were given clear instructions in a suitable format, agreed upon by admins, that stated what each principle was and what it stood for. If you had such objections to it at first, you should have voiced it then, and not now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

People were given clear instructions in a suitable format, agreed upon by admins, that stated what each principle was and what it stood for. I suppose "clear instructions" are a matter of perspective. I've been around a lot of straw polls and this ranks near the bottom in terms of clarity. older ≠ wiser 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer, I did not "object then" as you say because I wasn't aware of the problems. The poll specifically asked for admins who were not involved in the highway debate. I wasn't. And hence I did not know who the major players were, what positions they supported, et cetera. After having read the poll discussion, past discussions, the ArbCom case, various Wikiproject debates on the issue, past policy proposals, et cetera in order to make an informed decision I am now sadly far more familiar with the issues and participants than I would like to be. :] As to the rest of your intemperate rant... it is behaviour like that which led to this being a debacle rather than a reasoned discussion. Though one of the more minor problems here, order of options is routinely considered for possible bias in professional polling and, while something must go first, it would have been better if the one which did hadn't been the one preferred by the person who designed the poll. For instance, I doubt many people would have objected to listing 'Principle III' first... if it had been listed at all initially. --CBD 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if Principle II would have been listed first, would it not be out of line to say that it was biased towards Principle II and not Principle I or III because of order? There is no easy way to go about this, but since it is clearly defined in the table of contents, all one has to do is read and find out. That's not being "intemperate", thats being reasonable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:TwinsMetsFan got their first, hence he put Principle I first. Did you look at the diffs below? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I constructed that poll to be as fair as possible. The reason Principle I was listed first was that they were the first ones to see the poll (check the history [29] if you doubt me.) The person who was "badgered" into changing their vote left comments next to their vote, and when a judging admin removed it, he reverted many times. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Check the discussion if you don't believe me. Judging admin problems? We were reluctant to remove any admin since we were originally short, and the objections seemed to not be well-supported. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

All true, but somewhat missing the point. I wasn't saying that anyone 'set out' to bias the poll, but that there were definite problems with the way it was done. As someone heavily involved in the dispute you really shouldn't have been the one setting up the poll... and rather than stepping back you have subsequently made comments about you deciding how it should be run since you did set it up. Yes, getting enough admins is a reasonable argument... but can you really look at the fact that you were the one waiving the requirement that admins be accepted by participants after SPUI objected to some of them and say that looked 'fair'? You, of all people, getting to say that SPUI's objections "seemed not to be well-supported" and 'changing the rules' after the fact to ignore them? Then insisting 'we must follow the rules' (which you wrote) when a supporter of the other position wanted to include a one line comment with their vote? There's just an inherent conflict of interest which ought to have been avoided because no matter how fair you tried to be you're the wrong person with the wrong history on this issue. Until I read up on the background I had assumed you were an uninvolved party... because that's the only sort of person who should have had so much control over the process. But, water under the bridge. We are where we are... and I think we can construe a weak consensus from the result. Just don't say that this was 'the best that could be hoped for' or that SPUI and others who share his viewpoint (Polaron, Rory096, et cetera) have no grounds for complaint on the way it was handled. Because they do... and the 'we do not have to work towards consensus, we have a majority' attitude openly stated by some really isn't helping matters. We should all ALWAYS be trying to develop a true consensus. Of course, this is not to say that there weren't (or aren't still) problems on the other side as well. --CBD 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, we had developed a consensus against including comments when voting. You seem to be missing that point. Also, if you examine the discussion closely, I was not involved in that at all. I just logged on to Wikipedia one day and found out that all of that happened. I didn't revert any comments or anything. With the judging admins, I was not sure what to do at that point. Noone else seemed to agree with SPUI or have any objections, so I let it slide. And as to my creating the poll in the first place, noone was doing crap about the issue. We had users like User:Northenglish leaving over the indecisiveness. So I figured that we needed to do something. Noone else was. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have to admit that it was better than what was going on. SPUI's alternative was mass page-move warring, using {{cleanup-title}}, etc. This way actually got something done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Something being better than move-warring doesn't mean much. How about we come to a decision that everyone can actually agree on. Discussing, rather than banning comments and just voting then saying we have a consensus, would be a great alternative to this debacle. --Rory096 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Try discussing with someone who doesn't believe in compromise. Try discussing someone who doesn't believe that there are alternatives. Try discussing with someone who believes that he is right and everyone else should just shut the hell up and listen to him. I'm sorry, we tried discussion, and the result led to animosity on both sides. I'm not belittling your alternative; it's just that there is this harsh reality that cordial discussion won't work well, if it will ever exist in this debate. --physicq210 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't say that's not true of both sides. When SPUI refuses to give in to the non-parentheses side, they don't make counterarguments to his arguments, they just call a vote, and when SPUI complains that the vote isn't valid, they just push to have him banned. Both sides should sit down and discuss the merits of their sides, and whether their arguments do make sense and are better than the other side's. --Rory096 22:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We kindly asked him many times to stop so we could discuss. We started a mediation case. Then an RFC. Then ArbCom. We gave him many chances. You can read about my and others' attempts here. But he was not willing to compromise, saying "I'm right." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So now, ArbCom has succeeded in making him stop move-warring, and he agrees to discuss it. Why won't you discuss it with him? You ask him to "Please stop now"^[1] when he finally makes an attempt to understand your position, rather than explaining it to him and hopefully convincing him you're right. It just doesn't make sense to me. --Rory096 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because we discussed it ad nauseum for months upon end. Continuing to do so is beyond my sanity. And, pardon my lack of good faith (for good reason), he is most likely only trying to start another "discussion" about the decided-upon principle. --physicq210 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, then why don't you just link him to where it was explained why this decision was reached, instead of just giving links to how? Of course he's trying to start a discussion; just because the designated time period for discussing the method of disambiguating is over doesn't mean discussion is banned, he still wants to know the reasoning behind the other method so he can better cope with its being used. --Rory096 00:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I did. Instead of reading it superficially, maybe try reading the linked articles I provided more thoroughly. And no, discussion is not banned, but repeating the same discussion ad infinitum is pointless. --physicq210 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not the same discussion. The difference is that this time SPUI is willing to listen. --Rory096 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he finally wants to discuss, the answer to his question is surely within the links I gave him. --physicq210 03:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious fact here is that very few Wikipedians really give a toss about parentheses or roads, we just want an end to this ridiculous edit warring and the Arbitration Committee does too and it has provided us with the means to resolve the problem. SPUI himself is under Wikipedia:probation, as are all other parties to the Highways arbitration case, and as a contribution to resolving the problem I hereby ban all of those involved from editing or moving those articles until we have all agreed on a policy . What, you say that's a bridge too far? Too bad. That is precisely what the arbitration committee said in the Highways case. The only reason these people are arguing now is that they think it's more important for their argument to continue than it is to permit Wikipedia to reach a conclusive decision on an utterly trivial issue. Let's tell them that it's time to recognise that "I am" is not the rule on Wikipedia. Let's tell them to get back to work or fuck off.. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --physicq210 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing any highway article? Or just those controversial edits? --Rschen7754

(talk - contribs) 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For now, just say all. This needs to end, now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It may not be ideal, but I'll support this and do it myself out of the community spirit. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we need to alert people somehow? How far does this extend? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That goes too far. My highway edits are constructive and do not involve mass page renames, adding unwarranted tags, or bickering endlessly on how a highway should be named. To ban any highway edits would involve a great deal of work on your part, to which is not justified nor approperiate. Let's get off the emotion bandwagon and let's talk facts:

*Only one or two users in the entire highway project are involved in the mass page renames and adding unwarranted tags. Namely SPUI.

*Only two or three users are continuously complaining about the entire system. To them, if it is not done in their way, its not to be done at all. After the mass page renames and mass tagging of articles (e.g. such as Ohio state highways), SPUI was asked to stop and discuss. After that failed, a mediation case was started. And then RFC, and now ArbCom. Per what Rschen7754 noted.

To be clear, let's keep a watch out on the articles, not ban constructive editors from doing constructive edits. I have yet to do anything wrong in this case, therefore I should not be punished for waging a vote in a legitimate process judged by several admins. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what Tony Sidaway meant were the article renamings. --physicq210 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. My profuse apologies to all involved. I overstepped the remit by saying "editing" and did not intend to limit or hamper normal editing. It was only moving, renaming that I intended to limit, and I tried rhetorically to point out that my supposed order was in fact an enforcement of the status quo. I fucked up hugely. I apologise, again, to all involved. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[39] [40] --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And this: [41]. --physicq210 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's SPUI, who made near identical comments earlier about the same topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We know that. Hence the sarcasm. --physicq210 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Add unsigned comment or delete comment until he can sign it so it doesn't appear to be "anonymous"? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What comment? --physicq210 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I had too many windows open and got confused in the page histories for various pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See later post below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) persists in assuming bad faith, accusing other editors of lying, disregarding warnings and in general unacceptably incollegiate behaviour, despite multiple warnings, and multiple blocks. Here is just one example [42] I ( Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have blocked him for one week because I am thinking he still, despite much warning, counsel, outreach, discussion, and general expenditure of time and effort, does not get it. Please do not unblock or shorten without seeking consensus here first. My next block of this editor is likely to be indefinite as I think he's getting close to exhausting the communities patience. As always I welcome review or feedback on my actions. ++Lar: t/c 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, to me this looks more and more like harassment of the user. Yes, Tobias Conradi reacts very badly when he is treated in an unfair and/or abusive manner. Perhaps various admins ought to stop doing that? Maybe Chairboy and Pschemp could not improperly delete perfectly valid stubs ([43] [44] right after he creates them? Maybe Pschemp could not place an unwarranted block on him for trying to move a discussion about the 'Kayah Li' article to the Talk:Kayah Li page? Where exactly is that proscribed by policy? Or a block for it remotely proper? Maybe you, Lar, could stop warning him on civility every few days while saying nothing about your fellow admins making incivil comments and personal attacks ([45] [46]), to him? You badger this user constantly with threats of blocks, telling him that he has to keep your warnings displayed on his talk page or you will block him for removing them, and insisting that he should not complain about admin actions... even though many of those admin actions were in fact improper or mistakes. Then you act surprised when the user accuses admins of stalking and abusing him. I can't imagine that it would look like anything else from his perspective. It looks rather alot like that from mine. This user has been blocked for 3RR by the admin who was edit warring with him, mistakenly blocked for user page vandalism that turned out not to be, blocked for complaining about that mistaken block, blocked longer for complaining about that block, et cetera. He has reason to feel abused by admins. It is absolutely true that Tobias Conradi should do a much better job of responding to such things politely and moving on... but I for one get tired of watching a pack of admins harass and abuse a user and then point and say, 'look how angry and incivil he is being'. Stop harassing him and the problem would end. You say that you want to help him be a positive contributor, but it seems obvious that he is only not such when he is fighting with admins whom he thinks (often correctly) have mistreated him. Stop mistreating and/or fighting with him and the problem goes away. --CBD 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, would it be accurate to sum up your above as "if you stopped enforcing policy, Tobias would stop breaking it"? That sounds like a circular argument. I deleted a sub-stub (Kayah Li) that all the other admins I consulted agreed met CSD-A1 because it lacked sufficient context. That's the extent of my action, but then Tobias instantly jumped to calling the deletion admin-abuse. In fact, the first thing he did was add me to his admin abuse page, THEN he left me a message telling me to undelete it. The fact that I ended up on his 'abusive admins' list before he even talked to me is significant. As far as I know, I've never interacted with him before this, but he jumped straight to abuse. For your argument to work, he would have needed to have been 'persecuted' by me previously. Instead, we've got an editor that jumps straight to assuming bad faith. I immediately copied the content of the deleted article to his userspace with the encouragement that he expand and repost it. Instead, he planted his heels in the ground and just kept calling me an abusive admin. I've been polite, civil, and encouraging to him the entire time, but he has not returned the favor. He has alternately called me a liar, stupid, and malicious. He has accused me of vandalism and deleted my responses on his talk page. Finally, he has a page with a list of abusive admins that have attacked him. CBD, ask yourself if it seems at all unusual that he's had soooo many run-ins with evil administrators. At what point do you start to examine the claims critically? I've offered to help Tobias with setting up an RfC against me (in light of his continuing claims that I've maliciously abused my "powers") but every time he backs off. His persecution complex does not, it appears, seem to extend a formal airing of issues. I am beginning to have a difficult time assuming good faith on his behalf based on what appears to be an almost pathological victim complex. I feel that if he were really interested in the Kayah Li article that started this whole thing, he would have spent the 30 seconds needed to add context to the userfied content I sent him and reposted it. Instead, he has attempted to turn this into some sort of circus. He has created a page called the 2006 Kayah Li incident, a grand name for a sub-stub that was appropriately deleted under WP:CSD. He is a prolific editor that has amassed a tremendous number of edits, but that edit history does not appear to have come with a commensurate maturity, understanding of WP policy, and civility to other users. I endorse Lar's block and hope he will come back a productive user who does not choose picking fights over contributing to the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer your first question, no, obviously that is not anything remotely like an accurate description of my position. Say rather, 'if admins would stop violating policy Tobias would stop responding in kind'. The fact that other admins supported your deletion of this does not change the fact that it was not a proper use of CSD A1... as many people have since affirmed. Indeed, admin support of a plainly out of process deletion rather proves his complaint. It was a valid stub which provided complete context of what the subject was. Yes, he reacted very badly to the deletion... see above where I've said this repeatedly. You call his reaction a "persecution complex" (demonstrating some of that 'perfect civility' with which you have treated him)... but generally those only come into existence following actual persecution. No, he doesn't have past history with you... but as I demonstrated he does with other admins. Consider that maybe he isn't 'acting in bad faith' as you suggest above, but legitimately feels 'persecuted'. Because he has been. --CBD 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, CBD, I think we're going to have to disagree about this. I welcome scrutiny of my actions, and if there's an RfC, I'll be there. Please find an example of incivility in my dealings with Tobias during this, you just implied that I've been rude to him and I'd like a diff please. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... look up. You don't see anything 'rude' about, "almost pathological victim complex"? I don't think you've committed any heinous incivility (his has been notably worse), but no... you haven't been perfectly nice either. I'm sorry you don't agree about the nature of A1, but there really just isn't any question about it. That was not a valid A1. The context of the article was absolutely clear. --CBD 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I said that I felt he had a victim complex, and I said that above. You said "demonstrating some of that 'perfect civility' with which you have treated him" in reference to that. When I asked for an example, you pointed right back at the same text. That's self referential. You implied that I had been anything less than civil with him when talking to him, and I've asked for a diff. Please provide it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since saying he has a "persecution complex" and an "almost pathological victim complex" are somehow not incivil how 'bout the condescending, "I'll accept your apology now." Again, I'm not saying you were horrifically mean, but this tenacious 'no I was right' reaction is just the sort of thing I was talking about. You weren't right. You haven't been acting "with nothing but civilness". Congratulations, you're human. So is he. Cut the guy some slack and consider, 'hey maybe me deleting his article like that might have been annoying'. --CBD 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well CBD, I sometimes find you annoying but i don't respond with immediate, constant blatant incivility. Stop making excuses for Tobias's bad behaviour. Annoyance doesn't excuse his actions, especially considering chairboy never interacted with him before. pschemp | talk 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Me? Annoying? Impossible. :] No, I don't 'make excuses' for him. I have said (over and over and over again) that his reaction was wrong.... but that isn't the only problem here. The actions against him were wrong too... and until people start addressing that it seems obvious that the problems will continue. Yes, we should try to get him to be less hostile to admins. Step one - stop giving him reasons to be hostile. Seems better for everyone. Constantly harping on him... how's that working out thus far? Anyone think it's sure to work if we just keep at it? --CBD 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Chairboy was correct in his deletion, kindly put the deletion in userspace, was never hostile to Tobias and has never harped on Tobias in his life. Tobias's reaction was rude, uncivil, and unwarranted. Tobias is a victim of nothing but his own temper, and never assumes good faith in anything, and you are making excuses for him by claiming he is the victim. He brought all of this on himself by not being able to control his temper. His reactions were his choices, no one else's, and just as you said, there is no excuse for incivilty, so why are you trying to give him one? Even if Chairboy's action was a mistake, (which it wasn't) Tobias reaction is out of line. Way out of line. This is a simple matter of a man who can't control his temper, when nothing was done to deliberatley provoke him by Chairboy. That is unacceptable behaviour and actions against him resulting from this uncivilness are entirely justified. pschemp | talk 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi is either performance art or someone who doesn't get it, I agree, but let's escalate from week to months rather than indefinite, please. Geogre 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think indefinite is warranted here, as Tobias is a productive contributor as long as no one disagrees with him. The attempt to paint him as the victim is laughable though. Tobias has been yelling admin abuse from day one, before he was ever blocked for his quite uncivil responses and rants. CBD is also ignoring Tobias's use of IP sockpuppets and meantpuppets to get around his blocks, and the fact that even the people who try to be nice to the man get lambasted by him. Aditionally, moving an irrelevant personal argument about speedy deletions to the talk page of a deleted article is not appropriate. Chairboy has acted with nothing but civilness here, has no hostory with Tobias, and yet has met with incivilty at every comment. He even userfied the deletion so Tobias could work on it. I'm sorry but Tobias has shown that he in incapable of dealing with even the smallest disagreement in a civil fashion (even before the alleged mistreatment) and as such deserves blocks until he can learn to play nice. Excusing incivilty because Tobias has an admin abuse chip on his shoulder is unfair to those editors who do remain civil in conflicts. pschemp | talk 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think indefinite is warranted this time, which is why I went with a week. And I'm not averse to trying months next time rather than indefinite. But I have to take issue with some notions mooted early on in this thread, namely that giving civility warnings (when instead, based on prior history and the knowledge that the user has been told what the problem is) instead of just handing out a block, or giving out more than one block, is somehow stalking or harassment. (and further, I think calling it that shows disrespect to admins and their judgement... CBD ought to know better) Taken to the extreme, that means that any one admin could only ever give out one warning or block to a particular misbehaving user. And that's not workable. Further, while I think that admins should be held accountable if they are incivil, I'm not seeing that there is massive incivility on the part of admins in this case (I admit bias!), and more importantly, I don't think it appropriate that a user get a "free pass" because an admin wasn't civil. That's a double standard, it says admins have to be perfect or else users can be as nasty as they like. Anyone who reviews Tobias's discussion with other users will find a pattern of repeated nastiness that there seems to be little prospect of ever changing. His interaction with Chairboy is perfect evidence of it... continued hostility and wild accusations of all sorts of things and no acknowledgement that he did anything that could stand improvement. If you want more, look at the tail end of User_talk:Tobias_Conradi#Blocked_for_one_week where a previously more or less uninvolved editor Evertype (talk · contribs) gives some good advice and Tobias rips into him for it. We need to get away from the notion that a lot of previous conttributions give you a free pass to act like a prat. I've seen it in several cases lately and it's corrosive and damaging. I agree with pschemp, above but note that "Tobias is a productive contributor as long as no one disagrees with him." == "NOT a productive contributor" because disagreements happen. They are part of how things get better. If you can't disagree civilly, your contributions, however large, can be done without. No one is indispensable to this project. So, I will continue to monitor this user's behaviour and if it doesn't get better, probably block again, or, seek another editor to apply it. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lar, again... the fact that Tobias responds very badly to mistaken, questionable, and/or incorrect admin actions is a reason to block him. It is absolutely not a reason to continue to engage in mistaken, questionable, and/or incorrect admin actions against him. You all keep going on about how he should not "get a 'free pass'" because of 'number of contributions'... which is a complete straw man. Have you seen me saying that what he did was ok? That he should not be blocked? No. I'm saying that admins should not be deleting his articles out of process, hounding him over every civility infraction, subjecting him to incivility and personal attacks in turn, blocking him for edit wars they took part in, telling him not to complain about admin actions, forcing him to keep warnings displayed on his page, et cetera. On your intention to continue to "monitor" Tobias I refer you to Wikipedia:Harassment#Coolcat.2C_Davenbelle.2C_and_Stereotek and leave it at that. --CBD 13:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Have you seen me saying that what he did was ok?" I have seen you leave that implication. First, you characterise admins monitoring his behaviour as "harassement" which leaves the implication that he did nothing incorrect, at least in the way that he apparently analyses things (based on my own analysis of his statements) Also, see here: [47] See also here:[48] where you don't address that he has things he needs to do to get it lifted, just that you want it lifted. You're leaving him the impression that you think this block is not justified. Given who you are dealing with, it is my view that you need to be a lot more careful and precise in your statements. As for my monitoring Tobias, I don't see the issue you do with watching a problematic user to see if they continue to cause problems. Because this user is problematic, nothing you have said refutes that. I think you need to think harder about whether your actions, in general, are helping, or undercutting, other admins and their efforts to make this a better place. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lar nails it in one. Nandesuka 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lar, the "implication" is in your imagination. I have stated unequivocally over and over again that Tobias's actions were unacceptable. Your citation of a few edits where I didn't say so (nor that they were acceptable) as evidence of an 'implication' in contradiction of my numerous direct statements strikes me as disingenuous at best. You say that warning against harassment "leaves the implication" that what the user did was fine... no, it really doesn't. Why would it? I refer you again to that link. Note that it covers a situation specifically where the user did do things wrong... but the ArbCom found the "monitoring" and continuous badgering on that to still be harassment. It isn't an 'either / or' situation. Both can be true. As to me stymieing 'efforts to make this a better place'. Look at the results of your efforts here. How are they working out so far? Making alot of good progress in getting Tobias to be civil are you? If not... consider that maybe there is a better way to go about this. Maybe not threaten him with blocks if he doesn't keep your warnings displayed on his talk page. Not excuse or ignore admin violations of process and policy against him. Not hound him constantly. I'm sorry, but if these are your efforts to "make this a better place"... they obviously weren't working long before I noticed the train wreck and tried to do something about it. I'm sorry, but isn't it obvious by now that the approach you have been following just keeps making matters worse? I'm not saying that's your intent... but can you honestly tell me it isn't accurate? Likewise Nandesuka... I'm not about to apologize for 'undercutting' your efforts to wheel-war, engage in personal attacks, and place punitive blocks clearly well outside the bounds of policy... because I really don't think they do a heck of a lot to "make this a better place". Rather the opposite. --CBD 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that analysis is that the block was handed out for his actions with respect to Chairboy. These have been demonstrated as being completely unacceptable. Tell you what though, next time I see something egregious I'll drop you a mail and let you warn him instead of me. You can do it in a way that satisfies your critieria of how it ought to be done... If you warn him and he responds positively, great. If he goes off (as, unfortunately, given past history, I have every reason to expect he will), YOU block him instead of me. But if you can't demonstrate satisfactorily that the infraction (whatever it is) wasn't egregious (I assume your mail is turned on?) and you don't warn, I will. And if after he's warned, if he goes off, I'll expect you to block. Again I'll use email to discuss it, but if you won't block and you can't explain why, I will. I think that if you mean what you say about not tolerating his behaviour, this will be entirely satisfactory to both of us, because you'll be handing out the warnings and blocks... But if you don't... well, consider it "put up or shut up", you don't just get to snipe at everyone else indefinitely. It's time for you to do better than me, or... admit you're wrong, that this user is incorrigible, or at least that all the admins that have tried so far are acting in good faith and not just harasssing him. Now on the other hand, if knowing it's YOU on the case instead of any of the rest of us causes him to straighten up and fly right so as not to make you look the fool, well, that's a win too. It's time this user's issues were resolved, one way or another. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable, and while blocking isn't my preferred method of 'conflict resolution' I've done it before when acting as a 'proxy' in similar circumstances. It is at least worth a try and I'd think preferrable to continuing a downward spiral with an inevitably bad conclusion. In reference to the 'outcome' you cite above... even before we undertake this effort, there is no question in my mind that you were acting entirely in good faith. I believe you were trying to help Tobias... I just think you were going about it the wrong way. --CBD 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. I hope not to ever have to send you a mail about this, but if I do I look forward to working productively with you. I can't speak for other editors but maybe they would be willing to do the same in this case? ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked Mike Garcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely following this edit to his talk page, where he seems to admit being behind "Johnny the Vandal". the wub "?!" 08:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mike has a troubled history, but do other people see that admission as being a little vague? Geogre 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Abso-fragging-lutely. What that diff actually says is "anybody trying to create an account with email <john@freeq.com> is 'Johnny the Vandal'…". Try reading it again. HTH HAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Boswell (talk • contribs)

• • Well, if it's true, it certainly doesn't surprise me at all. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Hmmm, now you mention it, it could be read another way. However I think the reference to Jimbo allowing the account back in means he is referring to his own account, since it was Jimbo's personal intervention that got User:Mike Garcia unblocked in the first place. Notice that Mike's recent edits have been almost solely tagging supposed sockpuppets of JtV. The way I see it, this admission could have something to do with the increasing appliance of WP:DENY and the recent deletion of {{Johnny the Vandal}} and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Johnny the Vandal. I have informed Jimbo on his talk page anyways. the wub "?!" 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I've never had any good fortune dealing with Mike, and I was trying to not refer to his distant past, but, because of the ambiguity, I'd recommend lifting the block, or at least shortening it, until this is hashed out a bit more. (Again, Mike has been a ball of frustration for me, but I don't see him quite admitting to being JtV, and it's within Mike's personality to start on something like catching JtV and then following through to the exclusion of everything else, so that's no evidence, one way or the other.) Geogre 14:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody told Danny about this? It was through his efforts that the unrepentant troll who is Mike Garcia was allowed back to Wikipedia. Danny probably has good rapport with him, and might be able to get some information. It does look like he's been playing us all along, though, especially referring to Jimbo as "Wales", which implies a little more ... enmity, I guess would be the word, than someone who seems to have autism, or whatever other things he has claimed to have. I've never been happy with his returning, especially his repeated nastiness to me and to Hephaestos, and I blame him for Hephaestos having left Wikipedia, and never understood the rush to bring him back. Unless and until he makes a completely understandable explanation, keep him banned. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the critical thing is that first sentence. I'll go check, but Danny is his mentor, so he should want to know. I've no words to say in Mike's defense, but he went several months with legitimate, if...socially unaware...edits. A person with autism could well choose the wrong level of familiarity, misunderstand nuance, and get obsessive about tracking a vandal, but that's neither here nor there. If there are no notes about this on Danny's page, I'll drop one. Geogre 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Though Mike is (in?)famous for being an AOL user it may be worth running a checkuser - he could be one of the lucky ones to be getting an XFF header (or is that still not implemented?) Also I'm going to be away for a few days, and just want to make it clear I have no problem with anyone overturning/shortening the block if they feel it appropriate. the wub "?!" 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, at least this explains why it's been virtually impossible to use AOL over the last few weeks. And no, there still aren't any XFF headers, and there probably never will be. But if a vandal is stupiud enough to use a 172, those can be checkusered--152.163.100.65 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• It's possible his account has been compromised by someone else. Would Mike Garcia really admit something like that? --24.255.155.100 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, I work for Amnesty International, but I'm here in a personal capacity. However, I've been told it's a Conflict of Interest to edit the page. Fine, but someone else should look at User:Whiskey Rebellion's edits. He's been seriously pushing an anti-Arms Control position on the article, he's even admitted to writing a POV piece. Donnacha 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Donnacha, I said my first edit included a sentence that was written in a pov fashion. I was being honest and changed it completely. My edits are neutral and sourced. You object to my and other editors' edits constantly because they get in the way of your apparant Amnesty International public relations job here at Wikipedia. You work for them. You are making and reverting in a biased way. Also, you continually attack other editors rather than commenting on their edits. You made 10 reverts yesterday, too. You should simply not be editing this article. Whiskey Rebellion 10:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Amnesty International I don't see anything drastically point-of-view. Can you explain what in particular you are concerned about? Equally I would ask both of you to calm down and go and find something else to do than edit these articles for a few days. The Land 11:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Look back at the history. Mr Whiskey posted a personal criticism of the Control Arms Campaign, then linked to a cite that didn't criticise AI (in fact, it quoted them in support of the author's argument) and now, having failed to find a proper cite as asked, has, instead, decided to expand the Control Arms piece of the History out of proportion with the other campaigns, despite me starting an article on the Campaign (the link to which he's removed), and removed it from the criticism section. He's consistently tried, as someone who opposes arms control, to push his point of view and now, with increasing attention on the piece, he's hiding behind factual quotes - the lack of proportionality and balance in the history section is now the POV problem. There's also a typo in it - "It's stated intent". Anyway, I'm not going to edit it anymore, so it's up to others now. Donnacha 13:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As a reminder, one of the users involved in this particular content dispute (which it is) has been brought up on ANI recently. To be honest, WP:3O or one of the other steps in the dispute resolution process would be a better place to go. Alternatively, if there's a problem with excessive reverts, there's the 3RR board. The best step, of course, would be to step back, smile at each other, and work out your differences calmly and keeping in mind Wikipedia policies first and foremost. It's a freaking free encyclopedia, guys. Not worth yelling at each other over. Captainktainer * Talk 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that quite a few people volunteer for AI and even more are sympathetic, so I'm not sure that working for them is anything like a bar to editing the article. AI has thousands of volunteers and contributors and members, so we have to look at what's written and not the personal life of the authors. Geogre 11:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. There is no rule that being affiliated to something stops you from editing the article, as long as policies such as NPOV are followed. In fact, it is a good thing if the editor can bring useful information to the article. Tyrenius 06:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Being paid by an organization and then editing articles about that organization is a conflict of interest. It's similar to people editing articles on themselves. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We tolerate the latter provided the edits are good and properly researched, and fixing vandalism is always permissible: what's wrong with the former under the same stringent conditions? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the policy as currently written does allow that, contrary to what Woohookitty says, it only stops those who "are getting paid to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization", which I'm not. I happen to work for AI, but I'm here voluntarily as a private individual. Donnacha 10:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're also clearly biased toward the organization and spend a lot of time and energy reverting other's edits. And there is a huge difference between volunteering for an org and getting paid by them, even if you don't specifically get paid to edit the article. This is a clear case of conflict of interest Whiskey Rebellion

A user requested Stingray to be fully protected here.

Apparently, the request was denied by Admin YankSox, but they have failed to take in consideration the constant vandalism that the article has been hit with. In the last hour alone, it has been edited over 100 times, most of the edits coming from vandalism and vandalism revertions.

I would like for an admin(s) to re-consider protecting this page. (I already made a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but I don't think my request will be heard.

--Nishkid64 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, protection policy means that it shouldn't be protected due to it being on the main page. – Chacor 16:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But I was still hoping it would be re-considered. The vandalism to this page is pretty serious. --Nishkid64 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• An S-protect wouldn't be out of line, given the Steve Irwin stuff. Geogre 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've Sprotected it. Heavy vandalism which people aren't always catching. I can see no reason in the policy not to since it's not a featured article - am I being thick? The Land 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. It isn't a featured article, just In-the-News, and the general idea is that we don't protect our FA's, but, even then, we've done it before. This is one of those situations like Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince where the more juvenile are just going to be itching to scribble. It's one step from being slashdotted. An S-protect is the very thing, IMO. Geogre 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is OK and seems a good thing to do. Tyrenius 06:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear sirs - The following page has been vandalized http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joto_%28comics%29 with a block of illiterate, filthy racist commentary. am not a Wikipedian, or I would have taken action myself. Yours, James W. Reynolds —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.158.215 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

The vandalism has been removed. Thanks for letting us know. Canderson7 ^(talk) 17:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're still more than welcome to remove it. :) – Chacor 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to report this but this page is being vandalised with the same website link over and over again. I've been reverting it back every time. The person (or people) doing it are changing one or more of the references to a link that redirects to a site that has nothing to do with the person in question (although his pictures may be hosted somewhere on the site). I warned the first two users about 3RR and each time I did, a different user came along and chaged the links. So I suspect they are sockpuppets as well. Didn't know what to do next so thought I'd mention it here. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Several vandal accounts blocked. Will protect if vandalism reoccurs. --FloNight 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the page. One of the accounts isn't new and has just reverted the page again. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-tail_stingray

has a unfortunate joke recently included

Now semi-protected. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a high profile target now due to the death of Steve Irwin -- Drini 22:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stingray still has vandalism from registered users at time of writing. -- Tyagi 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Fetna.jpg

The uploader Cardreader (talk · contribs) claims {{Web-software-screenshot}} and has added it to the article Federation_of_Tamil_Sangams_of_North_America. It looks like a clever attempt to bypass copyright, and the tag of screenshot doesn't seem to apply here at all.

Thanks. --Ragib 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A photo of copyrighted material is a violation of the copyright; at its most basic form, the photograph is a COPY and he did not have a RIGHT to make it. --Golbez 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a screenshot taken at 1:1 proportions with the original image (as is the case with anything on the web) effectively includes an exact copy of the original image in the screenshot. It can't be used to get around anything. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you list the images in question? Such template specifically states

• for identification of and critical commentary on the software in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

Therefore, it cannot be used for circumventing copyright laws and display content . After all, he's not commenting on the browser (the software) -- Drini 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I hate bring it to you but it's disrupting the poll, and the remnants of any goodwill that was ever to be found at highways. Everyone is being pitted at each other again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe keep this threaded with the upper stuff??? ... but I have gotten quite harsh over there, and we have an apparently newish participant who is not happy that I am telling him and everyone else that digging in their heels will get them blocks. In direct contravention of how we normally do things around here... I'm going gonzo and I don't like it but see no other choice ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I am too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave the going gonzo to me. As an editor that edits in this area you probably ought not to take any admin actions at all, but get uninvolved admins to do it instead. I think a compromise is going to get worked out. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought by going gonzo you meant going crazy :) Ah, oh well. Highways is a surprisingly controversial area. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Went gonzo again: here Oh, and "controversial"?: yes. "surprisingly"?: unfortunately no. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record I think your 'being the heavy' in that discussion has helped to move things along. Obviously there are 'agitators' on every side, but there are also occasional real efforts at compromise and consensus in amongst the bickering. I cringe every time I see it ('No, don't threaten the nice users... try to get them to see reason'), but there is progress so I've been keeping a 'hands off' approach. --CBD 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CBD... For the record I hate doing it. It gives me no pleasure whatever and it's corrosive to my own persona here. But I really really see no other way. And there have been fits of progress, in fact yesterday I really thought we were over the hump on NJ. But today we backslid a bit... Regrettably I just handed out a 15 min to SPUI because he was doing the arguing thing again (and then arguing with me when I called him on it). That was just to get his attention, it should be almost over now. He has a lot of value to add if he chooses to. Which I hope he does. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The following user (68.149.180.121) has been continually reverting a specific external link to a website which clearly has more relevance than other sites listed. This user has no other contributions to their name other than this and has even attempted to secretly remove the site [49] under teh guise of performing a different function. Several Users (Muchness, Alan De Smet and myself) have attempted to tell this person to stop but they keep coming in, claiming this site is spam and removing it.

Could an admin please take a look at this and let this user know that they are causing a disruption and wasting everyones time by doing this. Thanks Enigmatical 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just passing by the Hilary Duff article and it seems that it is completely trashed. This is not the first time I have seen it vandalized. Just thought I would let you know... Mappychris 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)mappychris

If you can spot the mistake(s)s and fix it/them all yourself, that would be ideal. If possible, you could revert to the last vandalism-free version. If it seems that the vandalism is persistent and from a single source, then it might be best to report it at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be using an Open Proxy. [50] Ansell 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone need to do anything about a checkuser or something to spy out the IP they were using at the time? Ansell 05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's your call, but if you think it is a good idea, go with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU#Requests_for_IP_check is the place to list such things. (I've listed this there now) --pgk 06:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It was already done by User:Rory096 and blocking done by User:Dmcdevit. I will note the position for future reference though. Ansell 06:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this user is still editing freely on Wikipedia (hence voiding the only reason that he/she is allowed to do the actions I'm bringing to your attention - the right to leave), Giano (talk · contribs · count) insists on having his/her user page blank, without even a link to the archives which contain numerous warnings. Thoughts? See here for the last diff before the blanking occured. The message on the page states "Please keep this sheet clean per the user's wishes." Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lots of users have had their talk pages blanked or deleted after leaving Wikipedia or simply because they want a fresh start. As far as I can tell, there are no major warnings that the community would need to have prominently displayed (also, the history is still intact, so one can easily click a previous version to see all the messages). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all still there in the edit history, isn't it? --Carnildo 07:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But a lot of blocking admins won't check the history to see if a user's block should be extended because of prior misdemeanours. Also, he/she claims to want to keep it blank, but all users must respond to comments on their talk page before deleting them, and the current attitude expressed by the sentence on the page indicates that all comments will be reverted without response. Daniel.Bryant 07:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano's an editor in good standing. He can have a blank user or talk page if that's his preference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can always look at the block logs.--MONGO 07:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please have no concern my block log [51] is still very complete and present. You may remember it Carnildo? Giano | talk 07:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since he/she has reinstated his/her talk page, numerous other issues have developed. Any administrator opinion or action into either is welcome. Daniel.Bryant 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"All users must respond to comments on their talk page before deleting them"? What flap-doodle of a rule is this? And here I've been telling people all over this noticeboard for months that they shouldn't interfere with what people like to do on their userpages. It seems I did not know about this rule, I'm sure I've broken it plenty of times, please block me. Incidentally if the formulation of the sentence previously on Giano's page, bothers you, you might care to check the history to see who wrote it. Hint: it wasn't Giano, it was me. (And not on request.) My administrator opinion is the same advice I've given to many users who get their knickers in a twist on this page about having their stupid warning templates removed from somebody else's page: please do yourself a favour and stop compulsively checking Giano's page. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

I think I have every right to look at every page I feel like on Wikipedia. That's why it's "a free encyclopaedia". So, would you care to change the statement at the top of Giano's talk page to conform with Wikipedia guidelines, or are you going to continue to treat policy with contempt as you did in the post above? I really don't want to have it forcibly changed, but that's the next step. Daniel.Bryant 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the next step is more likely to be a nice long block, if you carry on harassing Giano. Go away and do something constructive. --ajn (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I don't think so. What for? I'm not allowed to request a user remove a personal attack about me from their subpage, in accordance with WP:NPA? I could have been irrational and removed it myself, but instead I tried to be courteous to the user, fix the problems that seemed to have occured, and then ask in a civil manner for the PA to be removed. And how can I be harrasing Giano when he hasn't been at all online? Gee, don't simply read the dispute on face value... Daniel.Bryant 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't think so? Try me. If you consider that Giano's saying on a subpage that you accused him of instigating edit wars (a true statement, on any reasonable interpretation of this) is a "personal attack", you are being far too sensitive. No more. Go and edit an article. --ajn (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ironic, maybe you should too - I have created 112 articles since August 7, and you have created 4 for the same time period. If you notice the diff, I changed my template, as Wikipedians are human, and we do make mistakes. His comment that "Well at least he has a new accusation" is out of line, and your comment attacking my sensitivity is too. "Comment on the contributions, and not on the contributor". All I want is my name removed from the hate-list, and I'd go away. So far, it seems that all everyone wants to do is defend Giano with a giant shield. It's one simple request, which, if people didn't jump in, could have been dealt with between the two users in a civil fashion. The fact that I will probably be blocked unjustly for this (I envisage a nasty RfC) is testimant to the fact that if Giano and I were left alone to discuss this between ourselves, this would all be fine. I can live with the thing at the top of the page, barely, but I want my name removed from the list. That is all. Daniel.Bryant 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Kelly Martin agrees, at least partially, with me. That is good news indeed. Hopefully everyone will now leave myself and Giano alone to work out a comprimise regarding the other issue of his Archive6. Can I assume that this is case closed regarding this issue's development on WP:AN/I? Daniel.Bryant 12:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who opened it in the first place remember. My advice to you is to stay away from Giano for a few days at least. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So Giano is one of those editors that gets a free pass because of contributions, then? I think perhaps we need to develop a list of who those folks are, so admins know not to waste their time trying to enforce the behavioural standards that apply to everyone else. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any behavioral issues that I can see; it seems to have been drummed up out of nothing. Best to let it drop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that a general statement that Giano has no behavioural issues? See, for example: [52] (subsequently reverted as incivil) and then also please consider if it's really appropriate to declare on his talk page that admins who don't meet his requirements may be treated rudely. Isn't that failure to assume good faith? That statement was removed by another admin as being pretty incivil, I'd note. Remember also that Giano just got done with a rather long incident. Or is it more of a statement that you didn't see these issues and weren't aware of them? Or that you don't consider them behavioural issues at all? As for "best to let it drop"... if there actually ARE issues but you want it dropped anyway, doesn't that pretty much validate the notion that Giano is in that protected "free pass" class I refer to? I'm not in that class. I can be perfectly civil during a long rant exchange (in which I'm called "naiive", "incompetent", "fool", "stupid", and "devious" without ever responding in kind) with someone apparently in that class, even getting a civility barnstar from one observer, and yet still get taken to task over how things went. That's fine, I'm OK with it, I just want to know if you think such a class exists, or should exist. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I see from a thread above this that you're annoyed about another user, but that has nothing to do with Giano. As I said, this is something of nothing. In general, we do give more leeway to good editors, of course, because this is an encyclopedia, and what we should care about is good editing above almost anything else. That doesn't mean people get free passes though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which thread you're referring to, but I'm also not sure I'd characterise my concern about anyone's actions as 'annoyance". Merely concern. After all, getting annoyed is counterproductive. I'd still like your perspective on whether you think Giano is completely civil or not, because I am interested in it. I think I gave specific examples, so having you comment on those specifics might be useful instead of just saying it's "something of nothing". I'm glad you agree that people ought not to get free passes, but I am concerned that some seem to, just the same. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I fully stand with SlimVirgin; it appears that Bryant is trying to make a mountain out of nothing. I find considerably irritating that all this rumour is being made for one of our best editors; in my experience, I've never seen all this devotion with trolls, that often happily remove the warnings on their pages without any intervention. Instead, one of our best editors is being harassed, while so valuable assets for the project should deserve instead some leniency. As for Lar, I understand your anger, as Giano passed the line with you; but he had been badly wronged by Carnildo. Only, please remember this: editors like Giano can't be easily replaced, differently from most.--Aldux 14:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Aldux: we've now had two different admins remove the same phrasing from Giano's page that Daniel raised as an issue. Go look at the history and see for yourself. So clearly there's something to Daniel's allegations at least in the minds of some administrators. Should Daniel take it personally and work this so hard? Perhaps not. Establish that this is one more incident in a pattern of incivility and let it go, would be my advice. But when you say "As for Lar, I understand your anger", I don't think you do, because I'm not angry. Anger is counterproductive. I'm just concerned, not angry. And my concern is twofold: first that one wrong doesn't justify another. Which is a principle others are taking me to task for elsewhere as well, rightly or wrongly. I embrace the principle and so should others. and secondly, I see in your words that very "free pass" mentality I am concerned about in the larger case. Some allowance for contributions is appropriate, but no one is indispensable. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the "no one is indispensible" position, even though it's true, is that it translates into a lack of appreciation of good editors. We have very few really good editors, and we need to hang onto them and show them they're valued. That's all that's meant by giving them a bit of leeway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But this cuts both ways (or even three). Fostering an atmosphere in which someone who is proclaimed by his pals as a "good editor" can be rude to anyone he deems to be "not a good editor" is not helpful. Would you be happy if you were to arrive at someone's talk-page and discover a notice saying you weren't welcome to edit there? This is not even considering the criteria that are being used to judge "goodness", which are inherently subjective and likely to differ wildly from person to person. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree; it quite easy to understand who's a really good editor, and it can be judged objectively by valuing the full respect of wikipedia policies. If we can value if an article is "good" or "feature", the same should go for the single edits that made the article, and for the editors behind them.--Aldux 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil, you speak at random. Oddly enough, articles authored by your "someone who is proclaimed by his pals as a "good editor"" will grace the Main Page tomorrow on the 6th (Belton House), and again on the 9 (Simon Byrne),[53] as Giano's work has so often done before. I suppose the Featured Article director User:Raul654 must be one of his pals too. HTH. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

This "pals" business is noisome. Bishonen and I are the only "pals" in the group. Everyone else has been a case of serious-minded editors with an interest in the highest standards who have associated with each other out of mutual respect. We've gotten to be friends because we are the folks who try to write serious articles with full development on less than common subjects. Therefore, this set of "super friends" is a bit different from others, as these are all people who met and associated with one another because we hold each others' work in high regard. The "pals" business is just a red herring and a really wreckless bit of distraction. Geogre 18:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin and Aldux and Bishonen and Geogre. I don't know whether I would qualify as a "pal" of Giano, but I do know that he is one of the very best writers of content on Wikipedia. Could Giano be more gentile genteel? Yes, as could we all. But I don't think this amounts to more than a hill of beans. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If I can interject a smile into what's been a miserable day for everyone, that's an interesting typo in Paul August's last comment. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There's only a certain amount one can be cirumscribed in one's actions. :-) (The other day, I wrote, on AN/I, "I'm terribly uniformed." I saw the typo and left it, figuring that it was as true as what I meant to say.) Geogre 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"cirumscribed?!" He said gentile! Giano | talk 21:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I despair of him, he's probably a presbyterian! Giano | talk 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Always glad to amuse ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate venue for this but i'm looking for a third party to help settle a dispute. Although this dispute is occuring specifically on the David Jeremiah article i'm more concerned for future use of adding sources to an article, not just this particular article. The dispute can be found on the AfD and also in the discussion section of the David Jeremiah article. Thanks for your time. Bagginator 07:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

More specifically, this user is upset I reverted several links that went to Amazon.com from a list of books in a bibliography.[54] I even explained why I did it on his talk[55], but he assumed bad faith and posted negative things about me. I recommended he came here to settle it.[56]Arbusto 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for this. Admins don't settle content disputes. See dipute resolution, you might try an WP:RfC on the article. --Doc 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What have I written that is negative? I am not upset that you reverted the links, i'm frustrated over having done the work to satisfy your complaint only to have you delete it.Bagginator 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note we don't typically link to Amazon.com (or any specific commercial source) except in extremely extenuating circumstances, which I don't think ever include bibliographies. If it's a book being cited, use the{{ISBN}} template if you know the ISBN, that links to lots of commercial source and the reader can choose as they like. Hope that helps. Please don't take reversion personally. Further dispute resolution should be pursued in the appropriate channels, as Doc says. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs)Anon. IP is harassing an AfD and myself. Arbusto 09:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Declined: 205.157.110.11 is a (rare) respected anonymous contributor and has a right to participate in AFDs. Continued removal of his comments will result in blocks for {{drmafd}} on your part. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Buh? The anon is removing comments -- or does HE get a pass on that? --Calton | Talk 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The anon in question seems to be removing the strike outs over it's own edits, calling that removal of material is a stretch--205.188.116.65 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I misread the diff. But my point still remains. It's uncivil in my opinion to try and discredit and/or have disciplinary action taken against an anonymous editor who's clearly not a single purpose account solely because you don't like their opinion in your AFD. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) voted on only four AfD the last AfD votes 205.157.110.11 made that were not Gastrich-my AfDs on August 30, 2006 (five days before). These articles created by Gastrich 1 anon Gastrch 2user who made 5 edits. Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) was caught pushing POV and is banned from wikipedia.

The previous day my AfDs also go hit my a Use_Your_Naugin (talk · contribs) who first edits were on my AfDs and were Gastrich related(note user's edits on Lousiana Baptist University). This was brought to an admisntrators attention [57] and those votes were lined out my me.

With that in mind from the previous day and that banned Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) watches some of his articles still I warned an adminst. The AfDs of watch to expect[58] before this anon appears. This anon. user directly came to four AfDs, and being anon. I removed the material with a edit summary explaining.

Lastly, I could care less if the articles are kept. An anon. voting on Gastrich-cruft when the previous day it happene is unsual.Arbusto 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the anon. has removed my comments.[59] Arbusto 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I please speedy delete Viceroy seeds and Viceroy Seeds and infinitely block the author? The articles are the most blatant case of spam on Wikipedia I've seen in several weeks. And what they are advertising is probably illegal too. JIP | Talk 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the images too as part of the illigality of the spammers actions. --AlisonW 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This page (Economy of Paris, history) has been the subject of a 7 month edit war, mainly between anons. The page has been on my watchlist since I mistook an edit as vandalism and since then I've requested its protection twice due to the edit war. No discussion is taking place on the talk page, and as soon as protection is lifted the anons start reverting each other again. Recently registered users have been getting involved, and now someone's raised suspicions of sockpuppetry, so I'm bringing it here. -- Steel 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Joseandricardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Science3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I still think this is incorrect. He should (obviously) be considered the same as Jose and Ricardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and possibly blocked as having produced no useful edits and being argumentitive in matters of creating useless redirects and disambig pages in place of redirects, but I don't think he's the same blocked user. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what's the deal with this? It persisted for over a day. --128.8.73.61 17:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• It was formatted so as not to display in the article -- looks like a linkspammer, though my open proxy test came back negative. NawlinWiki 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Someone should look into User:A Link to the Past's behavior on the deletion review for List of beat 'em ups.
2. Since Xoloz participated in the discussion we need another admin to close this one. I don't know which way this is leaning, but it's been running long enough. Thanks, ~ trialsanderrors 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've warned A Link on his own talk page to calm down. As for the closure, I'll leave that to someone else. --InShaneee 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Polaron (talk · contribs) has unilaterally moved dozens of pages, in violation of WP:POINT. Japanese cities in the form cityname, prefecturename were massively moved to cityname City. Polaron is claiming WP:NC(CN) should override WP:MOS-JA, but many users oppose this, and discussion/polling is now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Polaron has started a similar poll in Talk:New Orleans, Louisiana and Talk:Seattle, Washington to drop state names from the cities, so he is on a personal crusade to drop state (and prefecture) names from ALL cities in the world. Please advise if this IS, in fact, a violation of WP:POINT. Also, how can we reverse his massive changes?--Endroit 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If the redirect page has not been edited, non-admins can simply reverse the redirect without any trouble. Hbdragon88 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

His moves are clearly against consensus on the Japanese MOS. I have reverted all of them. Please let me know if he attempts a massive page move episode like this again. Thanks. pschemp | talk 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting and fixing everything. I think everything is back to normal, and we are having a civil discussion now.--Endroit 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out that this person is a highway editor, and has mass moved there too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw that but I am not familiar with the highway debate and what consensus is there. Someone involved with that needs to check those moves. pschemp | talk 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at his contribs and didn't see any recent highway moves, maybe I missed them. I can't be the blocker though as I'm involved. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a while ago though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Did they all get sorted? I'd be inclined, at this remove, to not do anything about it, then. Or ask him to help sort them out if they're not, and nothing more. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't moved a state highway page in 6 months. And I made those moves not knowing about the general highway naming debate and before any mediation/arbitration/etc. I'm not even a party to that arbitration stuff. I hope this wasn't brought up to imply that I am one of the "bad persons" here. --Polaron | Talk 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I have blocked Masssiveego for his antics on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Masssiveego which seems like a clear attempt to draw fire from people bitter with his own antics on RfA, with a minimalist nomination and tongue-in-cheek answers to the questions. He seems to have induced a bite from Pschemp at least. This lasts for a week. I previously did this for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Mad Bomber for trolling his own RfA. Please review and feel free to protest on my talk page. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. --Cyde Weys 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call -- Samir धर्म 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with this block. Pure WP:POINT. Can we close the RfA? (Or does it need to be a 'crat?) alphaChimp ^laudare 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of blocking him myself, so obviously I endorse the block. It's rather obvious that he's trolling for attention with all this RfA stuff... let's just not feed him and move on. --W.marsh 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA has been closed. Support block. – Chacor 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey should I close it then? It's already WP:SNOWballing with opposes and he is blocked after all. - Glen 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) - shit - 4 edit conflicts later its been done :S

Sheesh, if you use the shortcut at least shorten the verb to WP:SNOWing. I want snow! :P – Chacor 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I added an extra day to the block for [60] and [61]. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it's time to bring this up. He's coming close to exhausting the community's patience, in my view. Thoughts? – Chacor 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. I would not have blocked him at all for starting the RfA. In fact i think SNOWing this RfA was a bad idea. Rather I would have let it run the full 7 days. Having 100+ opposes might have finally gotten through to this editor that he needs to reconsider his approach. But with the RfA snowed, he's got ammo to say we aren't treating him right, etc. ++Lar: t/c 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there just isn't a reason to let trolls stay. – Chacor 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this user a flat out troll? Sure, close the book right away... Or, is he rescuable? if rescuable is it worth the effort? that's how I evaluate the question of whether community patience is exhausted. I don't think ME is a flat out troll. His contributions are light so not a LOT of effort is justified but I'm not convinced he is not rescuable. Contrast with Tobias, next thread. CLEARLY not a troll, has a big contribution record, therefore worth a fair bit of effort, but I'm starting to think... not rescuable. Make sense? ++Lar: t/c 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would we simply be gratifying him by letting the RfA run? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. I'm not too sussed either way but I did want to throw out that on balance, gratified or not, this is one time that SNOW isn't the right thing to do. In my view anyway. ++Lar: t/c 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think closing it was the right thing to do to avoid disruption. Blocking him... I don't know whether he's a good faith user or not, and I suspect probably not, but I'm generally upset by the level of blocking going on in Wikipedia at the moment. The Land 13:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the Masssiveego's RFA voting is a problem and unhelpful, but I think imposing blocks for it is a rather drastic measure. A much better "penalty" would be for the RFA closing bureaucrats to systematically disregard his votes. Regarding the RFA, I agree with Lar that I would not have blocked him for that either, and that a hundred "oppose"s on what is in effect an editor peer review might convey the message far more clearly than a block ever will. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Lar and Sjakkalle. Haukur 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Users are allowed to use whatever criteria they like in RfAs. His are high and somewhat arbitrary, but that's his perogative. He feels that there are problems with some admins and thus that the process should be more strict/changed. He has a right to that opinion and should not be persecuted for it. Obviously his RFA self-nom wasn't meant to be a serious attempt, but I also don't see where it caused any significant disruption justifying a block. --CBD 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• It was obvious trolling. I think it's really not good as a community if we just let people do that. I really don't think I'd mind if someone opposed every RfA, at least I wouldn't want to block them for it, if I felt they were doing it in good faith. With his comments... it just seems like he's clammoring for attention most of the time. As a community we need to be aware of situations like that, and stop them. --W.marsh 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) He hasn't been opposing RfAs on the basis that he thinks the candiates will be bad admins, he's been opposing them to annoy people. The whole "Masssiveego is allowed to vote using his own critera" is what has allowed him to continue trolling for so long. -- Steel 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The above look like assumptions of bad faith. It seems clear to me that Massiveego votes the way he does because he legitimately believes there are problems with admins and the process for appointing them. He has repeatedly said that is the case. These claims that he is 'lying' seem wholly unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the history IMO. --CBD 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's bad to assume bad faith, but that absolutely does not mean that I can't conclude bad faith, and this is a situation where I'll do it. This defense of an obvious troll is kind of sad. Let's go work on writing the encyclopedia. --W.marsh 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought he was acting in good faith as well until this latest RfA. CBD have you read his statement and answers? Given how many of his edits are to the RfA pages he would know that suich an RfA would merit automatic opposes no matter who it was from and he himself has opposed before per people saying the answers to the questions are too short. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. JoshuaZ 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's talk about AGF. Blnguyen blocked Massiveego, for a week, for posting that RFA. Blnguyen also told him to post that RFA. Can I really be the only person who has a problem with that? If it were such a terrible thing to do then the same people damning him here should not have been telling him to do it. --CBD 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Masssive has also shown here and here that he considers RfA a joke (I realise those RfA's are from a while ago, though). -- Steel 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I find this recent thing of many editors who should know better interpreting "Assume good faith" to mean "turn off all of your critical facilities and never act against people who are acting in bad faith" to be a somewhat disturbing trend. Nandesuka 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the needless insult. Personally, I find the inability of many admins to behave in a remotely civil fashion a "somewhat disturbing trend". --CBD 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I reblocked him. If you look at his RfA (where someone tells people not to encourage him, then he replies flippantly "Please vote, your opinion counts!" this is just classic "Pay attention to my trolling!" stuff. Then after his comments on his talk page after the block... I mean come on, this guy is clearly playing us for attention and shows no sign of stopping, and the block was widely endorsed. Let's not keep feeding him. --W.marsh 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like an improper block and wheel warring to me. The user has been saying that he was going to run for RFA (following suggestions that he do so) and preparing the form for about a week. Nothing surprising here. Nobody told him 'no do not do that'... nor should they have. Someone should not be banned from submitting an RfA just because they often vote against other users. --CBD 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but if the RfA is obvious trolling... it's not good that we sit around and give him so much attention, it's exactly what he wants. --W.marsh 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a good block. He's not being banned for "submitting an RFA." He's being blocked for trolling. Nandesuka 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Semantic flim-flammery. If this was such a heinous thing then someone should have said so when he announced, repeatedly, that he was going to do it. Not waited until it happened and then blocked him for doing what others had encouraged him to do. --CBD 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the people on WT:RFA and whatnot may have assumed his RfA was going to be a serious attempt at adminship, rather than the attempt to troll which it turned out to be. -- Steel 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts, reply to CBD) Uh, I didn't know he was talking about doing it, so the accusation that I waited until it happened is just untrue. I don't see every edit on Wikipedia... I can only respond to what I do see, when I see it. If someone does something bad, the fact that they quietly talked about it somewhere a week ago and no one objected is absolutely not a "get out of jail free" card. That's just not how things operate. --W.marsh 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

He didn't 'quietly talk about it'. He said it several times and was encouraged to do it. See User:Masssiveego/votingsurvey. While you were (as you say) unaware of it note that the person who originally blocked him was not... because they told him to do it. And then blocked him for doing so. Indeed, both prior blockers, Blnguyen and CanadianCaesar, told him to put up an RFA. --CBD 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is not that Masssive put up an RfA. Rather, the issue is that the RfA he did put up was a joke RfA attempting to annoy people. Nobody would have blocked him if his RfA had been a serious attempt at adminship. -- Steel 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Steel - your description is semantic flim-flammery. The relevant metaphor would be if someone asked you "Can I go to the bathroom?" and you said "Sure!" and they yanked down their pants and went on the floor. Nandesuka 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then tell me... does anyone seriously claim that there was ever any possibility of a 'Massiveego RfA' PASSING? Anyone? No? Does anyone think that he didn't know that? I'm sorry, but the 'oh it was bad because it was not a serious attempt to get adminship' excuse doesn't wash. Everyone knew when they encouraged him to do it that it wasn't going to be a 'serious attempt to get adminship'... because that was completely impossible. Anyone who didn't know what his RfA was going to be like when they encouraged him to do it must have been completely ignoring their critical thinking faculties... because it was obvious. --CBD 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Now who, exactly, isn't assuming good faith? In my time at Wikipedia, I have seen many RfA's brought by people whom, six months previously, you would have said had no chance at passing (off the very top of my head, Aaron Brenneman, who was blocked and publically castigated for vandalism but whom through hard work redeemed himself in the eyes of the community). The only person responsible for the contents of Masssiveego's RFA is masssive himself. I absolutely believe that had he brought an RfA that's wasn't an obvious troll, he would not have been blocked. Would he have passed? Well, maybe not this time. But a serious attempt might have laid the groundwork for the future. Trying to pin the blame for his trolling on other people for not psychically predicting it and then talking him out of it ahead of time is ludicrous. Nandesuka 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course everyone knew an RfA from Masssive would never pass. The fact is, if Masssive had written a serious nomination and provided serious answers to the questions, which I for one was expecting him to do, he would have received 100+ oppose votes, but no block. Comments such as AmiDaniel's on that voting survey page suggest that I wasn't the only one who was expecting a serious request. -- Steel 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I don't know about other users but if it had been a serious request I for one at least would have considered it. I think his behavior in regard to RfAs indicates an inability to work well with others and I might oppose or neutral for that reason. But the assumption that a serious RfA would have been 100 oppose votes and nothing else is unwarranted. JoshuaZ 16:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, he's blocked for a non-serious RFA? Sounds like your punishing him, unless you think he's going to disrupt Wikipedia by constantly making non-serious RFA's. I think both blocks are a little inappropriate. Rx StrangeLove 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the RfA actually caused little to no disruption. It doesn't matter that he was encouraged to file it by the very people (save W.marsh) who blocked him. It doesn't matter that it was entirely predictable that any current RfA from him would not be serious given the obvious fact that it would not pass. He's unpopular and there is a pretext... so hey, block for a week. Which sadly does more to make the case he has been saying about the actions of some admins than anything else he might have ever accomplished. Oh well. 'The admin community has spoken'. --CBD 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, he does very little but troll for attention, the RfA was an obvious example of that. That's disruptive, in my opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't exist to ammuse trolls. --W.marsh 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

By blocking Massiveego you gave him that attention he actually may have wanted ;-). I don't see how an RfA should warrant a block. Blocking won't help here. A bit oppose piling and then everything would have been done. Now you guys and girls are blowing up the whole thing here. Not very intelligent. --Ligulem 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree at least in so far as Strangelove is right that he isn't going to repeat this presumably. However, given his past behavior we may have a serious worry that he will find some other way of trolling. As of now however the block does seem more punitive than preventative. JoshuaZ 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The trolls have figured out that they can always count on some admin to be a dissenter and argue in favor of even the worst trolls, thus creating the disruption they wanted in the first place. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The block is preventative because he showed no signs of slowing his trolling efforts. Ideally the community could just ignore them, but this thread is a sad testament that we're ignorant of trolling 101 here. Well said Cyde. --W.marsh 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who needs to 'argue in defense of trolls'. Some of us just argue against admins engaging in incivility (e.g. calling anyone a troll), excessive blocks (e.g. one week with no warning and no preventative basis), bias (e.g. this user is unpopular so it is ok), et cetera. Doesn't matter who the target of the abuse is... just that this isn't the way admins are supposed to act. --CBD 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, CBD: When, exactly, did you stop beating your wife? Nandesuka 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's meant as sarcasm, but it's late and I can't sense it, but I think that's going a bit too far. – Chacor 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a basic debate trap and logical fallacy... trying to change the argument so there's no answer that's "correct". --W.marsh 17:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on that a bit, while I agree that calling a good-faith editor a troll is incivil, there are people whom it is OK to call trolls: to wit, trolls. I do it, Jimbo does it, everyone does it. The idea that we're supposed to wear white gloves and pretend they don't exist is poor. My rule of thumb is that what is incivil is to call someone a troll to their face, since if true it accomplishes nothing and if false it's just insulting. However, using the term descriptively while talking with other admins is fine, so that we can measure appropriate response (and you may have noticed that most admins are not shy about disagreeing with the evaluation that someone is a troll, if they disagree). I think your characterizing what has gone on in this case as "abuse" is somewhat over-the-top, as my lampooning of your argument shows. Nandesuka 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While you are sadly correct that admin incivility and personal attacks are widespread... no they are not something that "everyone" does. This idea that 'if admins decide that someone is a troll then they can call the person a troll' directly contradicts Wikipedia policy. The same page even lists repeatedly calling someone a troll (even to third parties) as an example of personal attacks. I completely reject the principle that we are allowed to be incivil... 'because they deserve it'. No way. We should be held to higher standards. Not lower ones. --CBD 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I really am bothered that an admin would apparently support an obvious troll over someone like me, who has clearly never editted in bad faith or even been accused of it. We really need to stop feeding the trolls, I'll say it again. --W.marsh 17:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This interpretation is completely wrong. This has nothing to do with "supporting" anybody in anything. But actually, you can feed trolls by blocking them. The intention of trolls is to test the system. As long as they don't vandalise or mess up anything they should be simply ignored. I fail to see how a single RfA falls into this category. Please at least shorten the block to 48 hours or so if you really feel urged to block in this case. A week is way over the top. --Ligulem 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are bothered by this, but this idea that one user is 'supported over' another is completely wrong. There should be no hierarchy where 'recognized as better' users get to do things that others cannot. Calling people trolls is prohibitted by policy... doesn't matter who does it. Yes, even Jimbo has done that... and people called him out over it. Personal attacks are always a bad idea, no matter what the 'difference in status' between the two users. The entire mindset of 'who do you support' is a blight on Wikipedia IMO. I look at your actions and I look at his actions and I criticize each on their merits regardless of who they were directed at. He made a mildly silly RfA... following encouragement. Ummm... sorry, but that just doesn't seem like much of a problem to me. At most I might have said, 'ok, hah hah... knock it off, I am closing this down', and don't do it again. You placed a lengthy block for non-existant disruption (the RfA was already closed), called the guy a troll repeatedly, et cetera. Are you generally a nicer guy / better contributor / higher 'access level' than him? Maybe so... but entirely irrelevant to me. I don't judge situations on the 'hierarchical status' of the participants. We aren't supposed to and it's not good for Wikipedia when we do. --CBD 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the massive admin support for allowing trolling and attacking good faith editors, I have decided to unblock him. --W.marsh 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, W.Marsh. It seems likely to me that one of the folks above will re-re-block him, but I appreciate that you were willing to look at others' point of view. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also appreciate your efforts to discuss this and apologize for what you took as "attacking good faith editors". It is not at all my intent to say that you are a 'bad user'. I disagree with your action here, but there can be no question that it is a common view which you would have every reason to think 'right'. I strongly disagree with that view, but do not mean to 'attack' you. I don't know you (or Massive either, beyond being familiar with contention around his RfA participation). You may well be the nicest and most productive user on Wikipedia... and I didn't mean to say anything to imply that was not the case. We disagree, but that's it. --CBD 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you and others have accused me of abuse. That is an attack. And it's in defense of a troll. I see where people's priorities are now... defend the trolls and talk about how abusive the good faith editors are. This is horrible. --W.marsh 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to respond to the points above, in case people are under the impression that I may have been trying to "trap" Masssiveego to block him. Firstly, I said that if he wanted to run in an RfA, then he would be free to do so [62]. If anybody looks at the ten RfA nominations that I have prepared at User:Blnguyen/RfA as well as my answers to questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blnguyen it is easy to see that I take things seriously and have a high standard of what a "proper" RfA is - with a proper nomination and answers to questions - indeed I have received some good-natured jibes about my statements being excessive. I honestly felt that his RfA was not serious, as in some RfAs he had complained about others' lack of attention to detail himself. I was not intending to punish him, I felt that there was a possibility he would try and respond to the opposes in similar ways as in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Mad Bomber. In no way was I goading him to trap and punish him - I have never indulged in retaliatory voting at RfA as can be seen by my record. As to whether the block actually made things worse and garnered attention - that may be the case and at no stage do I rule out the possiblity that a block may be a strategic mistake. I am not hurt/bothered that other admins may disagree with me and reverse my block, my decisions are not above scrutiny, nor should they be. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that you didn't anticipate the sort of RfA he would file, but perhaps I am benefitting from 20/20 hindsight. I apologize for having thought that oversight implausible. To the rest I would only say, "felt there was a possibility he would..." sounds like a reason to warn him not to do that. Neh? --CBD 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider extending to your fellow admins just a fraction of the sort of good faith you expect them to extend to trolls, vandals, and disruptors, and then they wouldn't think you were being abusive. Nandesuka 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I wouldn't have blocked over this, but I can see why it was done. I'm concerned that every time there's a block imposed these days people want to argue about the reasons why they wouldn't have done it, rather than appreciating that there's an element of discretion and judgment with these things. Two reasonable admins may take different approaches, and I think we should be fairly deferential to each other's judgment. Given that there was a block, it was rather long IMHO, but that could have been discussed with the blocking admins in a courteous way, i.e.: "Um, a week is rather long for a first block without a warning. Would you consider reducing it to 24 hours?" That's all that has to be said if we assume our colleagues who have undergone the ordeal of fire and water to become admins are reasonable people. (We should all be open to suggestions when they are put like that.) And yes, I do think we need to be as supportive of each other as possible unless someone does something obviously abusive or bizarre. Metamagician3000 00:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I did here, Metamagician. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I saw that, and also that it got a bad reaction. I'm not being critical of you. FWIW, I think that the response you received was over-sensitive. Yes, if someone asked me as nicely as that to shorten a block I'd almost certainly comply. It's definitely not your fault that W.marsh was not receptive to your approach. Hey, I'm not laying blame with just one person here, but I'm trying to express a view about how we should try to work together and be supportive of each other while also being willing to offer and receive courteous, respectful advice. Jeeze, I'm starting to make myself feel sick here. "Kumbaya ... kumbaya ..." Metamagician3000 09:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Come-on Nandesuka. If W.marsh wants to leave, this is up to him (although it is ridiculous. See also [63] ;-). Again, a block of a week for a single boring soon-to-be-failing snow-ball oppose RfA is way over the top. You are making an elephant out of a mouse here. Blocking is not intended for such a behaviour. As such, criticism is well appropriate. If you can't stand that, then don't issue such inflammatory blocks. --Ligulem 01:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, I'm sorry that W.marsh continues to see this in terms of 'only I or Massiveego can be right and these people support him over me'. I don't 'value Massiveego more than W.marsh' as he says, but there is nothing I can do about it if he continues to be fixed in that mindset after I have repeatedly said otherwise. I hope W.marsh will reconsider and/or realize that his stated reasons for being mad aren't true to begin with. Nobody here 'prefers trolls to valued contributors'. If you think it is "abusive" to disagree with personal attacks maybe you should try to get WP:NPA rewritten to say that admins can abuse users they don't like. --CBD 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The thought occurred to me that Massiveego may not have all his eggs in one basket, and I don't mean that as an insult, but as a defense of his actions. If this isn't the case, then my guess is he is trolling. CBD, you need to get out, fight the vandals on RC patrol, and become more adept at identifying those that are here primarily for disruption.--MONGO 06:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, Mongo, let's not turn this into a "I've got more experience than you"-type debate, which is what your "you need to get out, fight the vandals on RC patrol, and become more adept at identifying those that are here primarily for disruption" comment looks like to me. CBD is free to disagree with this block, and I, frankly, agree with him. Let's also not turn this into a "Is Masssiveego insane?" debate, which is entirely out of our purview. The question is about the block. The user was not warned before the block, received a week-long block for a first offence when WP:BLOCK states blocks for disruption should start at 24 hours, the user has had his block extended several times since then, and the user has been called a troll repeatedly by several users (even administrators!), against WP:NPA policy. I don't believe administrators are "above the law"; we're here to enforce the rules, not ignore them. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, facts are facts. Whether Masssiveego is a troll or not is not for me to say, but he was definitely trolling, and that is an accurate description of his actions. His talk page is littered with comments by myself and a few others in regards to what his purposes on Wikipedia are about. When you have experience dealing with these types of situations, you are less likely to assume bad faith on the part of admins, who, by the way, are following policies, if you bothered to get familiar with them. Don't try and wikilawyer about this block...if he returns to his trolling (action description), then the block should be for a month, or indefinitely.--MONGO 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you know enough of my background to make assertions that I haven't had experience in dealing with "these types of situations". I am not assuming the bad faith of any admin, and I have bothered to get familiar with Wikipedia policies, and calling someone a troll repeatedly, which is what some admins have been doing, is listed as a personal attack on the WP:NPA page. Being an admin doesn't make calling someone a troll repeatedly somehow OK. I have not accused you of anything, and I expect the same treatment from you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the editing history, examine the facts about this editors patterns and then make a well educated guess at what his intentions are. I see almost nothing but trolling editing patterns and not any loss to the community if he were to be blocked indefinitely. If the week block allows him to reform, then great, it served its purpose. If he returns to the same patterns, then why waste our time with him? Arguing about silly little words like troll is ridiculous considering the borderline harassment he has imposed a few RFA nominees to with his WP:POINT voting record.--MONGO 07:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I have agreed with you in the past. I agree with your above statement on several points: that this RFA was a disturbance, that blocks can make users reform, and that there are hopeless cases that cannot be reformed. I don't agree that violating an official policy about calling someone a troll repeatedly is OK if the person doing it is an administrator, or if the user somehow "deserves it": WP:NPA makes this clear. I don't agree that an over-1-week-long block for a first offence without even a warning message was appropriate: that's why we have rules on blocking. I don't agree that Masssiveego's voting on RFAs is harassment, even "borderline harassment". RFA has a long history of users !voting in ususual ways: my personal "favorite" was the "7/24ths edits must be in talk space" requirement someone was using for a while. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have agreed with CBD throughout most of this discussion although I think he probably got a little too sharp in his defense of User:Masssiveego. I'm sorry that User:W.marsh has been so offended as to want to leave. I agree with Ligulem that such petulance is a bit ridiculous, even to the point of being... uh, well, I guess I better not say that as it would be considered uncivil.

I think User:Masssiveego has a problem although I can't quite figure out what it is. I first became aware of his RFA voting via a query that he made asking if he could be blocked for voting Oppose on RFAs. The answer was "No although it would help to provide reasons". Someone asked him what his criteria were and he gave a defensible answer although the standard was very high. I actually was starting to develop some respect for him. I am very disappointed and disillusioned by this joke RfA.

That said, I think blocking was an over-reaction. Either a massive oppose vote or SNOWballing the RFA would have been sufficient. It's not as if User:Masssiveego was vandalizing or engaging in serial incivility.

I admire CBD for his principled opposition to the block although I think it was a bit too spirited. I can understand why he went "over the top" in the face of opposition from just about everybody else.

I hope we can close ranks and get back to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Best regards to all.

--Richard 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the RFA and did not intend to block Masssiveego. That the block has generated this much argument, however, surprises me; he was clearly trolling, to which the Wikipedia community is disappointingly susceptible. Ignore him and he'll go away. — Dan | talk 06:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, and I can see where my opposition might seem stronger than warranted... though that's likely more due to this sort of thing being a personal hot button of mine. I strongly believe that any sort of 'double standard' for admins is horribly bad for Wikipedia. I compare Massiveego putting up a 'silly' RfA and getting a week long block with no warning to Cyde [to pick on one of the complainants] 'vandalizing' user pages in 'funny' ways, unprotecting the Main page, et cetera to be 'silly' despite numerous warnings... and getting little blocks of 15 minutes or a few hours. That's not equitable. Massiveego was encouraged to post an RfA (by people who apparently didn't guess that it wouldn't be a serious attempt)... Cyde was strongly warned to stop. Which was more willfully disrupting the encyclopedia? The admin community looked at Cyde's much more disruptive and deliberate actions and placed minor blocks (about nine hours in total) which were entirely preventative in nature. They looked at Massiveego's action and placed an entirely punitive week long block and collectively went on a 'personal attack fest'. Before anyone freaks out... I'm not saying that Cyde should have been blocked longer. He shouldn't have - until he stopped being disruptive was all that was needed. I'm saying that there is an obvious disparity in treatment which does more damage to Wikipedia than all the trolls and vandals combined ever will... in large part because it serves to create trolls and vandals. --CBD 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD for Wiki President! --Pussy Galore 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

...and suddenly, I find myself thinking, 'ok, maybe they had a point'. :] <j/k> <sarcasm> <do not take seriously> --CBD 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good point, which needs to be taken seriously, if users are to have the confidence that a just system prevails. Tyrenius 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously blocked on a number of occasions and currently has an arbitration case being considered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki for use of an unapproved bot against WP:BOT policy. He now appears to be running an unapproved python bot - [64]. As an involved party in the RFAR, I would prefer not to get any more involved at this time. Could someone deal with this please. -- I@n 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marudubshinki/Workshop#Proposed_temporary_injunctions That section is empty, perhaps a temp AC inj. needs to be seeked. – Chacor 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a thread about this on this page already, scroll up a bit. I'm not aware that you need approval to run a script that requires human approval to make each edit, which seems to be what he was doing this time (see the other thread for my explanation of why this almost certainly wasn't an unattended bot). (after edit conflict) As Chacor mentions, seek an injunction if you want him to be stopped from using any kind of special assistance to edit. --W.marsh 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't see that thread above, and your response there makes sense to me, although I would have thought that running the bot (human-assisted or not) has a sniff of arrogance given the RFAR. I withdraw this request. -- I@n 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him again. I wouldn't recommend unblocking at this point until his arbitration is over because it's becoming quite clear that we cannot trust him not to run unauthorized bots no matter how many times we ask him to. If he wants to make a statement, let him do so to his user talk page and have someone copy it over to the arbitration page. --Cyde Weys 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also quite clear we can't trust you not to run unauthorized bots, but you aren't blocked. If his edits aren't a problem why should he be blocked? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot is authorized. It even has a bot flag. What are you on about? --Cyde Weys 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Merely pointing out that when you were questioned about your bot doing things it hadn't been authorized to do, your response was "whatever," but now you seem to think running unauthorized bots calls for immediate blocking. Even stranger, your bot's unauthorized activity was substing a template that shouldn't have been substed, requiring a non-admin to manually revert all its edits, whereas all of Maru's robot assisted edits appear to be good faith and constructive. Just wondering how your philosophy on unauthorized bots has evolved over time. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing an entirely different issue, that bots should be approved for each separate task (which is arguable). What I'm arguing is that bots need to be approved, period. That's not arguable and that is a basic part of the bot policy. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:BOT: "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do." So, the idea that "bots should be approved for each separate task" is "arguable" in the sense that "The Earth is round." is arguable. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do a poll then. See how many people actually think that a bot must be granted separate permissions to run each different functionality available in pyWikipediaBot. --Cyde Weys 01:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but let's phrase the poll like this: "Once a bot has been approved for one purpose, it should then be allowed to do whatever the operator feels like." --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop turning a legitimate policy question into a personal atack on Cyde. Georgewilliamherbert 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved third party, in my judgement, the phrasing of your comment was a snide attack, not a legitimate policy question. There is a legitimate policy question here, yes. That was an inappropriate and unnecessary way to describe the point.

NPA and WP:CIVIL doesn't mean "don't make these points", it means "make them in a polite manner". Cyde was not baiting you or attacking you; there was no reason to respond in that unpolite a manner.

As I am not an administrator, all I can do is say "Shame on you" here, but please. It was uncalled for. Not only does rude discourse make discussions less pleasant, it obscures legitimate policy issues which may underly the discussion. Your question about interpretations of the bot policy is interesting and a valid question. Instead of debating that, you've taken us off sideways onto an unrelated point. Why did you do this? Georgewilliamherbert 03:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you found some of my rhetorical devices snide or rude. But I maintain that I never attacked Cyde as a person, only his actions and arguments. And since I still haven't recieved a satisfactory answer to what you describe as a "legitimate policy question" it's hard to feel remorseful. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's steer the issue away from Cydebot and Cyde. We've both stated our positions in regard to Cydebot's approval status. Belaboring the point in this topic really doesn't seem to do the issue proper justice and will likely rapidly descend into personal attacks. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note I am not sure how this all works, but when daughter was searching for info. on growing seedless watermelons in florida via google, the following link was unacceptable, especially when think have the right protocols in place to protect children - apparently need to ban wikipedia due to risks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon

link via search words in google "growing seedless watermelons outside Florida"

Please accept full apologies for the inadvertent appearance of an inappropriate image in this article. It was due to an act of vandalism, which was reverted as soon as it was discovered. Because of wikipedia's open access policy such things do occur occasionally, but are generally corrected within a few minutes. As a user, you are welcome to do that correction yourself if you spot it, and to warn the user or post here to draw an admin's attention. Tyrenius 02:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no picture of a penis in that article, and if there was it probably would have been removed ASAP for vandalism. There would be a picture of a penis in Penis and pictures of breasts in Breast, as Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do your homework before telling someone something didn't happen and trotting out the wikipedia isn't censored thing.pschemp | talk 20:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Or you can try reading my post. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I did. It implies that the picture might not have been there, which is rude to the newbies (whether you meant it that way or not). If you didn't sorry. A much more polite explanation is the one by LinaMishima below, which leves no doubt as to its intentions to help. pschemp | talk 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The taxobox template was vandalised with that oh-so-popular penis image; it was caught in a couple of minutes. Template is now locked. Shimgray | talk | 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes no assertions of the safety or suitability of any of it's content. Please see the General disclaimer linked to at the bottom of every single page. It is the parents' responsibility to check websites for suitability, and all related software does not excuse them from this duty. Debates are ongoing as to what procedures can be used to mitigate such problems without causing a radical shift in openness, and you are welcome to join in with them. LinaMishima 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yea I mangaged to get an penis image with an article that had the template in random earlier today. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone added a penis to the taxobox. I've long been wondering why vandals hit individual articles rather than widely-used templates ... maybe they are "learning". Anyway, it might be a good idea to protect every template that is used on more than X pages, where X is open for debate. --Cyde Weys 22:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing templates that are used on alot of articles is certainly nothing new. I think we should decide on a case-by-case basis whether a template should be (semi)-protected, tho. Template:Taxobox has just been semi-protected, anyways. --Conti|✉ 22:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is exactly what Conti meant, but in a similar vein I suggest that we first try semi-protecting these widely-used templates, see if that solves the problem, before moving to full-protection of these templates. Not only does it adhere to the principle that anyone can edit Wikipedia, but (more importantly, IMHO) it slows the escalation of vandalism/reaction & gives us more time to consider if there is a better solution to this problem. -- llywrch 19:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Celebrity got hit by the same vandal a fews days ago too. I've semi-protected it for now. And for good measure, I've also full-protected Template:administrator because it's too tempting a target. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Question here.

Five days ago, I marked The Cheetah Girls (TV Series) for deletion (the AfD discussion can be found here). Since the discussion has began, the article has been moved twice - first to The Cheetah Girls Sitcom, then to The Cheetah Girls: The Series. I'm going to ask; is moving an article that's marked for deletion allowed? –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. It can be seen as vandalism, in fact, if it's done as an attempt to evade the deletion. If the consensus of the AfD was "change to [new name]," then that should be performed at the end of the AfD, by the closer. Anyone doing anything prior to that should indicate on the AfD that it's being contemplated, then that it's done. Geogre 01:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As long as the deletion discussion is moved too, I don't see what the problem is. Unless, of course, none of the participants are aware of the move and get confused trying to find the discussion.--KojiDude 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If it wasn't wrong, I have moved the article back to the original name. Ryūlóng 03:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• The problem with moves during AfD is that it evades the closing decision, and this is particularly true if there is a double move, as the closer finds a redirect to a redirect, and it's even possible that the first redirect will have been deleted as a double redirect. My point is that AfD is a sort of freeze frame, unless we know in advance. Trust me: it can be very bad mojo. Geogre 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, now that the article's been moved back (thanks Ryulong), can an admin come in and close this AfD? Think it's been oer 5 days now. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no problems with moving an article marked for AfD. A redirect will remain there, so it's not evading the decision at all, and if it's moved twice, double redirects are bypassed to make them single redirects, not deleted. Even if they were deleted, the deletion log would show that it was just a redirect and where it pointed to, so the closer could always find the article. --Rory096 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have no intention of violating WP:BEANS by explaining more, but there are very good reasons to disallow page moves that are not discussed on the AfD. Telling folks on the AfD that you're doing the redirect (if it's suggested) and inviting review is one thing. Doing the move to effectively hide in the clover is quite another. Further, we have had people brought to ArbCom for, among other things, deciding that redirects were the universal solution to the "deletion problem." Again: it's a general no-no, and people moving articles, especially those moving them twice, probably violate the premise of AGF and should be presumptively treated as vandals. Geogre 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I need some help with a situation at Arb enforcement and beyond. Hagiographer (talk · contribs) posted a complaint about Squeakbox evading a one-month block. However this "block evasion" was editing his own talk page, which is permitted. I find in reviewing the case that on August 18, Hagiographer altered Squeakbox's signature to that of a user he suspected of being Squeakbox's sock puppet.

There is also a complaint that Hagiographer included a personal attack in this prod notice filed on an article about Squeakbox's grandfather, which I agree is a significantly abusive attempt to troll against a blocked user. However, the prod was removed and the complaint filed by two new users, Relator (talk · contribs) and Mister Shower (talk · contribs), who I suspect are Squeakbox sock puppets. Since the socks have not edited articles other than to respond to Hagiographer's trolling, I recommend blocking them but not extending Squeakbox's ban, currently set to end Sept 22. I also recommend a significant block for Hagiographer for trolling, at least a week and possibly as long as 18 days, to end when Squeakbox's block ends. Hagiographer should not be allowed to take advantage of Squeakbox's block by trolling him in this way. Comments please. (Also I can't throw the blocks myself). Thatcher131 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the summary & actions. Hagiographer's recent seem to focus of taunting SB and "admin-shopping" - spamming admins in alphabetical order with the hope of achieving his desired outcome. Guettarda 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very happy that my User name starts with a "Z" :) User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• You claim I've changed SqueakBox's signature. Well, he changed a post of mine here in the arbitration enforcement page. The rules in the top of that page state clearly that the header of any complaint must be the name of the user you're complaining about. If I was complaining about SqueakBox, what was the meaning of changing the header to "SqueakBox and Zapatancas"? Nobody did anything at the time. Here he redirected to his user page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SqueakBox and removed any evidence that a sock puppetry accusation (started by me) had been posted. Nobody took any action. Did anybody warn SqueakBox at the time? SqueakBox was blocked on August 24 because he had accessed the Wikipedia during his first month ban as User:Skanking. Skanking was blocked on July 26. That is, it took a month to enforce a simple ban! Well, I changed the signature of SqueakBox to other signature of him (because Pura Paja is SqueakBox). Did you really want me to believe in those circunstances that changing SqueakBox's signature to that of his sock puppet when he was trying to deceive honest, neutral users making them believe Pura Paja was simply another Wikipedian and not a sock puppet of him repeating his typical vandalism was so serious? Nobody was enforcing the simplest decisions although I was getting tired of asking them to be enforced (example) and nobody was answering me! SqueakBox had changed my edits blatantly and nobody had done anything!!! And you want to punish me for that now, when I had already been punished by being placed under POV parole and being banned from editing Zapatero's articles although I've simply removed vandalism from them? I believe that in the American Constitution can be read that the same person cannot be put in risk of limb twice for the same offense (or something like that). Does that not apply in the Wikipedia?
• User:Guettarda has exposed here "his opinion" without recognizing that he has had some clashes with me. Is that the behavior recommended for administrators? This administrator has been harassing me of late. Here he posted in my talk page that I'm obssesed with other editor (SqueakBox), that I like picking fights with other people. If those aren't personal attacks tell me what they are. I tell him here that SqueakBox was accessing the Wikipedia from an IP although he is blocked (that IP has already been blocked fortunately [65]) and he showed no interest at all. In SqueakBox's user page there is an insult against me: "My [SqueakBox's] greatest achievements here [...] have been [...] and restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints." Hagiographer means writing about saints. It's clear that's a personal attack. SqueakBox has been blocked for that!, see his block log. Guettarda protected that page so that insult that I don't know what it has to be tolerated couldn't be marked as what it is. I marked it as a personal attack here, as I didn't feel I had a right to remove something to which I was directly involved, and that even though WP:NPA states that, although isn't considered an official policy, removing personal attacks is common and even welcome.
• Guettarda and SqueakBox have been involved in the past in harassment campaigns against other users. In User:SqueakBox can be found a barnstar given by Guettarda when he congratulates SqueakBox for expelling other users (whom he insults calling them strange) from Javier Solana. Although he cannot be neutral as a consquence he has had no qualms in persecuting me, a honest wikipedian who only asked not to be insulted.
• Guettarda is accusing me unfairly of "admin-shopping" "spamming admins in alphabetical order with the hope of achieving [my] desired outcome". I simply want that insult to be removed. I've tried to unprotect the page. That request was denied. I understood that the reason was: "Only you know you're being insulted so no need to take any action". That was what I understood at least. So I tried to look for a second opinion, as the first didn't convince me. I've not written WP:NPA. It's there where personal attacks are banned. SqueakBox has been banned for that insult. What's the use of banning the person and keeping the insult? I'd rather prefer it the other way around. Is that such a crime? I'm from Spain so, it seems most administrators are sleeping when I access the Wikipedia, if I ask several of them the answer is expected to be faster and the problem can be solved sooner. And well, when SqueakBox created Skanking it was pretty clear he had to be blocked. It took a month! If believing that finding an administrator with time enough to analyze a situation in depth with that precedent is a crime, ok, I'm a criminal. I've posted tons of messages complaining for SqueakBox's insults and breaches of his ban and most of them have simply been ignored. This time, I've simply asked the administrator community for help. Is that an attack so terribly against the Wikipedia? That is, SqueakBox insults me. Guettarda enforces that insult and start harassing and insulting me. I post a message to ten administrators of whom, probably, at least seven are sleeping at the time so, probably, the problem will be solved before they even log in. The final deduction is: Hagiographer is a troll. And it would be solved if an administrator would haven't decided it was "spam" thus breaking WP:AGF
• In regard to the proposal for deletion, as far as I know I've followed the process. At the time I didn't know a Vfd had already taken place. In fact, that proves it's not so strange to believe that article had to be deleted. You claim I'm trolling against a user (?) As far as I know, articles don't belong to any user (see WP:OWN). And, certainly, the best argument to delete an article is that only a user in all the Wikipedia (the grandson of the subject!) is interested in it. So, from a logical point of view there are only two options taking into account WP:OWN:

1. Several users find the article interesting. Then, why am I trolling against only one? I would be trolling against all of them.
2. Only one user is interested in the article. Then, how can be considered to ask an article to be deleted when only the granson is interested in it so unreasonable?

How can I troll against a blocked user in this case? I know nobody will answer.

• Could somebody explain to me where are those so terrible attacks in the prod notice. Give me an example of other encyclopedia where there is an article about Roberto Weiss (that's one of those attacks, isn't it?)? Is it such a crime to believe that an article has been created by the grandson of its subject because only the grandson is interested in it. Is that worse than this comment by SqueakBox in which he says that: I've chased off legitimate users (his sock puppet Skanking) with "false accusations" o that I don't know what integrity (or honradez in Spanish) means? Nobody cares about that. Of course, posting something like that is not the same that asking an administrator (well, several) for help. Here is other intersting edit in which SqueakBox says to User:Kilo-Lima that he's nothing but a kid, that there is no interest in what he says, that he has to grow up a bit and so on. Nobody cares, but of course posting something like that has nothing to do with following strictly the proposed for deletion process. By the way, when the Pura Paja sock puppetry case was started, Kilo Lima warned that he wasn't going to examine that case as he had a conflict with SqueakBox. That proves he deserved the insults. User Guettarda, in a similar situation, would have acted "differently".

So, as a conclusion:

1. SqueakBox page will continue to be filled with insults against me. I deserve it. Who I believe I am to ask an administrator (well, several) to remove a personal attack against me?
2. The proposed for deletion issue could've been solved easily: a message in my talk page stating that an AfD had already been rejected. Of course, it's better to ignore WP:AGF and claim that I wanted to troll a blocked user because, taking into account WP:OWN, biographies belong only to grandsons. In the prod notice is also stated that "If you created the article, please don't take offense." That implies, evidently, that following the prod process is a direct attack that cannot be tolerated. If mustn' be forgotten that SqueakBox hasn't asked a user page not to be used as a platform to attack him, the worst crime that can be imagined, so some privileges must be recognized.
3. SqueakBox can change other user's comments but if a newbie, after seeing how his comments are removed or changed, after being ignored when he asked several times an arbcom decision to be enforced, after being ignored when he reported personal attacks decides to answer in kind tired of the lawlessness he perceives everywhere then he must be punished once and, two weeks later, threatened and probably punished. Well, I supposed that if instead of combating SqueakBox's vandalism and trusting the administrators I would have become a minion in some administrator's campaigns of harassment then I would have had no problem at all. Perhaps, the Wikipedia is about that.
4. I'm going to be banned for 17 days, until SqueakBox ends his ban. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas states that SqueakBox, and Zapatancas, can be blocked at most for one week for editing Zapatero's related articles or breaking their parole and the same conditions apply to me. As far as I know, I haven't any precedent against me but, well, I will not be blocked for five days, as a warn, but for 17 days. Weeks are different over here. Maybe as claiming I'm attacked anybody is so dubious the punishment must be increased. It's pure logic. I've placed this at the bottom. Nobody is going to read this so when I will be blocked for 17 days this will be a good proof of what are the values dominant here.

I don't know why I've spent any time writing this. I know you're going to pay no attention to it. Every decision that has to be taken has already been taken. Well, it's clear you're having the time of your lifes in the Wikipedia!!! Hagiographer 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think you should be able to take advantage of Squeakbox's block to bait him. You could have placed the prod without personal references; you could even have waited until 9/22 knowing that it was an article that was important to Squeakbox. Regarding the other issues, there hasn't been a lot of attention paid to Arb Enforcement; I may start hanging out there more often but I'm not going back 2 months. Banning you from Zapatero was supposed to stop you from getting on each other's backs but all it has done was move the disruption around. Both of you need to cool off and quit it. As far as the block is concerned, I'm not an admin (yet) and Guettarda hasn't actually blocked you (which is proper if you two have had a dispute), so unless some other admins take an interest, you may get away with baiting Squeakbox this time as well. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the sig issue between SB and H, "he did it first" is not a viable excuse for misbehaviour.
• I have no conflict with Hagiographer - being on the receiving end of his rather amusing comments in no way constitues "conflict" (if that were the case then someone could attack every admin on the project and be unblockable). I warned him about his disruptive behaviour. That doesn't constitute "conflict".
• "Guettarda and SqueakBox have been involved in the past in harassment campaigns against other users" - this is a blatent falsehood. A year or two ago User:Cumbey insisted in inserting claims that Javier Solana was the anti-Christ into his article. When SB opposed her, she threatened to have him arrested, and "outed" him on her web page. Her behaviour was bizarre, and I gave SB a barnstar for defending the integrity of the article in the face of threats and intimidation.
• I protected SB's user page per his request to end an edit-war. I expressed no opinion on the content of the article, but despite Hagiographer's request for unprotection, repeated appeals to Tony Sidaway, and most recently, admin-spamming, no admin has chosen to unprotect the page or remove the comments that Hagiographer believes to be a personal attack. Nor has any admin asked me to reconsider my page protection.
• With regards to his prod'ing SB's grandfather - the issue isn't whether the action was done in accordance with procedure or not. The issue here is one of motivation. The action smacks of bad-faith intent. After I told Hagiographer to lay off baiting SB, his first Main namespace edit in a week is to prod SB's grandfather - an article which survived a VFD easily when it was last nominated. In addition, his rationale for prod'ing the article was that it was SB's grandfather. I really have a hard time seeing it as anything but abuse of the system. Guettarda 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it is. SqueakBox changed my comments in a page full of administrators experts in the rules and nothing happened. How could I imagine that to do something SqueakBox did with total impunity would mean constant threats against me of being punished forever? As SqueakBox changes and deletes other users' comments whenever he wants I thought it was normal. It's a matter of learning curve. You see people doing something and getting away with it and you think it's accepted. By the way, SqueakBox changes other user comments in his user pages claiming they are personal attacks (example). And Cumbey hadn't been blocked for them. Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is about transparency. If another user has complaint for your unpleasant comments the least you can do is: "I post this opinion about this user, who has complained about me". Every possible conflict of interest must be exposed. Claiming I like picking fights isn't much like being in the "receiving end". In my opinion is quite funny that view of: "User A has a conflict with me, but I have no conflict with him". Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• "If those aren't personal attacks tell me what they are" - I thought it was pretty clear - they are a warning to stop abusing his editing privileges here. Using Wikipedia in this manner is unacceptable. That's a simple statement, not an attack.

To warn a person you need to insult him saying he likes picking fights when you know that person is being insulted? That he had to lay off the rhetoric? SqueakBox had used an anonymous IP address to access the Wikipedia although he was blocked (isn't that unacceptable?) you were warned and you did nothing and you claim you are being impartial?

• Why it is "unfair" to call his actions what they are?

Criticising a person for asking help from the administrator community (as far as I know, administrators have privileges for that, not to prevent insults from being removed) is very unfair, in my opinion. Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what happened exactly at the time but WP:NPA states clearly that "Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behaviour - are contrary to [Wikipedia's] spirit." Why is your right to say other person is "strange"? I've read some comments by Cumbey and, according to her, SqueakBox was all day long reminding her that in Honduras libel offenses are criminal and that she could end up in jail if she ever travel there and so on. So, why don't you share also that information? Where is the difference between SqueakBox's and Cumbey's behavior? Perhaps if you would have listened to her point of view instead of insulting her you all would have felt happier at the end. Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, Tony Sidaway blocked SqueakBox for that comment. No admin has answered me yet, but that in the request for unprotection who answered: Only you know you are being insulted! To block SqueakBox took a month after proving Skanking was his sock puppet. Are you claiming that if no administrator does something something mustn't be done? In that case, you are implying ArbCom's bans means simply you have to create a sock puppet. By the way, this problem has been caused by you. On August 22, SqueakBox posted a message in his talk page (where it can still be found) in which he said: "If you [Guettarda] would like me to remove anything from [my user page] please ask here and I can get one of my workers, who are not banned, to do so." So, even SqueakBox recognizes he has not acted correctly and doesn't mind about removing that insult. Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My rationale was that there are millions of people who have been professors and have written books. My father is an example of that, and nobody knows him in Spain. Can I create about him an article with photographs of our holidays? What's the meaning of WP:AGF in your view? Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Owwmykneecap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user seems to have a grudge against me for attempting to get the article Daigo Umehara deleted way back when, and has insisted on leaving disruptive messages on my talk page. I at first left him a mildly hostile message, which I probably shouldn't have done, but since then I've basically ignored the messages and left NPA templates on his page. The messages haven't stopped. Should something be done, or should I just keep ignoring him? 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • More snarky behavior here. Maybe he thinks Wikipedia should be GameFAQs? Danny Lilithborne 06:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For quite some time I've noticed User:Ghirlandajo. While he is normally a beneficial contributor to articles and works hard to maintain high quality articles, I've consistently seen incivility and trolling coming from him. I recently went through his contributions from the past few days and came up with these edits.

WT:RFA — User talk:Giano — User talk:Giano — User talk:Kylu — User talk:Bunchofgrapes — WT:RFA — WT:RFA — WT:RFA — User talk:Giano — WP:RFA/Carnildo 3

I have been involved with Ghirlandajo in the past so I'd rather not block him myself, but I'm wondering what other administrator's opinions are about whether something should be done or not about Ghirlandajo's behavior. Should more evidence appear, an arbcom case may be in order, as well. Cowman109^Talk 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've asked him to tone it down [66]. --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• He has only passed his opinions. you may not like them, but they are not obscene and some people may say to the point. There is no case in Wiki-law to either block him or take him to the arb-com. Giano | talk 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking him for these comments would be a supremely bad idea. Especially in cases that are so (sigh) controversial, we should let people express disagreement, or even disgust, with how things are being done. There's a difference between personal attacks and strongly-worded critcism. That said, asking him to tone is down is surely reasonable- I just hope nobody actually blocks over this. Friday (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I consider that his reaction is a bit strong, but entirely stays within reasonable boundaries. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

His response to my request to tone it down was defiant and inflammatory [67]. Three hours to cool down.

15:32, 5 September 2006 Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 3 hours (Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility) --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Would have been better to just let it go. 3 hours isn't much, sure, but a block under these circumstances merely fans the flames. Friday (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that he is a valuable contributor in the article namespace, though I feel that his interactions with users are damaging to the project and its contributors and he seriously needs to tone things down, which is why I brought this here. Cowman109^Talk 15:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not gross incivility, that is vitriol from you. Giano | talk 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo has persistently been uncivil and edit warred. I've made my position clear on the matter, suggesting arbitration first months ago, and again since then ([68] and [69]) but the kind of people he is in disputes with are the kind of people that prefer conflict to dispute resolution. Perhaps that has changed now. Dmcdevit·t 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish you could provide any samples of my incivility or edit warring during the last month or so. The affair with Piotrus has nothing to do with the issue of Carnildo's RfA. I don't know how I was "involved" with the author of this thread. At least I don't remember having met him before. Neither do I remember him posting any concerns on my talk page. When a stranger comes to WP:ANI and asks to block a well-established contributor... and he gets instantly blocked by a person whom that contributor criticised an hour ago... well, it is called... Wiki-justice, apparently. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet in the present case, his reaction, if a bit strong, does not qualify as blatant incivility. (I'm not talking about the exchange with Tony, but about the original diffs posted by Cowman). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit disgusted as well. Since we're writing an encyclopedia, as a rule of thumb, mistreating prolific contributors is generally speaking a bad idea. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A 3 hour block for a "defiant and inflammatory response" (I reviewed it, I agree) to a very civil request to mellow out a bit is not in any way mistreatment. Prolific contributor or not. Repeat after me: "Allowances, yes. Free passes, no." ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Which "allowances" do you talk about? That you allowed me to write Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) and Svensky Monastery before you blocked me, for reasons unknown, and prevented me from posting other articles today? Well, thank you for such "allowances". Their only result is to spawn martyrs of unfair blocks and admin persecution. Who did you punish by your block - me, yourself or the project? And what is the *real* aim of it all, if me, Giano, ALoan, etc are advised to leave? Who would write articles for us? Carnildo? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out just above while answering to Dmcdevit, what shocks me the most is not Tony's block in itself, but rather two other things.

First, initial Ghirla's remarks (again, I'm not talking about his reply to TS) were certainly strong criticism, but calling them incivil, or worse yet, "trolling" is actually a bit far-fetched.

Second, you will agree that the circumstances during which all these things were said were qualified by more than one users as controversial. Consequently, trying to quiet things down in such a clumsy way is imho a bad way to proceed. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know any history associated with this user, but the comments listed—including the "defiant response"—are not trolling, they are slightly angry and do not warrant any preventive block. —Centrx→talk • 16:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I also think that Tony doing the blocking himself looks particularly bad. It comes off looking like a case of "Oh, you disagree with me? Alright, you're blocked." Now Ghirlandajo is complaining of being bullied- is this what we wanted? Friday (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say that Tony's block is an abuse of admin's rights, to put it mildly. Ever since I raised the issue of striking a balance between admins's indecisivenss leading to trollfest on one hand and admins through the hasty and unchecked application of the admin tools harming Wikipedia and its editors, I've seen no headway to this. Ghirlandajo's entries that started this whole thing could have been milder but in no way they warranted a block. Particularly, a 3 hour block is a totally useless action whose only purpose may be intimidation by adding to the user's block log. If it's purpose was warning, it is no more effective than a verbal warning added at talk. I find the particular action of Tony, normally a reasonable and useful admin with no nonsense judgement to be dangereous, unwarranted and harmful and I strongly call on him to take a breath and think it over instead of continueing in the mode of insinctive self-defence and/or defiance.

I consider admins who don't hesitate to use their judgement to fend off trolls an important asset of Wikipedia and Tony is one of such admins. At the same time, whoever takes it upon herself to use the judgement bock should not do it carelessly. I hope Tony will post to Ghirla in a different tone to put this matter behind. I also hope that some admin will have a courage to click the unblock button, even if symbolically, to have a blocking log show that the block was controversial.

I would be sorry to see my hopes remain just a wishful thinking. --Irpen 16:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any dispute with Ghirlandajo (I honestly don't think I've ever encountered him before today). I blocked him because his response to a request to cool it was defiant and inflammatory. I hope that he will take this time to reflect on his interactions with other editors on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I tend to believe in your honesty, although both of your assertions above are actually incorrect. I criticised you and Kelly Martin, an hour later you blocked me, citing that very diff as an offense, and now you and Kelly say that you are perfectly impartial? Well, it's all that old "punishing admins vs. hard-working editors" history for me. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't particularily aware that you had criticized me. In any case, you are not entitled to protect yourself from being blocked by picking a fight with the admins likely to block you for picking fights. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Some reflection all around would be good. All too often, peoploe create drama where none was needed. Friday (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I asked you to think it over. You posted at once instead with something that was obvious to come out from the "at once" post. Please give it another thought and don't respond at once. I stand by my opinion that the block was harmful and unwarranted and I would like to see the harm undone, that's all. No one questioned your right to use your judgement or your good faith. You made a mistake and anyone is entitled to. Give it a thought. --Irpen 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given my block reason and expanded on it. I've no objection to review and undoing of the block, but would rather see this done by someone who honestly believes that it was harmful and that good would be done by undoing it. I have of course reflected on this at length (even before you suggested that I do) and that is still my opinion. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly, people. An admin warning an editor that their conduct is unacceptable, and then subseqeuently blocking that editor for continuing the same conduct, is not an abuse of administrative authority. Tony did not become "in conflict" with Ghirlandajo when he warned Ghirl to stop being a dick. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know what is the purpose of blocking wikipedians who contributed hundreds articles to this project, especially in such borderline cases as this one. What's the point - to punish? to scare? to show that it's you who have the tools? People with my experience tend to be immune to short-term blocks. You should have blocked for a month. An advise for the future. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many articles you've contributed; if your conduct is disruptive, you will be blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is blaming Tony for an ethics violation of blocking someone who he had been in conflict with. The point here is the honest judgement error. The block was unwarranted and hasty, which does not make it a bad faith block. As for behavior, the behavior did not call for the block in the first place. Anyway, since Tony is sure he's done the right thing after this discussion, I guess there is nothing to convince him otherwise, I guess. --Irpen 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. No honest observer could ever interpret Ghirlandajo's comments as "gross incivility." Several of the comments cited are him telling other users to ignore drama and focus on the encyclopedia. None of them is any any way uncivil or a personal attack. In one of them, he complains about admins being more concerned with blocking editors than with building an encyclopedia. For this, a well-known block-happy admin issues a stern warning on his talk page, accusing him of gross incivility. His response was certainly defiant, but also civil and in my opinion just. Of course he is now blocked, for three hours to "calm down". Ludicrous. I can't imagine how any sane person could think this block would help the situation at all. Breath-takingly inappropriate. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

After the mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-15_Immanuel_Kant this user has continued to post disparaging remarks at that page, and has now placed the following remarks on my talk page:

Spinoza1111 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)These comments alone constitute evidence that "mediation" == "kangaroo court". You're an idea vandal and a thug, because instead of reworking new contributions, you erase them and start personal attacks, misusing mediation without giving the target an opportunity to reply. You also make legally actionable aspersions of "plagarism" (sic). If you continue this behavior, you may find yourself in a real court of law.

I had to put up with your shit to make two elementary enhancements to the article, to add the well-known link between Kant and Brouwer/Heyting, and to raise the concerns (bruited not only by Brand Blanshard but also by Bertrand Russell) about philosophical style. The latter happens to be key to understanding Kant because, as P. F. Strawson wrote in 1959 (look up the goddamn cite yourself), Kant was at the bounds of sense.

What I find most amusing about your "contribution" to wikipedia: it's all about process and procedure and can indeed be performed by someone ignorant of texts, who covers up this ignorance with babble about "citation". There are those of us, and I am one, who were publishing papers with citations while you were watching scooby doo, sonny boy, so watch your mouth.

Instead of the dialogue characteristic of wikipedia at its finest, I was harassed, libeled, and subject to a "mediation" process that consisted of snide personal attacks and in which I wasn't even given an opportunity to reply.

So fart in a bottle and paint it. It's trolls like you that will make a joke out of Wikipedia.

What are my options to get this user off my back and simply accept the decision? Amerindianarts 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have issued him with two personal attack warnings (including a final one) for these and related comments. This user is under careful observation and is very close to getting blocked. My suggestion is you should ignore his provocations and continue to edit. If he continues with these personal attacks or other disruptive edits, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Best, Gwernol 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Spinoza1111 for a week, for several egregious personal attacks made after the final warning. --ajn (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this report from WP:AIV alphaChimp^(talk) 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Lewisranja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 220.1.234.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (same person) Please see Talk:transphobia. This user first started as the above named IP, and created an account once given final warnings for both WP:NPA and WP:VAND. As an IP, this user repeatedly violated WP:3RR to do so (as of course, a vandal would). It shows in the articles history that I am not the only person that finds this users edits disruptive, in spite of everything discussed with him. Please review because the situation is certainly somewhat intolerable. Despite leaving a message requesting help on the talk page of two admins, a listing on WP:NPA, and a wikiquette alert, so far nobody has doene anything whatsoever to diffuse this situation since the users vandalism was reverted by said two admins a few days ago. Crimsone 15:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The user continues to vandalise under both the account and the IP. Another user today equally considered the edis this morning to be vandalism, citing the talk page as evidence. I have since done the same today. Could I please plead again for some kind of review of this situation, because it's not something that anybody other than an admin would have any authority over. Kindest regards, Crimsone 00:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the users reverts were in good faith (which they clearly aren't - they're vandalism, or POV pushing at the very best), the user has just once more violated WP:3RR again under the user Lewisranja. This of course even discounts any edits made by his alter ego, 220.1.234.8. While I appreciate that administrators are in fact very busy voluteers, surely this user has demonstrated enough contempt for policy, dispute resolution, consensus, and of course myself to warrant somebody saying at least something about the issue? Crimsone 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to step in her to clear my name. That being - Lewis Ranja. What Crimsone continues to refer to as "vandalism" is nothing more than a good-faithed effort to bring some neutrality and objectivity to what is, otherwise, an extremely biased (bordering on Orwellian) entry. I have made efforts to negotiate with Crimsone. I have altered my wording of the edit and have even made an effort to simply place a "Disputed Neutrality" ta to the top of this article. Both were removed. Crimsone's accomplice in what has become a severe act of serial vandalism-by-deletion has simply come to his aid so that they both permit this article to continue to provide Wikipedia with a very leftwing slant. Despite Crimsone's socio-political disagreements with me, I assure you that I am not a vandal and am, if anything, the victim of one. Lewisranja 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All I need to say is that reasons for my actions are detailed on the articles talk page. They speak for themselves. Also, please do not assume my gender, and please don't accuse me of being in some kind of cabal because nothing could be further from the truth and there is no evidence for the accusation. I don't have an accomplice. The nonsense being added has been reverted by more people than just myself and the editor you mention anyway - it's a consensus I have no political position, nor a social one - only one stemming from wikipedias desire for accurate and informative encyclopedic articles with a neutral point of view Were the edit in any way informative or relevant to the subject of the article (see article talk for explanation), I would have no problem with it. Crimsone 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only am I being attacked, but I am now being attacked in my report of being personally attacked. My character is being defamed, my clinical depression mocked, and having outright lies told about me. Somebody please please please help. As you'll see from my contrib history, I've been on wiki all night helping others where I can - there's no good reason I should be suffering an unrelenting tirade like this. Crimsone 07:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Both parties have violated the three revert rule and the no personal attacks policy (by, amongst other things, accusing each other of vandalism). While not an admin, I am attempting to cool matters down on the talk page. I'm going to ask both editors involved to refrain from further reverts on the article until discussion is completed. While starting my edit of the Transphobia talk page, I discovered that Lewisranja has been blocked (would be very helpful in future if an announcement was made on Incidents so others would be able to discover resolution more easily). Very sad that it had to come to this. I'll keep an eye on the article in case the dispute flares up again. Captainktainer * Talk 20:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The block resulted from my report on WP:NPA. Though I can see the strikeout on the comments, I fail to see where I violated NPA. To the best of my knowledge, I remained civil troughout, assuming good faith until such a point that I could no longer reasonably do so. Even there, I remained civil despite some very hurtful things being said - I requested admin intervention by via the talk pages of two admins very early on, then started issuing warnings, then posted a wiki alert, then this report, followed by a continued NPA report for some very hurtful attacks indeed and the user was finally blocked. The WP:3RR rule does not count towards reverting vandalism - this is not an accusation but an actual fact given everything said (and ignored by the user) on the talk page, the fact that I was not the only person to consider it so, the fact that this became a vendetta against me with no provocation using the article as a means for deliberately trying to upset me and drive me away. While I would have been within my rights to do so in my opinion, I even refrained from calling the user "a vandal", instead refering to the edit as vandalism - in accordance with WP:NPA, I remained civil and did my absolute best to comment on the statement, not the maker of it.

However, I most certainly appreciate your effort in looking at the issue, and ap[reciate that any person looking at any issue must form their own opinion of it. While I may not nessecarily agree with the opinion formed, I must however insist that at the very least, I acted in good faith. Regardless of any of my previous comment, I certainly offer my eternal grattitude for looking at the situation in the very least. :) Crimsone 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. This is the same user that was banned earlier today, with the same edit, using instead the IP that was originally responsible as given in the title of this incident. I'm not going thorough this again, and having learned from my previous mistake, though it is vandalism as far as I am concerned (especially with all that's happened), I am not going to touch it. Somebody else can deal with it when they get around to seeing it, and I will merely continue to report any personal attack made in WP:PAIN. Crimsone 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I don't think it fits requested moves, since it's a violation of that process. EL C took it upon him self to move 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, without any consensus for the move. Others were already deciding where to move the page, in accordance with requested move proceedure - at the time of the move, users were roughly evenly split (6:5) on the issue. After questioning him on his and the main talk page, El C explained that the reason he moved it was because he'd held a discussion (in fairness, he did) in which he had a consensus (sort of). However, he completely ignored the poll running directly above where he held his discussion. His dislike of democracy and polls is irrelevant to the move - the process was already underway, and ignoring the discussion of other wikipedians, he went ahead and moved the page. I'm aware this is similar to a content dispute, but I'm not asking because I think conflict is a better name, but because he didn't move it with the consensus of the discussion. Since the page is protected from moves, I'd appreciate it if an admin could move the page back to where it was until the process is complete. Thank you. Iorek85 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with lore here. There is a 50/50 split in the current RM discussion on the talk page. There is no consensus for a move and none should have been done at this time. The move should be reversed as soon as possible and any move held off until a consensus develops. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to the wheel warring on the part of User:Arthur Rubin. El_C 02:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The cloest we have to an agreed upon position for wheel waring is that you repeatly undo another admins actions. That was not the case. the results of various arbcom cases suggest that you are allowed to wheel war as long as you are right.Geni 11:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the definition at Wikipedia:Wheel warring suggests that one revert of an admin action can be considered such. However, it's clear there was no consensus for the move, so I reverted it, anyway. If User:El C wants to bring an RfAr, so be it, but I think he's violating the mediation agreement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

AR did not bother discussing the matter with me before he wheel warred. I am unaware of any mediation agreement, which he keeps telling me I am bound to. Perhaps this is something he should have explained before he wheel warred. El_C 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "wheel warring" has changed since the last time I had read it. It appears that using Admin tools to revert any Admin action is considered "wheel warring". Under that definition, though User:El C was wheel warring in moving the article when it was moved-blocked (reverting "that" Admin action). I think it may be better to leave the article where it was while we disucss who may have made a mistake. And I was wrong about the mediation and whether he was under any specific restrictions; still, I can't recall why User:El C was on my watch list; he must have done something I considered questionable. But let's keep the discussion here, instead of on multiple talk pages, so those not interested can go back to editing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish people didn't use the term wheel waring so lightly. It makes it harder to describe the rea thing.Geni 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And I wish Geni would place more care into his one-line responses. El_C 16:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a farce. AR feels I've must have done something questionable at some point (any basis for that? He thought I was involved in the Israeli Apartheid move-war, for example. Wrong), so he move reverts me without notice. Just a few days ago, I was offered a barnstar for my contributions to the 2006 I-L series of articles, which had been extensive. But I suppose none of that matters, since to AR, I'm a priori acting questionably, so he opts for brute force, and the discussion I painstakingly facilitated (which was productive) be damned. El_C 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the matter at hand, I would note that saying "the results of various arbcom cases suggest that you are allowed to wheel war as long as you are right" is a very substantial misinterpretaion of reality. Wheel warring is never acceptable. Ever. Dmcdevit·t 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

True, however in this case I don't believe any wheel warring has occured. El_C acted inappropriately moving a page to his preferred name when no consensus had yet been achieved. This was simply reverted as it should have been so that a consensus could develop. El_C's continued claim that there was a consensus non-withstanding he should not be the one to move this page when and if the time comes because he's an involved party with a very clearly defined bias. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankfuly, I've never wheel warred, ever. However long JBG keeps repeating these falsehoods, will not make them so. He was not part of the original discussion, which was held for 10-days, and in it, consensus was reached before the move. That I have view ("clearly defined bias" - facsinating), is not pertinent to anything. JBG's conduct in this incident was particularly questionable. El_C 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you wheel warred. I said your move was in appropriate at that time. Your denying it doesn't change that. You had a 6 people (including yourself) siding with your view and 5 people taking the other view in their points in the discussion. That is clearly not consensus, yet you moved anyway. These FACTS are not in dispute and your continued denial of them is laughable. I would also like you to qualify your statement that my conduct has been "questionable"? How so? Or are you just resorting to personal attacks to try and deflect attention away from your out of process move? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your provocations and distortions of the timeline are questionable. Please stop seeking drama. Thanks in advance. El_C 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that I'm not the only one who seems to think you acted inappropriately here. Are we all "distorting" the timeline? Also no one is seeking drama. You made a mistake, several users have now pointed this out. Admit it and move on. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if I made a mistake, I have been mistreated by yourself and AR. El_C 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mistreated? How? All myself and Lore did was point out we thought you'd acted inappropriately here, and all he did was revert you? That doesn't qualify as mistreatment :| JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not taken the time to closely review my position on this situation, whereas AR has expressed vague misgivings that he could not substantiate. El_C 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:ShortJason was indef blocked by Tony due he spamming talk pages trolling and trying to rally a group whose only and explict purpose would be to "remove Drini" (sic). See his user page and the spamming on talk pages: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

Just in case someone wants to review it. I wonder why wasn't he blocked before, given that several admins got his message. So far, at least another user has expressed openly support for such "cruzade": User:ARbiteroftruth -- Drini 00:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser showed he being sockpuppet of Don Brooks , Forever Old , ShortJason , ShootJar , Orange Fever , Orange Rocks , Orange Forever , Orange Rules , Garfunkel4life , John Serge, some of them admitted sockpuppets of TJWhite (see that userpage for more sockpuppets). Gee.. I see now why so much support for CVU .. all clones :P -- Drini 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence suggesting an actual involvement of any of these editors in CVU? Or were they just trolls jumping at a chance to mob an administrator? --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, they just showed up to comment on the DVU deletion debate. pschemp | talk 02:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Over the last two months, JimRaynor55 has decided to certain material from the Star Wars canon article, persistently disregarding what appears to be a consensus for the information to remain from the more experienced and contributing editors. Nearly all of his activity since June has been either trying to remove a link that appears to be a valid, well-reasoned take on the subject, or exhibiting a consistent pattern of abusve rhetoric and personal attacks on others who disagree with him or his conclusions. Other editors have presented their arguments for inclusion, which Raynor either dismisses out of hand or ignores, and continues to delete information from the article. He will not accept reason or compromise, and has stated so publicly in his comments and edit summaries. [84] In short, he refuses to work with others unless he gets his own way, and I'd like to see what measures can be taken to limit his edits to this article until he learns to work with others. TheRealFennShysa 00:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Was it just me, or did anyone else have a problem acessing Wikipedia, for the last few minuets. Old TI-89 (u|t|c) 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been intermittant outages all day. It seems to be a common occurance at the moment, but no doubt the technicians are working hard at the issues behind the scenes. :) Crimsone 01:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

212.180.156.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to have added around 15 external phentermine spam-links to articles. Could an admin roll these back these please? - David Oberst 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Already done, and the IP has been blocked for 24 hours. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello this user has clamed to be this 11 year old blocked user. Christy06 posted on addmisson on Leroyencyclopediabrown's talk page. Cute 1 4 U has a history of sock abuse. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The user has admitted to being a sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 U [85]. Cowman109^Talk 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if i'm blocked. --Christy06 02:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, cause you are. pschemp | talk 02:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick turn around. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on this, I have reopened a checkuser case on Cute 1 4 u to discern any other accounts she may have created as well as block her IP from creating any new accounts. Ryūlóng 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This anon user was previously banned (according to his own addmission here[86]. he is back, and today recieved two warnings on his talk page, one for 3RR, another for personal attacks. He keeps removing these warnings, thoiugh he has been warned not to. Probably a good idea to block this IP for a while. Isarig 02:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, You could have reported this on Wikipedia:administrator intervention against vandalism on vandalism, and WP:3RR would be good for reporting edit war. Daniel's page ☎ 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But he has not violated 3RR, and what I'm complaining of is his removal of warnings from his Talk page, and his persoanl attacks. Isarig 02:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

May be, You could make request for semiprotection on his talk page for removing all warnings. That's best option. Daniel's page ☎ 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR violations, personal attacks, removes warnings and block notices from talk page, posted threats, assorted racially motivated vandalism, ignored several vandalism warnings, added a comment in AFD pretending to be another user -- Spring3100 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The 3rr violations seem to be from about 3 weeks ago, when the user was very new, can you put in some diffs? The edits I see look fine, from a somewhat liberal but reasonable and well explained POV, the user uses a different name in their signature every time they sign, which is not against any policy, they're clearly not impersonating anyone. It looks like User:Spring3100 may possibly be the same as User:Giuliani Time, with whom Chifumbe seems to have had conflict before. Again, unless some good diffs can be offered, I don't think any action should be taken. Mak (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• User also has a serious WP:NPOV problem. Spring3100 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an ongoing content dispute regarding whether or not a laundry list of detailed hardware specifications should remain or be replaced by a concise and abriged summary. The consensus seems to be very much for this latter option, but there are two editors who insist that abridging is "information removal", "harms the article", and is "vandalism". Numerous attempts have been made to reason with the users, get them to engage in discussion on the talk page, suggest alternative solutions, etc. In general the response has merely been edit warring. They will revert to the laundry list version no matter how much work other editors do to try and comply with what consensus already has decided. Most of the relevant discussion can be found here: [87]. A few examples of the blanket reverts: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. Some very telling statements made by the two dissenting editors: [93] (edit comment), [94] (edit comment), [95] (edit content)

I'm getting sick of beating this issue to death and getting absolutely nowhere. Some uninvolved administrator guidance would be much appreciated. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 06:22Z

I'm not an administrator, but perhaps a solution to the dispute may be to put the full specs on a sub-page of the article, and leave the abriged version of the specs in the article itself with a wikilink to the full specs (or perhaps a show/hide option in the article) Crimsone 06:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, subpages in article space are not allowed per WP:SP. A separate Xbox 360 hardware article would be more likely, but I doubt even that is necessary. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That was suggested, and I'm not against revisiting it, but frankly I don't see much point in creating an article that reproduces a press release that we already link in the article proper. Anyway, I don't need help with negotiation right now, I need help with users that don't seem to regard the conflict resolution process at all. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 06:35Z

I wouldn't normally suggest it, but while WP:SP is a worthy guideline, it does specifically state that common sense can be used and some exceptions are permissable. No doubt an admin will have a view on this - I merely suggested it as a means to resolve the dispute. There is of course always the hide/show method.

As I say, it was only a suggestion, and I'm sorry if it is of little assistance to you. Crimsone 06:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please don't read me wrong. I appreciate whatever suggestions anybody offers; I'd just like a little bit of help with the user difficulties as well. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 12:50Z

On a related note, take a more careful look at WP:SP: apparently, the creation of subpages has been disabled in mainspace anyway. While this might qualify as one of those common-sense exceptions, the portion about not-creating mainspace subpages is more akin to policy-by-fiat than a guideline. Captainktainer * Talk 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course correct. Clearly it's something I missed, and I now know for the future - thankyou very much. Oh well, I tried. lol :) Crimsone 22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Community banned user Israelbeach has reactivated one of his dormant sockpuppets, User:Givati, and attacked me in his edit summary: [96]. Please keep an eye on him for me. Despite the support of at least one administrator, I myself will not block this user, on principle. As long as all he does is add a sentence here or there to Israeli current events articles, I'm okay with him editing. But knowing him, I am afraid he is likely to go back to linkspamming for the Israeli News Agency (his personal website), posting my personal information or otherwise attacking Wikipedians such as myself and Danny. I don't feel that should be tolerated here. --woggly 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And another dormant sock reactivated: User:Jerusalemrose. --woggly 11:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Bonnieisrael is posting again on her talk page. Take her statement with a grain of salt, she mis-states who blocked her, and she mis-states the reason for her block (she is blocked for contentious editing, not sockpuppetry). NoSeptember 17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, A new user with a somewhat unfriendly username has been created.[97] I don't want to overreact, but on balance, I suspect it's worth an instant block. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Blurg and Blurg blurg da blurg blurg were that user's only contribs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ben Aveling 07:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME prescribes immediate blocks for usernames that contain Wikipedia concepts/jargon, and names that give the impression that the user is here to cause trouble. This is both. Grandmasterka 08:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Schwarz is a banned user of Wikipedia (see User:The real Barbara Schwarz).

JohnPower (talk · contribs · count) has suddenly appeared on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz pages, and is making threats and personal attacks. The IP address 172.190.37.157 is associated with edits on this page signed by this user, and this is an AOL proxy IP address. Barbara Schwarz has posted to the Usenet using an AOL account before. [98]

I request a block on the new sockpuppet and a soft block on the dynamic AOL IP. 09:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

AFC appears to be screwed. Not sure why. --82.35.102.213 09:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, they've been doing better in the last decade. When I was growing up, the NFC was pretty much the kings. The Redskins, the Giants, especially the Cowboys... but ever since the Falcons lost to the Broncos, the AFC has had almost equal footing.

Wait, what are we talking about? Oh, WP:AFC. Why didn't you say so? Lemme clean this up. --Golbez 09:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Someone had errm 'HACKED' it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So, User:Doc_glasgow decides to close a DRV early, citing WP:SNOW [99]. As I'm told, it's allegedly an extension of WP:IAR, and "easily reversable." So what do I do? I reverse it, and then get blocked for disruption. Then his partner in snowball crime, User:Tony Sidaway, ends up being the reviewing admin, which just reeks of cabalism (oh, wait, no cabal, right?). Complete absurdity abound, here, and I'm getting awfully sick of these renegade maneuvers to make an end-around on policy to get the desired result. At worst, I was well within my right to "ignore all rules" and improve the encyclopedia by allowing an admitedly controversial deleiton challenge (by a completely uninvolved party, from the looks of things) to stand. At best, I reversed an obviously divisive and disruptive close, allowing it to get a full hearing. At what point is this lunacy going to end, exactly? When editors start being blocked for doing the right thing, there's a major problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it was already upheld by DRV back in July, so I fail to what it was doing there again. Beyond that, there was an overwhelming majority in favor of speedy closing; largely on those grounds. Doc's actions make sense; yours don't. Ignoring all rules means doing what's best for the encyclopedia. In this case, that probably wasn't dragging out drama for no good purpose when the community--yes, the community--had already made up its mind. Regrettably, various rogue sysops treat militant lack of common sense as disruption. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether it was upheld in July has little to do with it now, especially considering the person who brought it up was completely uninvolved. Secondly, there wasn't an overwhelming majority, it's impossible to come up with one in less than 24 hours. Third, ignoring all rules means doing what's best for the encyclopedia - that's what I did. The problem is, indeed, rogue sysops. The problem is the inability to see common sense when it's right in front of people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • However, no fresh reasons were introduced. You can't review a deletion review. The community has spoken; the article isn't wanted. IAR isn't a license to disruption; indeed, you cited it, not them. WP:SNOW is a recognized method for closing discussions where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Given the drama attendant any Encyclopedia Dramatica activity, there are good reasons for closing it early. You've yet to explain how your actions benefit the encyclopedia. You aren't allowed to repeatedly reopen something just because you're uninvolved. Go try to AfD Gay Nigger Association of America again. You're uninvolved, after all. Don't blame me when you get reverted and probably blocked, though. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know if that's true, and of course you can review a deleiton review. WP:SNOW isn't recognized by a whole ton of people, either, it's mostly cited by people who have little interest in actually paying attention to the necessary processes. Also, so much for snowball/IAR actions being "easily reversable" - doing so simply gets you blocked. Meanwhile, how did my actions benefit the encyclopedia? It was designed to allow a full hearing for someone completely uninvolved wiht the prior discussion to present his/her case, and maybe see it with a clear hear. Doc's disruptive close ruined that, but he'll never be held accountable for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, Mackensen, I have to ask you a question. You say "Regrettably, various rogue sysops treat militant lack of common sense as disruption."... How exactly is this "regrettable"? Seems a good thing to me, so I am afraid I'm not following your logic there. Oh, and endorse the speedy close, we don't need to re DRV the same thing over and over again. Jeff, give the process wonking a rest. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • • Just to interpolate, are you failing to get Mackensen's irony or is this your deadpan way of continuing it? It can be hard to tell without facial expressions and such. :) Metamagician3000 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't do that. Wrong actions must be corrected. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but sometimes you have to pick your fights in order to be effective. You shouldn't have been blocked and your opinion that the DRV should have been allowed to run its course is perfectly valid. But you're unlikely to get anywhere with this at the moment. Haukur 14:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Knock it off jeff (or are you not capable of letting things rest?) Encyclopedia Dramatica had been afd'd - the decision had had a full deletion review and had been endorsed - someone relisted it - and it was being snowballed (badlydrawnjeff and one other supported it - 8 endosed 5 calling for speedy closure). How many bites at the cherry is an issue allowed? I closed it, because the result was obvious (WP:SNOW), and the relisting was straining the community's patience. I have no interest whatsoever in the article, however the debate was reoppened by jeff who was a participant in it, and is, I believe, connected with Encyclopedia Dramatica. I viewed that as POV-pushing campaigning, conflict of interests, tendentious manipulation of process, disrespectful of establish consensus, and downright disruptive. And this process wonking is getting really tiresom.--Doc 12:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • God forbid I question your actions! I'm no longer connected with the site, so you don't need to worry about that. If you don't want to be challenged, stop doing disruptive things, and stop handing out unjustified blocks. My reversal was absolutely warranted, legitimate, and I believe necessary. If you don't want to be challenged on your actions, stop doing things that will get you challenged on them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The issue isn't that you're challenging Doc's actions. It's that you're challenging actions that were unquestionably correct, and doing so in a repetetive and tendentious manner. Jeff, I think you're a smart guy, so when you keep engaging not in process wonking, but in doomed process wonking about subjects that you know or should know have no hope of convincing even a significant minority of the community, then I have to start asking myself: "Hey. Why is he doing this?" Nandesuka 12:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • No, the issue is that I'm challenging Doc's actions. That's the entire issue, full stop. You disagree with me, that's fine. But I don't think it's doomed. Wrong actions must be combated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Did it ever occur to you that the number of people dropping by your page and politely suggesting that you might be out of your mind when you claim WP:IAR and WP:SNOW aren't properly used and aren't consensus not mean anything to you? You make claims that people are out of process, while somehow, at the same time asserting that WP:IAR, while policy, doesn't count as process? This was certainly not the first time you reversed an action simply because someone was "out of process" in your estimation. We get the WP:POINT, can we get back to working on the encylopedia now? Shell ^babelfish 12:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It means nothing, mainly because it's the same people over and over. Can we get back to working the encyclopedia? Why, yhes, let's do so - that's what I'm attempting to do by reversing Doc's disruption. IAR only recently re-became instituted policy, and I hope it changes back because of asinine situations like this - both of us think we're improving the encycopedia, one of us gets blocked. Kind of bizarre, don't you think? Quite simply, if people don't want to be challenged, quit doing stupid things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I see I've failed to elucidate; allow me to try again. The issue is that the matter was closed. It was closed back in July. To bring it forward again threatens to rekindle all the old bad blood. This should only be done if there's a valid, pressing reason for arguing that the original combination AfD/DRV was no longer valid. This would take the form of ED doing something notable enough for a new article to be written. This has not happened. Users can reopen old issues all they want; this is a wiki, after all; but they shouldn't be surprised if administrators decide enough is enough, which is what happened here. You're talking as though this is some kind of judiciary proceeding, which it was not. Indeed, the article hasn't been discussed at all, probably because there's nothing at all to be said about it. The encyclopedia is composed of articles, not editors–they merely edit the articles. The distinction is an important one often lost here. Any action is easily reversible, but that's not a license to revert. Whether you recognize WP:SNOW or not is irrelevant to our purpose here; it isn't policy–it's shorthand. That is to say, to invoke WP:SNOW is to say, simply: "I'm doing this because I believe the will of the community and needs of the encyclopedia are so absolutely manifest that no good purpose would be served by drawing the matter out." You obviously recognize this idea, you just tried to apply it, if in error. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Which there is a valid, pressing reason. Your disagreement with it is no reason to endorse such disruption by Doc. As for my application of IAR, I said "at worst." I would never invoke such a divisive policy to force what I want against the best result for the encyclopedia.--badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Give it up, mate. This was flogging a dead horse and Doc was quite right to close it. You are continuing to waste your energy assaulting the same dearly departed equine, and I'm not surprised that someone blocked you for it. I'm sure you mean well, but this is not the fight you want to pick. Metamagician3000 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it is, and he was wrong. Maybe someday Doc will be held accountable. Judging by the response, I won't hold my breath. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Badlydrawnjeff, your persistent harping on this has become disruptive. Please stop now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Discussion is never disruptive. The only disruptive thing I've seen this morning is the early close of the DRV and the blind support of Doc's disruptive actions. No one's keeping you from whatever you're being distracted from, my concerns are entirely valid and I don't appreciate further attempts on my being silenced. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] I'm not going to waste much more time on this or I'll end up getting cranky and uncivil. But what part don't you get? This deletion had already been through DRV. It had no business being there at all, could only have been there out of ignorance or to cause disruption (I'll assume the former), and was fair game for any admin to close on sight. This seems just so obvious to me that I can't believe you're understanding the situation. I'm really trying to assume good faith here ... Metamagician3000 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please do assume good faith, I have the best interests at heart here. There's nothing stopping a DRV from occurring more than once, it happens plenty. Considering how heated the last situation was, perhaps waiting 6 weeks and rerunning it to get an actual consensus dealing with how poorly the AfD was running was the right move - I think so. Doc decided no, and now the situation has effectively escalated again. Too soon? Perhaps, but that wasn't for Doc to decide, and his disruptive closes and blocks don't help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If that has ever happened in anything like these circumstances, it shouldn't have. DRV isn't something to be re-run until you get the "right" answer. There has to be an end to wiki-litigation, and DRV normally provides it. If you look at the circumstances here, far from being special (in the sense of favouring another bite of the cherry) they show that the attempt at a second DRV on the very same closure was being roundly rejected. Again, you and I seem to be living on different planets because it's just screamingly obvious to me that Doc did the right thing here and that any admin should have done the same - on first sight, in my view, but certainly in the circumstances Doc was actually presented with. If you still don't get it, I don't see what more I can say to make it clear. Anyway, that's enough for tonight. It's 1 a.m. and I'm going to bed. :) Metamagician3000 15:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am reading this and I fail to see the blockable offense. I see:

1. Jeff is wrong on the issue (although not on his objection to WP:SNOW), which is his prerogative, as long as he in good faith believes that his position is right.
2. Jeff is beating a dead horse, which is tiresome but not a blocking offense.
3. Jeff is alone in holding his opinion. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A BLOCKING OFFENSE.
4. The thrust I see for this being considered disruptive is that he continues arguing instead of building an encyclopedia. This is bull, because it always takes two sides to argue, and I see lots of people willing to take the other side. Don't, and the argument will go away.

The remedy for tireless rebutters is to ignore them or to ask them to initiate formal dispute resolution mechanisms. But leave the block button for editors who actually violate our conduct policies. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wish you had seen this three hours ago when I was blocked a second time for holding a contrary opinion. Regardless, if people have an issue with my tactics, let's get an RfC or RfAr going and end it once and for all, I'm sick of being rebuffed because people don't want to pay attention to basic processes and would rather silence me as if it's going to solve the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem like Jeff is going to stop anytime soon, and it takes two to argue, and because we apparently just can't block Jeff outright (or so I'm told), the best solution is to just start ignoring him. I pledge to use this solution with Jeff from now on. Who else is with me? --Cyde Weys 18:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You just don't like that I challenge you on your constant unilateral out of process actions. Ignore away, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We could block him, if people would quit wheel warring on the block. Jeff is here to disrupt, it seems to be his sole modus operandi. I'd be happy with ignoring him, if he didn't vote keep on every single AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? That's pretty harsh, I do plenty here that wouldn't even come close to being considered disruption. If you need to ignore me, feel free, we'll all be better off, but if you think that's all I'm here for, please open an RfC and let's get to the point instead of the constant attacks from you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please block this guy [100] [101] [102] for good? He does nothing but vandalism whenever he gets unblocked. Duja 12:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Absolutelly all edits of this user are vandalism. He definitelly should be blocked. PANONIAN (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone said the article he created read like copyvio. Now he claims it's his own work and wants blood for the libelous remark.

at this dif and here. I have suggested that he read WP:LEGAL.

Please let me know if there is a better place to this. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• From the difs you provided, I can't see Pjbruce actually saying that he was going to sue anyone for libel. He just seems to find certain comments about copyvio offencive, and is angry. Giving him WP:LEGAL was 100% the right thing to do, maybe it will help him cool off a bit and realise that no one was trying to do anything libelous. If he does make legal threats in the future, that would be handled by Office, as all legal threats are, but right now, he just seems like a newbie angry that his article is being deleted. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• • He actually added some more while I was writing. Again, he doesn't seem to be actually making legal threats, but I think a word on his talkpage might help, which I am just about to go and do. An admin might also want to look into this. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, I thought this was where I posted stuff for an admin to look at. At any rate, his last message on my page indicated he is appealing to Mr. Wales. :) Dlohcierekim 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

After I had removed one non-free image from User:Tbkflav's page, explaining in the edit summary I was doing so to comply to item #9 in WP:FUC, this user left a lengthy message on my talk page expressing his feelings on my behaviour in the incident (no problem so far) and then updated his user's page adding some sections dedicated to attack me (now, a problem). --Abu Badali 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given the user a warning about personal attacks, and asked them to remove the section. Shadow1 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I initially encountered this editor after she edited a few articles on my watch list. She seems to be heavily interested in recatagorizing articles. Initially she was doing so without any edit summaries. After a couple requests for her to use edit summaries, she used 1 edit summary in a hundred edits and I again tried to explain why this was necessary. She's now using edit summaries all the time, but they're nonsense. I've already made repeated attempts to intervene here and I would appreciate if someone else would attempt to the get the point across here. Her last 10 edits summaries:

• blank
• l
• a
• d
• d
• ,,
• a
• d
• putting in more precise cat. in regards to neurology
• m

only one actually says what she did, and you can see the trend continuing deep into her contrib history. Of her last 50 edits summaries, I only see 11 which explain what she did in them, the rest being gibberish or blank. I don't expect 100% edit summaries, but if you're on a massive overhaul of catagories, it might be a good idea to leave some explanations and let people know what you're doing.--Crossmr 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just happened to stumble across User:Submarine, created 16 November 2005, with no edits. Is this a sock awaiting activation (& should it be indef blocked?), or is there another explanation? -- llywrch 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Something like 80% of all Wikipedia accounts are inactive - they have never edited and probably never will. It's not a problem unless we have reason to specifically worry about it. Shimgray | talk | 21:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished a huge swathe of replies on the OTRS vandalism-complaints address - about thirty of these, perhaps, due to people who experienced vandalism by modifying templates to display everyone's favourite penis photograph as a 600px inline image. Normally, I'm vaguely surprised if we get more than half-a-dozen complaints about the FA du jour or more than a couple about any other page; this does seem a lot. Not really sure what we can do about this other than closely watching high-use templates or protecting them (personally I see no downside to the latter - things like {{cquote}}, {{taxobox}} or {{otheruses}} really shouldn't be edited without good reason anyway), but thought I'd better toss the problem out here.

I've seen this before - it isn't new - but it does seem to have ramped up a lot this last couple of days. Shimgray | talk | 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've fully protected them all. There is pretty much no reason why anyone, admins included, should need to edit those often enough for it to matter. Ral315 (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Added to the list is {{Busy}}. Fully protected now. --Ragib 23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please look in on the article Ezebuiro Obinna? An anon (imaginably more than one, but the IPs are in the same range) has been removing {{wikify}}, {{unreferenced}}, and {{npov}} tags, and removing my comments on these issues from the talk page, as well as writing absurd comments on the talk page like "What a credible neutral point of view!" Other editor in there is User:Igbigbo. I'll admit to having a suspicion that Igbigbo and the anon are one and the same; it might be interesting to run a user check on Igbigbo at the point where one of his edits is only 5 minutes after the anon's after several hours with no other edits credited to him.

Not a particular important article, but I suspect that this is someone not playing by the rules, and trying to cover his tracks. And I bet the images are copvios, to boot. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)