Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Five week block for spelling change?

I've just come across what looks like a case of severe injustice. User:Pnatt has been blocked for five weeks for changing the spelling of television program from programme in Australian articles. "Program" is the correct modern Australian spelling, and "programme" is regarded as archaic. The blocking admin is not Australian and has promised to keep adding one week to Pnatt's block every time he returns and corrects the spelling. Understandably Pnatt is upset over this. Could someone please calm down what should be a simple discussion about consensus? --Jumbo 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There's some context missing from that post, mainly this. 5 weeks seems a fairly minor escalation from the last block, which was one month and ran its full course, at which point the user again began doing exactly what got him blocked last time - uncivil edit warring over local dialect spellings. This seems to be practically all the user does, and I have no objection to this block. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be upset as well? Looking at Pnatt's contributions, any incivility seems to be on a minor level. I've asked him to try to keep calm. The response of the blocking admin seems disproportionate and likely to further inflame the user. Pnatt's preferred spelling has been endorsed by other Australian users, and this really should not be this big an issue. --Jumbo 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It actually was not five weeks for a spelling change. User:Pnatt has only been on Wikipedia since April. In that time he had received continuous last warnings and 5 previous blocks, climbing from 24 hours right up to 1 month for continuous edit wars, misleading edit summaries, personal attacks, etc etc etc. Every time a block was imposed he was warned when he came back to stop behaving as in the past or he would be blocked again. Every time he would only be back on WP when he would take up where he left off and start the same behaviour all over again. On his second (yes, second) edit after the expiry of his last one month block he began the exact same edit warring on the exact same issues, abusing the exact same users, and carried on as if nothing happened. He had already been warned many times that such was his behaviour that the length of blocks would climb every time he was blocked until he stopped the edit warring and attacks. Given that it was a repeat performance of his previous behaviour, and the last block was for one month, this time, as warned, the block was upped again, this time to 5 weeks. BTW this user, when blocked, has also a habit of posting constant {{help me}} messages on his talk page, to the annoyance of many users who keep telling him to stop doing it. For his last block, his posting of false templates and attacks necessitated that his talk page also be protected for the duration of the block. Already since this block another user have had to threaten to protect the page again to stop him posting the disruptive templates. At this stage this user has been blocked for more often than he has been allowed to edit Wikipedia. He had contributed little but edit wars and attacks. It is getting to the stage where quite possibly he should be blocked indefinitely. In less than two months he has contributed nothing but aggro and edit wars. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Thanks for chiming in. --Cyde↔Weys 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On investigation of Pnatt's edits, I must respectfully differ. His second edit on returning was this one, where he changed the archaic "programmes" to "programs". He was absolutely correct in this, and he has cited several widely used sources, such as current Australian dictionaries and the Australian Government Style Manual. He has not been abusive, nor has he made misleading edit summaries. He referred to correction of vandalism, which from his perspective (and mine) it certainly is. Articles on Australian subjects should use current Australian spelling, and when such a conservative network as the Australian Broadcasting Commission uses "program", we may safely say that this spelling is current. He does not deserve a five week block for making beneficial edits. New editors should be guided rather than chastised, and whatever his past sins may have been, he does not seem to have resumed them. --Jumbo 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to others' good faith edits as vandalism is provocative and incorrect. I'm not surprised it upsets people. "Vandalism" is when someone is trying to make the encyclopedia worse, not better. There's no compelling reason to think that someone using the spelling "programme" is trying to compromise the quality or integrity of Wikipedia - they probably think that's an acceptable spelling. I suggest that this user (and everyone) refrain from characterizing the other side of a style dispute as "vandals". -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a few comments:

• Six different admins have blocked this user. This isn't just one admin getting over-zealous.
• Some of his edits have been very blatant vandalism (e.g. [1], [2])
• The user is occasionally very incivil in his edit summaries (e.g. [3])
• This user spends a lot of time in revert wars, often with really strong POV statements such as this one
• This user has almost no productive edits
• The user does not seem to listen to warnings. See the user's talk page

Although I personally saw this latest edit war and was not planning on blocking him myself, I do support the block. -- JamesTeterenko 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Some of those early edits are disturbing. However, I note that since returning he has made no similar edits. Maybe he HAS listened to advice this time? He has hardly been given a chance and if we can make a productive editor out of him than turning him into an embittered critic of Wikipedia, then so much the better. --Jumbo 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the very brief period before he was reblocked, his edit summaries included the misleading "revert vandalism" twice and he tells an editor " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" [4]. That does not suggest to me that this editor is close to being 'reformed'. Note that "being right" is never an excuse for continuous edit warring (since everyone's right in at least one person's opinion). We have a dispute resolution process for people who think they're right when the other editors don't, and "edit warring" does not feature in any stage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not alone in stating that he is right. Other Australian editors prefer "program" over "programme". The naming of articles and categories such as List of programs broadcast by Seven Network indicate that this has been the preferred spelling for some time. Government and university style guides state "program not programme". The Macquarie Dictionary - the acknowledged standard for Australian English - has a headword for "program" and not for "programme". (See here for a page scan.) I had not given this matter much thought until this morning, but all my research indicates that he is entirely correct, and quite entitled to think of reversion to an archaic form as "vandalism". I note that it is common practice amongst established editors to label such small details as vandalism: here is one from the blocking editor, who could be described as Wikipedia's revert warrior par excellence, judging by his extraordinary edit history.

However, some of Pnatt's early edits and attitude (as pointed out earlier, for which many thanks, JamesTeterenko) trouble me deeply, and if he had returned to this style of editing, then I would not feel inclined to defend him at all. But there seems to be a gradual improvement in his attitude, and I feel that imposing a five week block and threatening longer for such a small impoliteness in a new editor is going too far. Such long blocks are more properly the preserve of the ArbCom, imposed for more serious and protracted matters. I feel that this matter should have been handled so as reduce confrontation and encourage co-operation. --Jumbo 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have protected User talk:Pnatt after he added the {{unblock}} template after I had already removed it. This is the fifth time the page has been protected to stop him abusing the template. I will not be lifting the protection until his block expires, as every time protection is lifted he goes right back to getting in the way of users who have a legitimate reason to be unblocked (see the log). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this comment from him was extremely encouraging: "After the recent 4-week block I made a choice that if I wanted to stay on Wikipedia, that I would have to make reliable and factually correct edits." Now one more avenue of communication has been blocked off, and heaven knows what his opinion of Wikipedia management is now. Perhaps he's altering the template text because he feels that he's been, oh I dunno, harshly and unfairly treated? --Jumbo 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't altering template text, he was adding a template that he knew damn well he wasn't allowed to add again. That's not in the least bit encouraging, he seems absolutely incapable of learning from mistakes. If he feels he's been harshly and unfairly treated then he can wait for consensus to build up here that the block is unwarranted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, this behaviour came after he received a block of five weeks! I suggest that with sufficient provocation even the most angelic editor is going to get hot under the collar. On being unblocked - after a four week block - his Wikistress was at three. It quickly jumped to five: "Run for cover!". In such circumstances it seems reasonable to suggest that he's not going to be the perfect editor, and he should be calmed down instead of being provoked further. --Jumbo 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - his page has been protected five times now for abuse of the {{unblock}} template. The first time can be put down to ignorance, the second to frustation (or 'provocation'), but the third is downright refusal to listen, and the fourth and fifth are just taking the piss. It looks like no-one is willing to lift or shorten the five-week block, so I simply don't buy that throughout his block he should be allowed to continue adding {{unblock}} templates and get in the way of legitimate requests because he was 'provoked'. The block is, after all, already under review - the {{unblock}} template is for getting a second opinion and there are plenty of those here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on your reading of his motivation: "just taking the piss". It seems to me that this new editor feels he has been unfairly blocked and nobody gives a damn, except to kick him in the face longer and harder. I ask again, wouldn't YOU be stressed and upset under such circumstances? If your Wikistress level was set to "ready to pop', then how much would you care about niceties of policy? This editor started off on the wrong foot with some attitude problems, but all I see is steady improvement despite severe provocation. I'd like to see understanding and co-operation next time around. If he feels interested enough to return. In the meantime I can only imagine what he is saying about Wikipedia. --Jumbo 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He can have all the understanding he likes when he stops doing the same things that get him blocked and his talk page protected, over, and over, and over again. I don't know what he's saying about Wikipedia, but the truth would be along the lines of "Wikipedia has better things to do than act as the battleground for people who obsess over dialect spellings". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, you shouldn't lump the two misbehaviours together. It takes two to make a battle, and his changing of "programme" to "program" was quite correct, in Good Faith and he provided sources. See the discussion here. This should have been discussed at the time by the other parties, but apparently they chose to revert without discussion. His edit summary when he was reverted was perhaps a little incivil, but certainly not worth a five week block, which is what he got, with the promise of a much longer one. On that note, the blocking admin appears to be a big booster of monarchies and nobility around the world and User:Pnatt is apparently not. There may be some issues there. However, as has been pointed out, there are far worse examples of incivility in edit summaries which go unpunished.

After he was given a five week block for doing what he regarded as improving the encyclopaedia, then he sought outside assistance. I imagine that, as his Wikistress level indicates, he was quite upset. It is quite unfair to justify this very long block by what he did after getting it.

I am also quite concerned that the increasing improvement in his behaviour has been met with increasing harshness of treatment. He has also stated that he wants to be a good editor and this has been ignored. Surely he should be assisted in his stated aim rather than beaten and abused until he gives up in disgust? --Jumbo 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just asking for information, but how is the edit summary " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" a problem, while "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards" reflects that the editor "sometimes could be more decorous" (Joe), and has "a few recent bits of cursing in summaries, but as the edits weren't inicivil or in any way attacking I don't really see a problem" (Snoutwood) in #Why is Alkivar allowed to be an admin? above? JackyR | Talk 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If Alikvar had been blocked six times for a total of about 40 days for that behaviour, that would be more of a valid comparison. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a specific question. I'm not asking are Alkivar and Pnatt overall "good" or "bad". I'm asking, when assessing evidence, how is the first edit summary evidence an act <JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)> of wrongdoing, and the second not? JackyR | Talk 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC ) <rephrased to make less ambiguous JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)>

The first is part of a continuous pattern of disruption that has led six different admins to block the user and four to protect his talk page afterwards. The second is not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Still missing the point. You make a specific complaint about this edit summary, over and above the edit to which it refers. And you appear to be agreeing that a pattern of uncivil edit summaries by Alkivar is not a problem (did you mean to?).

Look, what I'm highlighting is how easy it is to make an overall judgement of a person, and then interpret all their actions accordingly (person X is bad, so action Z by them is bad: person Y is OK, so action Z by them is OK). This is the very heart of many accusations of admin abuse, and so unnecessary. Folk on this page routinely have to make evidence-based judgements – it's an important and often thankless job, and I'm grateful someone does it – but often end up putting the cart before the horse. Please, stop and think about this for a minute. I'm not getting at you: I'm just alarmed by what I see every time I'm stupid enough to come here. I care rather a lot about WP, and this needs to be dealt with – by everyone. JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said! I'm starting to regret that I ever stumbled across this, but I had to speak up. Admins do a wonderful (and largely thankless) job, but I am sure that mistakes are made, and it would have been remiss of me to walk past while another editor was calling out for help. --Jumbo 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked by how poorly this editor has been treated, especially when certain admins routinely leave uncivil edit messages yet are not blocked for even a minute. Al 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this conversation leading to consensus to fit the block on User:Pnatt soon, and give him a chance to demonstrate good faith editing? For what it's worth, I'm one of the previous blockers and reached for the Macquarie Dictionary before hitting the block button this time, and decided he is right (I would have kept "programme"). I think Pnatt has the potential to be a good contributor, although he shows poor judgement in selecting the changes to make at times, and certainly needs to learn to step back and take a deep breath instead of stepping forward with fists up. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say having followed his edits that I see no evidence of good faith whatsoever. All I see is a user who has consistently sought to pick fights, waged edit wars, attacked other users and contributed little of value on WP. The fact that his second action after coming back from a month's block was to pick a fight and start an edit war suggests no evidence whatsoever of good faith. His behaviour has not changed one iota no matter how many warnings and blocks he has had. Do you really believe that removing a block will produce a change? I very much doubt it. If the block is removed the odds are, going by past behaviour, that he will be edit warring within minutes and will end up blocked again almost straight away. Even when blocked he then uses his own talk page to cause so much trouble that that ends up having to be locked repeatedly and users who have had no experience with him before end up leaving messages on his talk page in sheer frustration telling him to stop. Users who cause the amount of trouble, who cause so much edit wars, who get so many warnings and so many blocks in such a small space of time (he has only been on since April) at this stage usually find themselves blocked indefinitely. If he is unblocked, the odds are that we will be back here almost straight away dealing with yet more edit warring by him, with those who have had to deal with him in the past saying "I told you so." If he is let back, it needs to be made clear to him that any more abuse of his position will lead to a long block. But then if a month's block isn't enough to cure him of his edit warring, what length will? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

His second action after coming back from a long block was to correct an error. That wasn't picking a fight or starting an edit war. He quoted sources and was quite justified in his edit. You seem to want to punish him all over again for his actions of five weeks ago, which seems wrong to me, especially as he has stated that he wants to be a good editor from now on. We should aim to talk things over and find a satisfactory solution instead of inflaming a situation.

And with all due respect, your comment that All I see is a user who has consistently sought to pick fights, waged edit wars, attacked other users.. could be seen as the height of hypocrisy. The only difference is that you have contributed a great deal of value and this editor hasn't. But he hasn't had much of a chance, has he? May I suggest that when this user returns, you stick your hands in your pockets? If he is as awful as you say he is, then it will soon become apparent, and you may say "I told you so" with full justification. Personally, I intend to ride at his shoulder and keep him on the right path, if he is at all capable of following it. --Jumbo 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jumbo, you are missing the point. That user didn't simply correct an error. His past behaviour involved edit warring over use of language, spelling and Australian English usage. He had been involved in very bitter exchanges with Xtra. There are over one million articles on Wikipedia, yet he chose the same issue, with the same users, to start off his post-block edits. Going straight back to the very topic that had got him repeatedly warned for his behaviour, picked up where he went off and started yet another row on the issue is tactless to put it mildly. Posting an edit summary revert vandalism by Xtra sums up his approach. It is hard to believe that someone who deliberately targets the same topic after repeated blocks for his behaviour on the issue before, and who seems to target someone he had been rowing with before, is anything other than a troll. He could have edited anywhere on Wikipedia. He chose to go straight back to his old fighting on the same topic with the same users. That pretty much sums up his attitude and explains why he has been repeatedly banned, and going by past behaviour, why he will no doubt be banned again. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. Am I allowed to ask this editor how old he is? I know, I know, it shouldn't matter but after reading his/her talk page I sense alot of immaturity, sorry dude,dudette...If Jumbo would like to mentor/monitor this editor, that seems like a nice solution, imo. I know there is a definate learning curve to this project, but after repeated attempts at correcting behavoir, the wood has to be layed down it seems. This user says on his talk page "I can't help myself" and that concerns me a little...anyways, I'll butt back out now, thanks! --Tom 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help him become a better editor. I've received friendly assistance in the past and if I can pass some of it on, that's good. We're all volunteers here, and I'm all in favour of co-operation instead of confrontation. --Jumbo 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt has expressed intent to be a good citizen. As we agree, it was an unwise choice of edit for soon after his block, but it turns out that this spelling change has been accepted in those articles once they were considered. Both spellings appear to be acceptable in Australian English, and "program" is listed as the primary one in two different Australian dictionaries, as well as having been the original spelling in at least one of those articles. I feel confident that he knows he is very closely watched, and in fear of being blocked again. A previous version of his user page said he had some sort of compulsive disorder, which perhaps explains the "can't help myself" comment (but does not excuse bad behaviour, only explain it). The debate on this page should be about whether 5 weeks was an appropriate response to this action. Would I have been blocked for making that edit? I have been known to change "kilometer" to "kilometre" in Australian articles without getting myself blocked. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The only way you would have been blocked for that length is if you had received repeated final warnings, had gotten yourself repeatedly blocked five times in almost as many weeks, had ignored each block and when back continued the exact same edit warring against the same people despite appeals to stop, had been told unambiguously that the length of block would climb each time until the provocative edit warring stopped, and after a months block had finished had gone straight back to the exact same edit warring on exactly the same edit war you had been warned about, coupled with posting provocative edit summaries to someone you have been warring with accusing them of vandalism. The issue is not the spelling. It is the behaviour continually since April. Maybe the five week block will finally get it through to him that when users all over the place tell him to stop picking fights and waging edit wars he'd better stop. Or else, as has happened with the various users who have blocked him in the past, the length of block will continue to climb until the fighting and provoking of edit wars stops. All he has to do to stop being blocked is contribute to Wikipedia and work with users. All he has done practically every time is, as soon as a block ends, come in fists first to start off the next round. That was the game behind the spelling change. He starts his fight off that way, and users who was had to deal with him knew immediately that this was no "oh lets correct a spelling". It was round six of his warring, his opening move in the next edit war he wanted to ignite. And that is why, as he had clearly been warned, he was blocked and the length of blocked upped from the last time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway

It is with sadness, considering that he is an administrator who should know better than to knowingly and willingly violate WP:POINT and WP:VAND repeatedly by altering other users' otherwise compliant sigs ([5] [6] [7], just to enumerate the most recent examples) and removing legitimate warnings from his talk page while characterizing them as tripe ([8]), that I announce I will be blocking User:Tony Sidaway upon his next violation. No one involved in the project is above policy and everyone involved must be held accountable for his/her actions, regardless of "stature". My job as a janitor demands I make this sad notification. RadioKirk 03:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is phrased very strangely. Have you read Wikipedia:Vandalism or Wikipedia:Blocking policy recently? It is pretty clear that you don't understand WP:POINT. Jkelly 03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, I believe I do. Thanks :) RadioKirk 03:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You genuinely believe that Tony Sidaway does not want signatures altered? Jkelly 03:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion... RadioKirk 06:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you understand Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and you believe that I'm doing that, it follows that you think I believe that signatures should not be altered and am attempting to cause disruption by doing so in order to demonstrate that signatures should not be altered. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because the sine qua non is missing: I believe signatures should not be altered unless an expectation of such to those users is made clear prior to altering them. RadioKirk 22:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read and understood my statement, because you have not addressed the point. --Tony Sidaway 11:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already an RFC on this issue where TS would seem to have a great deal of support: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3. Why don't you participate there? I think any block would be incredibly misguided and would serve no purpose. Your job as a janitor is also not to inflame the situation, sadly or otherwise (although you seem more gleeful than sad)--JJay 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd seriously like to know how you got that impression... RadioKirk talk to me 03:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See this edit. Ardric47 03:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Response already made to user's talk page, BTW. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a better place for this? How many previous threads have been brought here to no avail? --Cyde↔Weys 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This continues to be absurd. The RfC went nowhere because the vast majority of commentors were solidly behind this refactoring. P.s. Cyde is one of those upon whom Tony is said to have unjustly trampled.Timothy Usher 03:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony trampled me? When? --Cyde 03:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Never before have I had a hankering for a userbox. "This user is not an elephant". --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whether you believe refactoring of your sig on this page constitutes "trampling". RadioKirk talk to me 03:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel trampled on. It's a wiki, I expect stuff to be edited. He's not even changing the content of any of the messages, just rearranging the format of the sig. I could care less. My signature is absolutely frivolous – I change it more than once a month. As long as the link goes back to my userpage identifying me it's all golden. --Cyde↔Weys 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's an admirable stance. Given that, by nature, personalization on Wiki is kept to a minimum, however, it's absolutely understandable that users would find it a violation when that "personality"—especially when it complies with policy—is altered, without prior notice, query or comment. While it may not violate the letter of WP:VAND, I remain convinced that it violates the spirit thereof. RadioKirk talk to me 06:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So long as content has been preserved, and everything remained working as well as it did before (arguably, better), than 'violating the spirit of of WP:VAND' sounds like it's stretching the point. Especially if the changes are consistent in being nonpersonal in nature. You may be confusing it with WP:POINT here. El_C 06:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew what I meant, but thanks. The letter of Changing people's comments is, "(e)diting signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning"—I maintain that the spirit thereof should extend to "substantially change their appearance". Call this subjective interpretation, but that's my view (and WP:POINT was a given [grin]). Anyway, I'm off for the night. RadioKirk talk to me 06:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding!? The spirit of WP:VAND is that "editing a page on Wikipedia in order to deliberately compromise its quality is vandalism". Can you seriously justify accusing Tony Sidaway of "Vandalism"!? If it is vandalism, then feel free to use the {{test}} or {{bv}} templates. If you can't justify using those, it is not vandalism. Werdna (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, but I also knew what I meant when I mentioned that you may be confusing the two policies. ;) The sig isn't part of the comment; and it is the sig originally assigned by Wikipedia (utility-wise). El_C 07:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Signatures are not comments and vice-versa. A comment tells you the opinion of the person writing it. A signature tells you who wrote the comment. That's all there is to it. Whether or not you have a point, purposely conflating two things isn't helping. A comment is just as useful as long as we can tell who wrote it. A de-formatised signature might be slightly less helpful (as typified by when links to user talk pages are removed), but often it usually we are better off with de-formatised sigs. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, signatures are comments; "this is how I want to be seen" is every bit a part of the editor (though it should be a very tiny part) as the words (s)he types. We ought not be showing editors how to customize their sigs—or, for that matter, including the option in preferences in the first place—if we want to stop the practice. Even then, the policy must be changed. Noncompliant sig? Kill it! However, simply forcing one's will onto someone else's compliant signature with no prior comment or query demonstrates a willingness to change whatever, whenever, by no more reasoning than preference—an arrogance that no one on Wikipedia should have, lest it betray self-importance over project importance. RadioKirk talk to me 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we'll soon reach a point where every AN/I archive will have a "Tony Sidaway" thread ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following changes to the AN/I header: User:JDoorjam/Proposed_ANI_template. Please let me know what you think. JDoorjam Talk 04:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

blocked

sigh Blocked 1 hour per this. RadioKirk 03:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you provoked the block immediately after placing your first message. Without attempting dialogue. How foolish. --JJay 03:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you say so. The user's disruption provoked me to end the disruption, nothing more. RadioKirk 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why Tony should stop removing things from his talk, JJay. He's been asked and warned lots of times. There needs to be some seperation here: Most people did say that sigs were too long, and that shortening them was no big deal. But Tony's block (having followed the conversation) is actually for disruption. It's possible (and often happens!) to be blocked for doing something that's not "wrong" in a disruptive manner. British english, common era, etc... --Aaron Brenneman 03:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic point, if the RfC didn't have a concensus going in the opposite direction. When the majority of editors feel the refactoring is no big deal and the RfC was frivolous, blocking and warning over it is completely absurd. Shell ^babelfish 04:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree— in fact, continuously pointing out the "majority" when the "minority" had valid points that will be utterly discarded if "majority rules" is adopted somehow is to consider the "minority" nonexistent. Wrong move, IMO. RadioKirk 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you understand concensus? If the vandals want our blocking policy changed, but the concensus of editors is that it should remain, do we change it because someone makes a valid point? How about the cartoon controversy - have we moved/removed those because someone made a valid point? I'm not certain if you're doing all this tongue-in-cheek or if you really have some incredibly bizarre interpretations of policy. Shell ^babelfish 04:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If "consensus" means "don't accept anything the minority says, disregard it in its entirety as if it never existed" then, no, apparently not—and that would be a tragedy, indeed... RadioKirk 06:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, "consensus" means we request comments on something, and once the comments are in, we make a decision based on them. This is like saying we're disregarding the opinions of some editors who didn't like the Muhammad cartoons being above the fold of the Jyllands-Posten controversy article simply because we didn't implement a solution they liked. (Note: I am one of those who argued for putting the cartoons below the fold.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought it meant—or, certainly, should mean. However, someone needs to explain this to Tony, for whom "consensus" seems to mean, "the majority is with me, the rest of you can bugger off!" RadioKirk 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So what do you suggest he do? In this case, the status quo is clearly unacceptable to a majority, and a majority of longtime editors at that. (Disclaimer: A number of those on the "other side" are longtime editors as well.) "No consensus" doesn't mean the status quo should hold, as the userbox situation currently unfolding indicates. Johnleemk | Talk 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already made that suggestion; either leave other editors' sigs alone if they comply, ask those editors with borderlne sigs to fix them, or gain a consensus to change the policy. Despite the fact that this editor considers me a "silly sausage" playing "silly buggers" by spreading tripe, I don't want this to go to arbitration—and, I blocked a disruptive editor, no more—because I wwould rather see the editor show some initiative, recognize that some of his actions have hurt the community, and back away from them. RadioKirk 18:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the community or the wiki are hurt by the diligent actions of public spirited individuals who remove clutter from discussions. I don't believe for one moment that you honestly believe that you could command a consensus on such a preposterous suggestion. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, if enough people feel slighted, whether or not they should feel slighted, then you are being disruptive. You cannot dismiss the concerns of those who feel slighted as "rubbish" or "frivolous" without appearing to display contempt and disdain for those individuals. Contempt and disdain create an atmosphere that contributors do not like. This is why civility is so important. We want it to be pleasantly civil here. In fact, we insist. Your apparent disdain for others is unpleasant and uncivil. Your public spirit and initiative are commendable, but you're naïve to think you can dismiss any complaints you judge to be frivolous, without incurring negative effects on the community around you. Too much heat, Tony. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we can all work on our civility. I have acknowledged this and, although I find absolutely no merit in what I view as territorial claims to real estate on Wikipedia discussion pages, I acknowledge that there do actually exist a small number people who take them seriously. However I think you're conflating civility and agreement. One can show respect for a minority position without being unduly influenced by it. We do not, for instance, permit personal attacks, although in straw polls a sizeable minority of editors oppose the No personal attacks policy. --Tony Sidaway 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I've given the impression that I think you should agree with those who oppose your refactoring. I certainly don't agree with advocates of signature creep. I just wouldn't be dismissive of them, no matter how much I disagree. It's more work, to actually treat each person's concerns as valid and worth responding to, but it's worth it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

unblocked

• Unblocked. The block was unwarranted. --Improv 04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree, or I wouldn't have imposed it. Also, that you undid a one-hour block is unsettling. Nevertheless, that's your call and I will not argue. RadioKirk 04:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't work out what Radiokirk was complaining about. That someone should dare to refactor a talk page discussion? It just seems so silly. Obvously it was a bit naughty of him to abuse his blocking powers in a case in which he was involved. But he's a new admin and these things happen. --Tony Sidaway 05:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice Tony's refactoring of my sig immediately above—on AN/I, not on a "talk page" which, you'll note, I've specifically avoided (except to restore legitimate warnings). If this is an attempt at deflection, Tony, it exposes you far, far better than anything I could have said. Your underestimation of my abilities is touching, really... RadioKirk 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring on pages like this, which many people will need to edit, is an especially useful service. We all benefit. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then place a notice at the top of the page warning user in advance that this may happen. You otherwise are forcing your will upon others without comment or query. RadioKirk 18:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've been bold and added a notice at the top of the page, given the legitimacy of the issue on a page that commonly gets huge. Reformat to your heart's content. RadioKirk 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Such notices are superfluous on a wiki. That's what wikis are for. --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a gross oversimplification. Were that altogether true, changing people's comments would not be considered rude. It is, and with good reason—and, I've already enumerated why I believe signatures are comments of sorts. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We gotta shorten the max no. of characters, this is ridiculous. It takes me way too long than it should to edit pages like WP:PP and so on (the other day, it was esp. striking for me). Tese long sigs are quite a time waster for everyone. El_C 06:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to head off any further "dumb questions" (using the words of those inquiring, not in an insulting manner), I truly believe that, after watching this user deface others' sigs over and over and over and over and over again, that the disruption was intentional (WP:AGF goes out the window in the face of such demonstrable contempt for fellow users) and that he may, in fact, have been trying to get himself blocked. Whether I walked right into that effort remains to be seen. I know full well the potential consequences of a decision I believe I was forced to make. RadioKirk 04:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I really don't think Tony was trying to get blocked. That doesn't help him at all. --Cyde↔Weys 04:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• You were not forced to do anything. We're all responsible for exercising good judgement, both regarding rules and regarding the good of the encyclopedia. The rules are just approximations of the ends. I disagree with your judgement on this matter, and hence reverted. --Improv 04:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreed; vandals "force" us to act every day and, one would hope, the resulting act is made in the good judgment as, I believe, was this one. RadioKirk 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on your talk page just prior to blocking is disturbing to say the least. Shell ^babelfish 04:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree again. The user merely reminded me of something I was already in the process of doing. RadioKirk 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you really saying that you intended to circumvent discussion here by intentionally posting seconds before issuing an ill-conceived block you'd already decided on? Shell ^babelfish 04:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• leave note at ANI saying you're doing so like two second before and reminding everyone that the de neuvo interpretation of blocking policy is that attempts must be made to talk it out with the blocking admin before unblocking should occur[9]
• I've intended all along to do exactly that.[10]

sigh No, that's not what I said or meant. I saw the edit that prompted the block after the comment, and that edit was the removal of a legitimate warning, again. "I've intended all along to do exactly that" referred to not imposing a block before posting a notice thereof; the result came sooner than expected.

Meantime, for those who intend to shoot the messenger, let me remind you once again that I acted in accordance with what I expect of policy and its implementation. If a new user did what Tony did, an indef-block would have been heartily endorsed, and you know it. Simply put, it's time to stop that activity that led to this whole issue on the first place: if a user's sig complies with policy—including, but not limited to, avoiding excessive code and exposition, leave it alone. To change it is impolite at best and a violation at worst. RadioKirk 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to common belief, WP does not treat everyone equally. Old and experienced editors' input count for more than something someone who just arrived yesterday says. A more appropriate comparison would be to people equal to Tony's age/standing on Wikipedia, and I daresay these people would not have been blocked. Johnleemk | Talk 11:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know it doesn't; I'm saying it should. Tony has "power", and he knows it, giving the outward appearance of someone for whom the project takes a back seat to the imposition of his will, anywhere, any time, any page (see above where he forcibly changed my compliant sig here, on the bloody noticeboard!), with the ability to spout (spin?) policy to back himself up. If he actually believes as he appears, he is nothing short of a cancer, growing from within to choke off the beneficial "organs". If he doesn't, he needs to reevaluate what he's doing here and why—and now. RadioKirk 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then (as I suggested below), bring it to the attention of the arbitration committee. As far as I'm concerned, Tony's actions, while certainly debatable, are not unacceptable, especially for longtime editors. I do not favour the idea of treating editors in an egalitarian manner for the same reason that an encyclopaedia publisher tolerates some mistakes from a longtime editor, but may fire a new employee who makes the same mistakes. We're not here to be fair; we're here to write an encyclopaedia. Having said that, I think that only a decision from the arbcom can finally end this (and even then, things will flare now and then). Piecemeal actions like blocking Tony or randomly altering editors' sigs will only continue to escalate the situation. Johnleemk | Talk 17:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have only ever restored compliant sigs that Tony has "altered". As for the rest, see my reply to you above. :) RadioKirk 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So... you are saying that longtime editors can get away with incivility and other behaviour that would get a more recent user blocked? And you think this is a good thing? For months now I've been pointing out what seemed to me an increasing gap between the standards of behaviour admins, particularly certain admins, are held to vs those ordinary users are expected to comply with. Now you seem to suggest that this is intentional. Who knew? Horrifically bad idea in my opinion. There is always a danger of bad behaviour by people in authority. Make it acceptable and it becomes a certainty. Forget about the fact that it is inherently unjust, and thus breeds resentment, it also inevitably leads to increasingly disruptive behaviour and ongoing conflict. You say 'we are here to write an encyclopedia'... consider that allowing the 'senior editors' to bully and harass the actual writers any time they feel like it isn't a good way to go about it. You can be certain that the management at Brittanica doesn't go around to peoples' cubes and toss their family photos and personal effects in the trash with a cry of "unencylopedic!"... nor would they keep their jobs if they did. The longer we tolerate this kind of nonsense the worse it will be for Wikipedia. --CBDunkerson 18:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because: 1. Tony has a history of being right; 2. Tony has a history of contributing to the encyclopaedia; 3. We know Tony is acting in good faith. When a newbie does something that Tony does, it's an indicator of something systemically wrong with that newbie, because you need to have a track record before you can go around criticising this and that, and simply being outrageously bold. It's pretty much the same with any real organisation or company; people who can do the work, have a history of being right, and clearly aren't acting in bad faithwill be cut more slack. They are subject to the same policies, but not necessarily the same social conventions. The admin vs ordinary user dichotomy is imaginary, simply because most experienced users are also admins, and vice-versa. (Also, I've noticed some "ordinary users" getting off with alleged incivility similar to Tony's.) I'm quite sure that a number of non-admins (e.g. Kim Bruning) who have been around for a while would be cut a similar amount of slack if they did what Tony did. Hell, if Tony quit, I'm sure he'd be treated pretty much the same.

The analogy you draw is inaccurate. For one, the picture frame and paper the family photo was printed on is made by the company, and the picture was taken using a company camera. For another, those personal effects are in the editor's cubicle by virtue of having been placed in a common space designated for work use. (This is a very crude analogy, but more accurate than yours.) The cubicles then become so cluttered with these personal effects that prospective employees apply simply to be given such leeway instead of doing any actual work. Can you see why the management (again, crude analogy, but the best one I can think of) would be annoyed and want to crack down? It's not the total obliteration of individuality that people like Tony want. They just want to ensure that people understand that the encyclopaedia comes first, and not colourful signatures on memos which let everyone else on staff know how much of an individual you are. Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I could not disagree more strongly. Being 'right' and acting in 'good faith' should not excuse generating unnecessary conflict. Wikipedia is not a battleground. When someone deliberately takes a confrontational and disruptive stance rather than politely discussing the issue in an effort to get agreement that is more harmful to "building an encyclopedia" than just about anything they could be standing against. Certainly more harmful than bloody signatures. Saying, 'oh it is ok for him to cause all that disruption rather than discussing it politely with the users because he is a good contributor' amounts to rewriting 'pillar #4' to say 'be polite and work together... unless you have sufficient support from the PTB to get away with not doing so'... and that is horribly bad policy. On the rest... yes, all analogies are inaccurate... your implication that people come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of creating fancy signatures and never ever contributing anything positive to the encyclopedia certainly being no less so than mine. Yes, there are some people who set up userpages and put boxes on them and then are never heard from again, but that has always been the case and really has nothing to do with the boxes - since they started doing it long before the boxes even existed. Nor has the 'crusade' been against those users... those with userpage edits and no others have been left largely untouched - at most perhaps losing a box that happened to be one of those deleted. The primary 'targets' are not these non-contributors you suggest, but rather active constructive editors of the encyclopedia. The 'crusaders' always say, "we are here to build an encyclopedia!"... but never explain exactly how ignoring the 'not a battleground' principle over something as inconsequential as signatures is supposed to accomplish that. --CBDunkerson 12:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what exactly was Tony trying to do? When someone says, "Hey, if you keep doing that I'll block you" and you keep doing it? - Aaron Brenneman 04:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the someone. WP:POINT is a double-edge sword. It appears to have been an improper warning & block: the two users are in dispute and should not apply blocks on each other for the time being (in general, & especially involving that dispute). El_C 02:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I disagree, and vehemently. As I had been reverting defacement of others' sigs, Tony then defaced mine—probably knowing full well that this action therefore "involved" me. Vandals do it every day, and we block them for vandalism or disruption with nary a whimper—and, correctly so. Inarguably, this was a case of a longtime admin knowing the policy and using it in his favor, knowing full well that he would see arguments in response like the one you just walked right into, with every respect. The block was earned, and it was proper. RadioKirk 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. And you chose to involve yourself further in the dispute, you could have ignored his changes completely until the warning/block, but you didn't. That was your prerogative. El_C 02:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And, that is yours. :) RadioKirk 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue this block beyond this: you seem to have a somewhat novel intepertation of what counts as a vandal/vandalism/defacement/etc., which is fine, so long as you don't act on it. El_C 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll note in closing that we all are called upon to stop disruption, and I did what my "job" as a janitor demanded of me, "novel" interpretation or no. At any rate, I do appreciate the input—the real tragedy is, only some of us will gain some insight. ;) RadioKirk 02:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I appreciate you taking the time to listen and respond to my thoughts on this. Regards, El_C 03:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the block here was ill-conceived and does not enjoy community support. I accept that it was carried out in good faith; however that leads me to seriously question RadioKirk's judgement. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, we're even. As noted, I seriously question yours. RadioKirk 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. My blocks tend to stick, though. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If the percentage of blocks sticking is a contest, then questioning your judgment has just become an understatement. RadioKirk 23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well no, I'm not talking about a contest; I'm simply referring to your inappropriate block as an example of your poor judgement. --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" is subjective and, in my view, incorrect. That I've now had all of one block overturned seems to me to be a point of much glee to you and, if you're counting, then you're looking at this whole thing as a game. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

deleting talk page commentary is against policy

There is a section of Tony's talk page which (among others) I and Mongo had comments on, which Tony removed and did not "refactor", simply took it away. It was not personal attacks, and specifically included references to the discussion on Wikien-L in which a number of people have complained about Tony's current behavior. I was seeking to remind him that there is widespread opposition to Tony being contentious enough that people complain so loudly. Regardless of the silly signature refactoring issue, there is a clear policy and admin activity question posed by Tony's activities which continue to garner extremely upset refactorees. Regardless of whether those are silly signatures, the discussion regarding whether Tony's activities, in causing this much strife, are bad for WP on the whole is a legitimate discussion. Tony deleting that section off his talk page is not refactoring/summarization, and is not deleting vandalism. This is not appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 06:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I should note for the record: Mongo was supporting Tony, not complaining about him, in the now-deleted section. Though that's in the histories... Georgewilliamherbert 06:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting unwanted sections from your talk page is not vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Those sections aren't unwanted. They're part of the legitimate feedback which other editors are sending you regarding your recent misbehavior. Your deletion of them, and flippant response to the two longer-term admins who complained about the deletion there, is not engaging in good faith discussions or consensus building.

You cannot go around deleting people's legitimate and reasonable feedback that we feel that you're being abusive in the way you're pursuing this refactoring campaign.

I still also have yet to see you constructively engage with any of the refactorees in a discussion as to what signature you would consider acceptable and not refactor. Several have asked for you to do that.

This is profoundly disturbing behavior you've been displaying over the last 24 hrs or so.

Georgewilliamherbert 18:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have seen people letting off newbies and established users with removing comments from their talk pages. I have done so myself (letting people off, that is; I've never deleted any good faith comments from my talk). As long as there is nothing specifically important there (e.g. vandal warnings on an IP's talk), there's nothing really wrong with removing comments. Johnleemk | Talk 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "letting off". If you find crap on your talk page, delete it.

On refactoring of signatures, I think George is completely misunderatanding why signatures are refactored in the first place. As far as I'm aware that is no signature that cannot be refactored. My own relatively small signature, for instance, produced by Mediawiki's interface, can be refactored by deleting everything between the pipe character and the first right bracket (as I've done here). The complainers' problem is that they falsely believe themselves to have grounds for complaint. --Tony Sidaway 00:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Pfft... yet another case of policy spin. WP:SIG#Customizing your signature does not say "even if your sig complies with these guidelines, it may be changed without your consent at any time." The correct reaction would be, "then why bother?" The only answer is, stop the spin or change the policy. RadioKirk 01:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This reflects a fundamental divide here; when in doubt, some of us don't do anything policy says we can't. When in doubt, the rest do whatever isn't banned by policy. Now, who is in the right tends to depend on whether there is an actual hole in policy, or if someone just found a legalistic loophole to slip through. Seems we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because I think there is a legitimate hole in policy here. Johnleemk | Talk 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of this edit box, are some words that I accept each time I click the "Save page" button or press "Alt-S":

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

This applies in spades to trivia such as clutter on talk pages. Kirk, it's our words on a discussion that matter, not whatever random bit of html or wikicode we might shove after them. That's what discussion means.

If you don't think that what I have been doing is amply and fully backed up by Wikipedia policy, then you don't know that much about how policy is made on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument applies in response. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Two seconds

Re: Shell_Kinney's "disturbing" comments, since when do we post block notifications here asking permission for blocks? The accepted standard is to block and then notify. By doing both at once, it stops (or should have stopped) a lot of back-and-forth and wheel-warring by making the reasons for the block clear. Disturbing? Please. - Aaron Brenneman 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As the current vernacular goes, "meh"... if somehow the expectation from some folks is that I needed (or wanted) the scrutiny, they're entitled—wrong, but entitled. I'll live. ;) RadioKirk 05:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Would both of you mind reducing the number of characters in your signatures? It makes editing pages you've signed difficult. El_C 05:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Chars in my sig: 235. Recommended max: 300. RadioKirk 05:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no? El_C 06:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with El C on this one, it would be nice. (also see Wikipedia:Signature#Length). When your comment above is about 1/4 the length of your sig, it can be a little distracting... I won't say anything else but it would be rather curteous. Sasquatch t|c 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, simply put, the answer is to find consensus to change policy. Since, however, you actually asked me, rather than to take it upon yourself to change it unremittingly and unapologetically, I'll see what I can do. RadioKirk 06:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There, 165. RadioKirk 06:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That is an improvement. Thanks. El_C 06:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Caught an unnecessary reduncancy following the previous edit. 156. :) RadioKirk 19:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As a mentioned on Tony's page, "235" chars used merely to say "if" strikes me as problematic. It's not one person, of course, but it's clear these unrealistic sig char lengths are having an adverse effect on productivity. El_C 06:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the sigs really that problematic, or is it the users who change them without bothering to ask? I should probably note that I've never had difficulty navigating through sigs; the addition will always follow "(UTC)" ;) RadioKirk 06:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are. I would find no super-char sigs on various backloged pages a great improvement. I am having difficulties navigating through those pages, and it is wasting my time because it should take me a few seconds to remove a protection notice from WP:PP. It's a totally needless, non-WP:ENC challenge for me. Too much time spent time (wasted) navigating super-char sigs. El_C 06:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I don't have the same difficulty, but I accept that others do. RadioKirk 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually edit WP:PP? Have you ever noted any of the pages you un/protection there? There it's mostly VoA's sig. I asked him to consider shortening it a few times there. El_C 06:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just took a gander; at 1024x768, it's easy enough to go to the first line that doesn't start with color= (grin). Seriously, all I look for is (UTC) and the next line is the next comment; sure, at 270 characters VoA's sig is a bit of a monster, but it didn't strike me as especially difficult. RadioKirk 17:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, should I take it as a no? (you don't note any of the pages you un/protect on WP:PP?) I'm a non-native English speaker, so maybe I'm not your average admin. The fact is that these super-char sigs complicates things for no good reason. But this really isn't the venue for such a discussion, so I'll leave it at that. El_C 02:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I want to clarify that I didn't mean for that first sentence to come across as overly critical, or acerbic in any way. And in case there's no followup, I'll explain that from my standpoint, if you haven't been using WP:PP to note un/protects, it's no big deal (I simply ctrl.F'd the history three-500s and didn't see your name, is why I asked), but please start using it more regularly from now on. This is unrelated to any of this, and in the scope of this, just a minor point I wanted to bring to your attention. Regards, El_C 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not edit that page, at this point, but I'll keep it on my list—meantime, I did run through the edit window to see if anything seemed unusually challenging or difficult, and it wasn't—at least, not for me. As I've mentioned before, though, I can see how this could present a challenge; but, again, this points to a need to deal with policy as a policy, not as a personal preference. Thanks again for the input. :) RadioKirk 03:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just a signature for gods sake. It's not like he's changing people's comments, just their signatures. I can't see what the big deal is? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 11:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the big deal is that there's more html markup in the above dicussion than sensible commentary. I've a mind to refactor it into something readable. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It makes pages harder to edit and has no obvious benefits to the project. The more superflous crap/markup we have the greater the barrier to editing. It's also just plain vanity to be honest. Secretlondon 22:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an irrelevance. Tony is an admin, duly elected. That means that he can do what he likes to those below him. Unlike the President of the United States, Tony cannot be unelected. Wallie 13:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. He's an admin, but WP:NOT a democracy. He can't be unelected, but he can be "impeached" by the arbitration committee. Admins can't do whatever they like. Having said that, Tony is correct based on the overall principle behind his actions. If anyone has a specific issue with what Tony has been doing, please bring it to the attention of the arbitration committee instead of griping about "abusive admins" who can't be desysoped. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That really takes the biscuit. Best laugh I've had for years. The edicts are handed down from the Arbitration Committee are from Tony Sidaway are they not? Fair trial? (nope) Wallie 17:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That is really an unjust accusation. I am not an admin, but I have personally never seen Tony misuse his clerk privilege (if you can call that one). He makes it a point to recuse himself from every RfAr he gets involved in. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ease up. :) I have nothing against Tony... although I think he reverted one of my "pieces of genius" once - probably me on my pet project, Paris Hilton. The last comment is just my silly sense of humour. Wallie 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Who told you that? That's a total mischaracterisation of clerks' role in arbitration (unless Tony has some extracurricular activities I'm unaware of). When clerks write anything in the workshop, they do it in their capacity as normal editors. The arbitrators act independently in deciding what to include in their final decision, and at no step in the process of deliberation are clerks involved. We don't even have read access to the arbitrators' mailing list. Johnleemk | Talk 17:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think I've got the picture now. Thanks. Wallie 18:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Arbitration Committee announcements (of which I make quite a lot) they always contain a link to the Arbitration Committee's final decision in the case, and from that you can follow the paper trail to see which arbitrators took part and how they voted. Clerks play no art in this and, as a matter of fact, don't even redact or summarise the evidence often. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) Wallie 21:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've decided that in future I'll try to make it clear in clerk announcements that I'm a clerk, and that I take absolutely no part in making the decisions. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

mboverload's position

Responsibility. I could go paint my car bright pink with rubber spikes comming out the back, but I'm not a jackass so I don't. People should know when their signatures are just too damn long. But it's more than that, it's the complexity, how you can tell the writing apart from the signature.

[[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]]

Small, simple, and elegant. You are never confused about where the text stops and the signature begins. Major props to people who use this design.

[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]]

Add in a talk link and change the color of something so you can find your posts. Done, yay. Longer than I would like, but it's still somewhat simple and not hard on the eyes when you look at it when you're editing.

<tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">RadioKirk</span>]]</tt><tt>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</tt>

Note I couldn't use <pre> or it would brake the page When we get into having span classes in our signatures...come on. "OMG IS THIS AN INFOBOX?" Is what I think when I come across signatures like this.

Maybe Tony is being a hippie. It's like complaining that people are comming and mowing your lawn for free during the night, or a supermodel is taking advantage of you sexually. You COULD get them arrested, but why? ...Wow those examples suck. --mboverload@ 02:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

<<font="(whatever)"> is degraded code, it's really that simple—still, I've changed to use it in the first incidence (the one that's color only) because it saves eight characters (my sig is now 148). RadioKirk talk to me 04:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

<tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161">RadioKirk</span>]]

[[User talk:RadioKirk|<small style="color: #161;">talk to me</small>]]</tt>

It's 14% shorter. (Shame on you, RadioKirk, for using absolute font sizes!) æ² ✆ 2006-06-12t18:03z

I've redone it since, anyway. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive reversion

I reverted Cyde on moving the above sections to Tony's talk page, simply because there was a block issued, thus it sho}ld be noted for the record. Which of course dosen't impact drawing whatever correct lessons for the future from .. the above. El_C 03:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It would still be in the page history. I don't understand the point of keeping this discussion here when it's quite clear the administrator's noticeboard isn't supposed to be used for these purposes. --Cyde↔Weys 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The announcement that Tony was blocked clearly falls under the purpose of this page; you weren't selective enough with your move. El_C 16:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see it as important enough to be listed here. A one hour block, reverted within minutes? That's not a big deal. Tony Sidaway is always attracting controversy (for whatever reason) - and an ill-conceived block by someone he was in a dispute with, while wrong, isn't big news. --Cyde↔Weys 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the threat of blocking and the circumstances under which it was made are very much subjects for WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin protecting, then editing article

Admin KimvdLinde first protected Israeli apartheid (epithet) against further editing, then moved it to Israeli apartheid asserting "consensus." This move must be reversed forthwith and the action evaluated for admin abuse. Thank you. --Leifern 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I welcome the report here, as I would like to have a wider input on this topic. The extensive edit war stretching various pages related to the term apartheid has resulted in a series of AfD's, a protecting of three pages (Israeli apartheid, Apartheid (disambiguation) and Apartheid outside of South Africa) and much soapboxing. The word Apartheid itself is just a redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era. After I protected Israeli apartheid (epithet) as a result of edit and move warring, I have gotten involved as an informal mediator as there was a request for changes to that page at WP:RFPP (diff. After everybody had given their input, it was clear that there is a consensus to change the first sentence (all but one editor), and that there was a solid majority to change the page away from Israeli apartheid (epithet) to either Israeli apartheid or Israeli apartheid (phrase). A small majority was in favour of moving it to Israeli apartheid, and this is in line with existing policies and guidelines such as WP:DAB and WP:NPOV. If I in the role of informal mediator have done things wrong, I am perfectly fine to undo them without hesitation and to pass the mediation task to those that think I was wrong and I will wish them luck in resolving this conflict in a better way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the page move as a problem. There's a big dispute over the content of the Israeli apartheid article, one serious enough that the page is currently locked. But both WP:DAB and WP:NPOV indicate that a name change from Israeli apartheid (epithet) was appropriate. Suggest that all parties concentrate on more verifiability for statements in the article. --John Nagle 00:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The page move was done under the veil of following consensus. In reality there was a majority of users against the move. One could argue that the move follows WP:DAB and WP:NPOV but it certainly is not definitive. The fact that it was done under false pretenses is enough to make it innappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I urge the people to make their own count of the heads here: Talk:Israeli_apartheid#Page_move: 4 wanted to keep it where it is, 2 wanted it to (phrase), 2 would accept (phrase) as an compromise but preferred no qualifier, 3 wanted to no qualifier, one wanted to move to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Furthermore, 4 additional editors expresed that the title should be without qualifiers at Talk:Israeli_apartheid#Original_research. Furthermore, I asked the question at the vilage pump (policy) to get input and 3 addional editors expressed the same opinion again. That makes 15 editors for Israeli apartheid backed up by policies and guidelines, and 4 who wanted to keep it as is. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First, my count at the first of those pages indicated 7 or 8 against the unqualified title "Israeli apartheid" and 5 in favor. Second, with all respect, I believe the fact that the "poll" or "vote" or whatever, was taken in three different places, invalidates the result. Those who expressed their opinion in one place did not necessarily know there were discussions going on elsewhere and did not have the benefit of those discussions. Third, you set up a "vote" in a particular location and if someone wanted to comment, they probably should have commented there. So I don't see a valid majority here. And I'd also point out that this underlines, in perhaps a somewhat comical fashion, the pitfalls of the fragmentation of discussions that has taken place. I see that you tried to "centralize" the discussion in a particular place, but there is no guarantee that everyone who is interested in the subject will go to that location. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the whole effort is pointless. I am beginning to think that every article that has anything to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict should have a label that says something like "Wikipedia has determined that the group editing process is unable to produce a consensus article on this subject." At least, that is my determination, but it seems pretty clear. 6SJ7 01:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the latter, as there is so much political soapboxing going on, that going back to the basic policies and guidelines would be the first step in normalizing this stuff. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We might start with WP:RS and WP:NOR - the heart of this deeply unencyclopedic article is little more than a link farm to activist sites, cobbled together to advance an argument contra WP:NOR. That it survived AfD does not make it compliant with policy.Timothy Usher 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See my proposal here Talk:Israeli_apartheid#Title.2C_merge_and_mediation, which I based on policies and guidelines. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather, you based it on your interpretation of the guidelines. It clearly isn't as unambiguous as you present it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That entire afd was extremely suspect, nearly all of the "keep" votes were submitted by editors who have no history of editing either that article or even the wider subject area, also somewhat strangly, almost none of the editors have touched the article since. This coupled with the fact that the article's most vocal supporter has a history of spamming people through E-mail makes me really wonder about the whole process.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, this is intersting. Are you saying there was fraud ? Zeq 05:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, the fact is the only person found to be vote-stacking during the AFD in question was Zeq who was spamming people encouraging them to vote to delete the article and was banned for 72 hours as a result. Is it your argument that the number of "Delete" votes is exaggerated? If not, why not given that the only evidence of vote stacking is related to Zeq's attempt to get the article deleted? I sent you one email while I was banned for 24 hours for 3RR and that email had nothing to do with the AFD and I emailed a few ArbComm members about Zeq's conduct. Sending editors emails about matters other than the AFD is a) not "spamming" b) not evidence of anything to do with the AFD. The last time you raised this insinuation I asked you to email the AFD participants yourself and ask them - have you done this? If not, why not? It's easy to make insinuations when you are unwilling to actually inquire about the facts for fear of being proven wrong. Your insinuations are baseless and are borderline violations of "No personal attacks".Homey 16:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, here are some facts:

1) Zeq was found to be vote-stacking by contacting editors and encouraging them to vote "delete"

2) a number of the people who voted "delete" have not touched the article, before or since.

Are you suggesting that, given 1) and 2) the number of "delete" votes is suspiciously high and that the outcome of the AFD should be declared to be a consensus for "keep" rather than "no consensus"? Homey 16:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim is acting as a mediator and has been recognised by both sides as such, at least until now. It has been accepted practice on wikipedia for those acting as mediators to make adjustments to article based on consensus or wikipedia policy. Homey 06:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How to move forward?

Let me ask a question. What do we want:

1. Keep pages protected forever and have a never ending discussion without consensus?
2. Unprotect the pages and have a edit/revert/move war forever?
3. Apply first policies and guidelines, then add contributions of many editors?

I probably missed some options, feel free to add. I am really curious what people think is the way forward.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I also find the recent flareup disturbing. I don't have the answer, but m:Polls are evil, especially ending in no consensus. In this case, there was no consensus to retitle into Israeli_apartheid. The sensitivity of the subject should be considered as well.

There was no reason for Israel section to be separated into another article, especially offensively titled Israeli apartheid (surely to be included into Apartheid (disambiguation)). At this point, Israeli apartheid is being treated as if it's an encyclopedic topic, and Apartheid outside of South Africa#External links contains 17 links, all exclusively target Israel. Note that the topic is covered in Zionism and racism, Anti-Zionism, Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism, Post-Zionism, New anti-Semitism, Jewish state#Criticism Hafrada, etc. - not counting Israeli-occupied territories and more. Certain editors lose any sense of civility and proportion when it comes to Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to not have an answer yourself and critise others. I build a proposal at the talk page, maybe you would like to comment on that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You either didn't read beyond the first line or missed the point completely. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I take the first part back. If you read my proposal at the Israeli apartheid or in more detail here User:KimvdLinde/Apartheid, it is clear that we have roughly the same idea, coming from different angles. However, when mediating, I can propose, and than have to wait for people to comment, and I am curious what people think of it..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I am bewildered that you moved this page. In a contentious discussion covering many pages, it seems to me that the central and most contentious issues are whether this page should exist and, and if yes then how to name it. If people cannot agree on a title when the article is unprotected, changing it while the article is protected seems very inappropriate. Now that people have told you that there is no consensus, I cannot understand why you haven't yet moved it back.

To offer a response to your question about how to move forward, I was hoping for something along the lines of:

4. Keep pages protected until disputes have been resolved. Work towards resolving disputes by understanding the needs of each side and finding solutions that meet both Wikipedia policies and the needs of each side. Consensus will require that everyone involved in the discussion works in good faith towards consensus; this might require editors to leave the discussion. Su-laine.yeo 06:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus will require that everyone involved in the discussion works in good faith towards consensus; this might require editors to leave the discussion., that would be nice, but inpractical. Who is going to determine who should leave the discussion? And what if editors are not willing to find a consensus? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I just made a rephrasing of your observation that "mediation only works if people are willing to seek consensus" ([11]). If editors are not willing to find a consensus, then my understanding is that the pages will have to stay protected. I don't think they'll stay protected forever because eventually people either mellow or leave. Su-laine.yeo 06:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"In this case, there was no consensus to retitle into Israeli_apartheid."

Humus, there is a broad consensus against Israeli apartheid (epithet) which is what you unilaterally changed the title to without consensus just prior to protection. If you are a believer in consensus then you must concede that your unilateral name change was wrong and should have been reversed. Homey 06:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a lie: "there is a broad consensus against Israeli apartheid (epithet)". Learn the difference between majority and consensus. WP is not a democracy and not everything is done unanimously. Also, there is no reason to crosspost. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"This is a lie". Please watch your language. According to the straw vote there was a 2:1 consensus against "epithet". Homey 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am finding it annoying that there is almost an exact duplicate of this discussion happening simultaneously at Talk:Israeli apartheid. Homey, moving an unprotected page and moving a protected one require very different levels of consensus. It's explained quite clearly here: [12]. "Administrators must be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject." (emphasis added) Unless there is something incredibly offensive on the page, such as copyright violation, the consensus requirement seems to be clear. Su-laine.yeo 07:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy: Case of multiple 3RR/Sockpuppet/PA abuse

A recent Request for check user has determined that it is likely that DreamGuy and Victrix are the same person, and shows evidence that each identity has been used by the other to deliberately subvert the 3RR on multiple occasions. DreamGuy has a long prior history of being blocked for abusing the 3RR. --Centauri 02:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a curious observer of the situation who has experienced DreamGuy’s behaviour before, I feel that he has stepped up a gear in order to try and provoke another edit war/conflict intentionally. A quick look at his edit summaries will suggest this. However, this time he has been found out for used socks and he has used them to break the 3RR.

A few examples of this are when Dreamguy was in an edit war with Beelzebub and had made three reverts (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Victrix appeared and reverted reverted the article to Dreamguy's preferred version.

The same applies with Spring Heeled Jack, after Victrix got into an edit war and reverted for the third time revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), DreamGuy came and reverted reverted the article, to Victrix' version.

If you look at their contributions, both use the same aggressive edit summaries, both edit the same style of articles and both are guilty of being extremely uncivil, with edit summaries from DreamGuy such as “what kind of fucked up nonencyclopedic claptrap is that?”[13], similar edit summaries apply with Victrix. DreamGuy has been in trouble for being uncil and breaking 3RR before, however he has often escaped unpunished. Englishrose 09:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears DreamGuy hasn't used the DreamGuy account since May 31, meaning it's likely this behavior has stopped (unless another user has stepped in). Seeing that, I'm inclined to ask DreamGuy/Victrix to pick an account, and indef block the other one. Usually users are permitted to use sockpuppets, but DreamGuy/Victrix was using them maliciously, and I see no reason why both should remain unblocked. Ral315 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hey, I think you're getting ahead of yourself, Ral315. The scale of likelihood that the CheckUser admins use goes Confirmed-Likely-Possible-Inconclusive-Unrelated. In other words, "likely" is not "confirmed". I also can't find any Victrix instances of the type of language in edit summaries that Englishrose claims is typical of both accounts. Where are the examples of that? Bishonen | talk 18:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

Note that checkuser is an aid to determining sockpuppetry but it can be fooled and can also be wrong. Quoting Essjay, "Checkuser, as David Gerard says, is not magic wiki pixie dust, and is never the be-all-end-all of evidence; it's the similarity in edit pattern and interests that confirms sockpuppetry, checkuser just helps confirm or refute what is already known." Thatcher131 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I rather more agree with Ral315. Quite a while back I had my run-in with DreamGuy so I can't claim to be totally un-biased on the issue. However, I think the style of contributions from Victrix is very similar to what I saw from DreamGuy, that combined with the 'likely' checkuser result is very suspicious. I'm talking about edit summaries like this one, and in general the long summaries like this and this as pointed about before (many examples). See also the non-checkuser evidence present on the checkuser case page. Therefore I would fully support a block on one of these accounts. Petros471 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I too am not unbiased, as I was the recipient of multiple personal attacks and accusations of being a sockpuppet by DreamGuy several months ago, but I would point out that at right about the same time on May 31st, both Victrix and DreamGuy ceased posting for several days [14] [15], and the first action done upon Victrix' return, was the removal of the "odd tag placed there by some unknown vandal." I agree with Petros471 that there is a clear similarity in edit summaries between the two accounts, especially the style of removing warnings from their respective talk pages, in combination with an abusive edit summary which accuses the original poster of harassment. Most Wikipedia editors, in my experience, when faced with vandalism simply use a variation of "rv" or "rvv", without the harassment/vandalism commentary. --Elonka 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The evidence does certainly suggest that they are the same person. While many users can be sharp and rather bitchy sometimes (*hold up hand here*) the scale of edit warring and personal attacks by DG is deeply unpleasant to users. A glance at his edits suggests that the clear majority are concerned with edit warring, with abuse attached.[16] I've had my own experience of dealing with him: he posted a merge tag on some articles a long time ago, trying to merge any mention of a topic anywhere else into "his" article. Though not a single person has supported the merge, any removal of the ancient tag leads to chronic abuse. I thought I was the only one receiving it and ignored it, but he really goes overboard in his edit warring. It is bad enough putting up with one DreamGuy edit warring and abusing users. But two of them? Yuch. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

<unindenting>If DreamGuy and Victrix are socks, they've been used in violation of WP:3RR policy, and one of the accounts should probably be permablocked. Can we avoid the general piling-on regarding DreamGuy's character, though? His article edits are good ones; they improve the encyclopedia and maintain the integrity of articles which seem to attract every kook, crank, and POV-pusher on the internet. Yeah, he gets cranky. I would too if I tried to maintain a set of articles like that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cranky? Let's put things in perspective here - DreamGuy is downright abusive - consistently, at length and in the most repugnant manner possible. Many many other editors have been banned for a lot less than he's been allowed to get away with to date. WP:Civil doesn't just apply to some editors - it applies to all - and last time I checked, editing "difficult" articles didn't come with a free pass to abuse anyone with whom one happens to disagree. --Centauri 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that, Centauri, but don't provide much evidence regarding it. Open up an RFC and provide your evidence; don't drag people through the mud on AN/I with unsubstantiated allegations. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few people have opened up RFC's against him, have they not? [17][18]. There's no smoke without fire, there have been many complains about DreamGuy being abusive. I myself have encountered his abusive comments during DreamGuy'S tirade against anybody who voted keep on the aladin debate, which included Elonka who suffered much more personal attacks than me. So much so that they had to be refactored. As far as I'm concerned DreamGuy has not and will not change his ways. To be blunt, the only thing that saves him from being blocked is that certain admins seem to want to stick up for him no matter what he's done. Englishrose 15:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "Certain admins" are probaby just crazy to try to keep around someone who improves the encyclopedia even under constant attack from nutters, trolls, and harrassers. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware that making good edits to the encyclopedia meant that you could then ignore WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV. Can you look at my contributions and tell me if I can start being abusive with immunity yet? DreamGuy just about made me give up on the entire Wikipedia project because he was being so abusive and unsupportive of absolutely everything that I was doing when I was a newbie (and didn't know how to properly call attention to his behavior). EVula 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't refer to the likes of me and Elonka as nutters, trolls, and harrassers. You've got to admit, you do have a history of helping out DreamGuy. It's nearly always the same unimpartial admins (ie Android79 who is on wikibreak, Bunchofgrapes, Bishonen etc) who stick up for him. It amounts to bullying, it's like saying this is our gang and anyone who doesn't like us will be eliminated. As I said, DreamGuy has issued personal attacks to a number of users.I personally think some of the personal attacks DreamGuy makes are quite nutty but maybe you can't see that. Englishrose 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Victrix is continuing to remove the sockpuppet warnings from his/her userpage. Is there an admin that could please re-add them? Verification is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy, thanks. --Elonka 10:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The only "nutter, troll and harrasser" here is DreamGuy / Victrix. Methinks that "certain admins" definitely protesteth too much in leaping to his defense at every possible opportunity, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary - particularly as it was "certain admins" who suggested that I bring the matter here in the first place. The fact of the matter is that his edits are of little significance, contribute almost nothing to "improving" Wikipedia, and mostly appear designed to provoke edit wars. That constitutes the definition of serial trolling in most people's book. All of that aside, the purpose of this discussion is to determine what should be done to address the matter of his using sockpuppets to subvert the 3RR - a reality that has now been established to the satisfaction of all (except for "certain admins"). --Centauri 21:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you having trouble remembering my name, Centauri? Or is it just that an even-handed admin approach, such as my both advising you to take it to ANI, AND pointing out that "likely" is not "confirmed", is a complete mystery to you? Bishonen | talk 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

As far as I can see there are 3 admins who have consistently defended DreamGuy despite his abusive behaviour, so use of the collective term is accurate. What's a mystery to me is how you can continue to defend the indefensible despite a mountain of contrary evidence staring you in the face. --Centauri 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's quite a good point. The majority of DreamGuy's edits are reverts and these reverts do not follow consensus. He removes what he sees fit even if the majority of editors disagree with him. Englishrose 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn it, are people going to do something constructive, or is everyone who has ever disagreed with DreamGuy going to play to the bleachers non-stop? If you folks have an RFC complaint, then open the RFC. Otherwise, Bunchofgrapes and Bishonen are right: the proper thing is to say that a Checkuser request suggests that it is likely that DreamGuy and Victrix are the same person. We can take it from there on the sockpuppet front, and no one can take anything from the "he was mean to me" front except the people with the complaints. I've not seen Englishrose be thuggish before, but the same cannot be said of Elonka or Centauri, so their allegations aren't winning the day because...well...they just don't have a great deal of ethos for their complaints. That said, let's leave everyone's character alone. If someone wants to announce an RFC and invite input, cool. If folks want to report the Checkuser request, fine. No more, and no more mugging in absentia, please. Geogre 03:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been 2 days since I posted here, and it's clear from the level of discussion that the matter is of serious concern to quite a number of people, but neither of DreamGuy's identities have yet been blocked. When are you intending to do something constructive about that? --Centauri 06:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean that, having determined in your own mind that these are one person, you now feel that you should demand a block, in the absence of process? Wow. I see four people expressing concerns, and two are admins. You've made the matter public, so now you can either go on to process, like an RFC over actions, or not, but stamping your foot won't help anyone's nerves or your cause. Geogre 11:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no call to be flippant. Due process has been followed in bringing a matter of serious concern to wider attention. A serious problem has been identified and thus far nothing has been done to address it. Either deal with it or not, but don't insult those of us who've taken the time and energy to report the problem. --Centauri 13:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Centauri, stay clam and don't raise to the bait. RFC may be a good idea as it will allow you and other users to detail DreamGuy's continued actions more clearly. Englishrose 13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation

Could someone please have a look at Transcendental Meditation? An anon ip repeately removed large parts of the article without giving a proper reason for his action on the discussion page. He was at least reverted by three different persons (including me) and the situation becomes increasingly annoying. Thanks in advance -- mkrohn 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Range block, please?

I took a look at the history and the talkpage. The IP's 213.112.235.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 213.112.235.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 213.112.235.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are obviously the same person, and are equally obviously on Wiki for the sole purpose of pushing their POV about Transcendental Meditation by removing all criticism from the articles Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. This is a sadly familiar situation. It would be great if it could be rectified by blocking the range. Dare one hope that that is possible? The anon user may ultimately mean well — by telling the world The Truth as they see it — but the actions are still nothing but vandalism from the point of view of the encyclopedia (which is not a venue for negotiating Ultimate Truth). Meanwhile, I have semiprotected the article. Bishonen | talk 15:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

User:FairNBalanced blocked for a week

Block review

Just thought that this should be posted here. FairNBalanced (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been using his user page as an arena for flame-baiting by uploading hate filled inflammatory and unencyclopedic images and then posting them solely there. While going about my editing and discussion concerning topics of an Islamic nature I originally stumbled upon: Image:Islamist_hypocrisy.jpg on his user page. A short while later he uploaded: Image:Deadzarqawi.jpg with an editorial comment that said in effect "Zarqawi meets his 72 virgins.". He subsequently changed his user page to this. His last flame-bait was to upload Image:I_found_Allah.jpg an extremely vile and inflammatory image that equates God (specifically Allah) with a pig and that despite its obvious photoshopped nature he added to the image summary: "snapped in June 2006". Outside of his userpage he's been posting inflammatory statements and has frequently shown a lack of good faith relative to the topic of Islam. Due to these facts I fully support this 1 week block. Netscott 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Only a week? Seriously I question whether we want to allow Wikipedia to be edited at all by people who are obviously not here to write a neutral point of view encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 11:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question: why should a pig with the Arabic word for God be treated any differently than a goat with the English "God"? Of course I'm fully aware of why, but let's be upfront about it. If offense to Islamic sensitivities in particular is to be policy, let's write it into policy. Why be shy?

Otherwise, what we have here is 1) an abuse of userspace - that's nothing new - and I'm *100%* in favor of rigorously enforcing it, 2) the inclusion of knowingly false copyright information.Timothy Usher 11:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this goat image? If it's not encyclopedic in nature that it too should be summarily deleted. Netscott 11:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be deleted, but we're not discussing the deletion here - and as you know I am the one who nominated it for speedy deletion, with your assistance - but the block. I'm uncomfortable with the way everyone's lining up to be the first to not be biased against Islam - not that we should be - but there's something about this that strikes me as unseemly, and kind of fake.Timothy Usher 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, your commentary is puzzling. This isn't about being the "first to not be biased against Islam" but rather about making an encyclopedia and encouraging neutral point of view and discouraging signs of lack of good faith towards those ends no matter what shape or form relative to a given subject such acts should take. Speaking for myself I happen to strongly edit in the realm of topics on Islam and so it's natural that I should become aware of demonstrations of a lack of good faith on both sides related to that. Perhaps my only difference from other editors is that I actually do something about this. Netscott 12:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy has brought up a legitimate point: why FairNBalanced was singled out for punishment, while other editors blatantly abusing their userspace are left alone? I also want to know why this happens. Pecher ^Talk 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Faisal attempt a neutral point of view? Does BhaiSaab? Does Amibidhrohi? Does JuanMuslim (username, hello?) Does Striver? Does Raphael1? Does Farhansher? Does Autoshade? Does Mystic? These are just a few of the editors we see around these articles who don't bother with the faintest pretense of neutrality, and my understanding has been that we're required to accept it as an alternative point of view. It's pretty silly to make allowances for Middle Eastern religious fanaticism while not tolerating the juvenalia of western right-wing discourse. Were there a policy that editors had to be reasonable, or be hauled before ANI, someone should have let me know, as it'd have saved me and several more scholarly editors than myself (most notably Pecher, the single most valuable contributor to this space by a longshot) a whole lot of trouble.Timothy Usher 12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a policy that Wikipedia editors have to be reasonable. To state otherwise is to introduce a straw man. If these other editors are abusing Wikipedia, file a report here. --Tony Sidaway 12:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well stated Tony Sidaway as I was about to make that point myself. To say that all of the others that Timothy Usher has listed were demonstrating a lack of good faith is very much a straw man arguement. Also regarding the part about "be hauled before ANI", you may not be aware of it Timothy Usher, but it is common policy here that when an admin gives this kind of block to someone their block is posted here for review by fellow admins. Since that's pretty standard stuff it seemed logical to me that User:FairNBalanced's block should undergo such review as well which is why I posted it here. Netscott 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of good faith, Netscott, but of approaching subjects neutrally. Faisal (for starters) comes on talk pages and blathers on about his love for the "Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)" (see recent discussions on Talk:Muhammad) - can we really believe he intends to treat the topic of Muhammad neutrally? And he's hardly alone in this. Tony is saying that this is a valid topic for the noticeboard, of which I wasn't aware.Timothy Usher 12:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, please quit while you're ahead. Without excusing Faisal's (or anyone else's for that matter) demonstrations of lack of neutrality your comparing that to someone like User:FairNBalanced's uploading of an image (and falsely labeling its copyright status) of a gray-black pig scrawled with Allah written in Arabic across its body thereby labeling it as Allah (note the file name) is preposterous and borderline asinine. Netscott 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, your incivility is not appreciated. As I'm the one who tagged this image for speedy delete, to associate my comments with the image is itself a straw man.Timothy Usher 13:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks on me. I [know how much neutral you are yourself Timothy]. So please stop it. --- Faisal 13:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If they are bad faith editors who came to proselytize or evangelize, they'll be blocked like User:Jason Gastrich soon enough. If you really feel this to be the case, please pull some demonstrative diffs and file a RFC. Until then, though, all they're demonstrating is enthusiasm, and that's something the project can always use. The pig image isn't remotely comparable. It's contemptible hate speech, nothing more or less, and we don't have to put up with that crap here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, how am I abusing my userspace? BhaiSaab ^talk 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I am the person who blocked FairNBalanced for a week. I don't have any knowledge of this person at all, and was alerted to it by User:Crzrussian. I deleted the picture on sight and then blocked him for one week, as I quickly glanced at the contribs list and saw from first glance that he was contributing seriously - for the most part, there was no obvious vandalism and so I only blocked for 1 week and said that I was fine if someone else amended this based on their previous experience and FairNBalanced' behaviour. If he has a long history of bad behaviour, by all means remove my block and reinstate a harsher block.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

FairNBalanced has posted an {{unblock}} template on his page, giving this reason why he should be unblocked. I have reviewed and rejected the request, giving this reason. Bishonen | talk 13:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

I have removed FairNBalanced [self-awarded barnstar here. IMHO this is misleading - please let me know if you disagree with my reasoning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's enitrely inappropriate to edit other people's userpages even if you disagree with their content. Self-awarding a barnstar may be a sign of vanity, but there is still no justification for removing it. Pecher ^Talk 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for an indefinite block on FairNBalanced

• FairNBalanced (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Having taken a closer look at this editor's provocative edits to his user page, I'm going to recommend an indefinite block. As Bishonen points out on his talk page, he had also placed this item on his user page, in which he showed Ivan Frederick, a US Army Military Police Staff Sergeant, sitting on a bound prisoner and described it thus:

Terrorist receiving Thai Massage from American soldier

This technique is known to relax the erector spinae muscles in the mid back. The side to side motion (not evident in this still photo) is purported to pacify the mind and calm the soul. This extra service is offered to prisoners who have not slept well due to the extra-firm mattresses in their cells. It should be noted that this terrorist did not leave a tip-- this is considered to be bad etiquette for a nice massage.

Sergeant Frederick has been imprisoned for eight years as a result of his torture, abuse and sexual indecency against muslim prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

There comes a point at which an editor's conduct is so beyond the pale that the community cannot accept that he is using Wikipedia for honest purposes. I think the kind of behavior described here, in two separate instances, is ample evidence that FairNBalanced's purpose in editing Wikipedia is malevolent. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I must admit to mixed feelings about the idea of a permanent ban. Users who are blatantly trying to flame-bait Wikipedia tend to be sources for serious disruption that impede what we're here to do which is build a great free encyclopedia. There is no doubt that User:FairNBalanced's user page edits are blatant examples of flame-baiting and there is no doubt that he's made inflammatory statements on talk pages but there is also no doubt that he appears to have made positive contributions to the project. One thing that is a bit odd in User:FairNBalanced's edit history is the creation of an appearingly anti-User:FairNBalanced sockpuppet (I'm assuming it's a sock) named Fair_AND_Balanced (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). This sockpuppet seems to be created for equally harsh flame-baiting but in an opposite sense. Is this sockpuppet to be used as a tool towards disruptive ends or is it some sort of a black humor device to counterbalance his own user page? I'm not sure but if it is meant for opposing flame-baiting then I think that it's safe to assume that a permanent block is in order. Based upon others' view of these new details I'll make a final comment in support of a permanent block or not. Netscott 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Addedum: I noticed that there were several comments on his talk page referring to sockpuppetry (prior to it's "archival".. wherever this archive is, it's missing). It might be worth it to check if there's been utilization of sockpuppets towards disruptive ends. Netscott 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FairNBalanced is quite new user, and has made some obviously positive and good faith contributions, including uploading some high quality photos. It's clear that he has made some mistakes on his userspace, but he has already made it clear that he will not repeat these errors and will blank his userpage from now on: User_talk:FairNBalanced#Unblock_request_reviewed_and_denied. In my opinion an indefinite ban would be much too harsh, especially considering that he is indeed a new user, and that he promise not to repeat the early errors that he has made. -- Karl Meier 20:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fair. He is pretty new and perhaps didn't realise that hate speech is wholly inappropriate to Wikipedia. I am inclined to cut him some slack on this, abhorrent though his recent actions have been. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. This user has made a number of good-quality contributions that have made him something of a lightning rod for people opposed to his contributions on a political basis. I suspect that the "fair_and_balanced" new ID is not a sockpuppet but rather another editor angry at this editor. It doesn't seem especially fair to hold that user ID against thim, in the absence of any evidence that I can see.--Mantanmoreland 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong support for an indefinite block. The content and style of his first entries suggest he's not a new user, just a user using a new ID. The exceptionally corrosive nature of his edits and commentary makes an indefinite block appropriate. His Excellency... 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Be advised that User:His excellency is the new username of User:Amibidhrohi, who has amassed an impressive block log for 3RR, personal attacks, harrassment, disruption and incivility.Timothy Usher 23:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if User:Essjay is in a position to do any WP:RFCU check user verification but there has been a question or two about User:FairNBalanced being a sockpuppet. If there's sockpuppetry afoot particularly if it's disruptive in nature, then an indef. ban is in order. If not then I'd tend to agree that the original 1 week block should suffice. Netscott 23:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive users operating under new usernames should be indefinitely banned.Timothy Usher 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A checkuser would only be apropriate if there's a plausible accusation related to a named second user. Since this editor, FairNBalanced, has engaged in serious disruption (the two instances of hate speech), a checkuser could then be used. I don't know, myself, of any such plausible accusation. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken but from my own personal involvement with utilizing their services I've gathered the impression that the RFCU folks can essentially determine under which names/IP addresses a given user has likely edited. I imagine that such utilization of check user isn't standard but when we're discussing permanently blocking an editor I don't think such a check is unreasonable. Netscott 23:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP ranges can be seen but as far as I'm aware checkuser is not to be used for fishing expeditions. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, shy of any such proof of additional disruptiveness through sockpuppetry, I'm in accord with fellow Wikipedians in not supporting an indefinite ban... obviously should new evidence come to light, my view would change. Netscott 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure an IP check could determine if this user is the same as fair_AND_balanced or specific other suspected sockpuppet IDs. I agree that sockpuppets cross the line. However, in the pages that I have personally witnessed his editing, I have seen no evidence of sockpuppets. --Mantanmoreland 00:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Original blocker - well I am getting a reputation as somewhat of zero-tolerance admin against personal attacks, so given the evidence of previous blocks, an extension would be OK. Also, I note that User:Striver had the same picture of the US soldier with similarly inflammatory commentary.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Compare FairNBalanced's block log with Striver's.Timothy Usher 02:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I think I about it, the more I think this reason is not a very good one. The judgment that it is disgusting rests upon an acceptance of two assertions: first, the the arabic word for God is sacred in a way that the English word is not . Second, that the pig is a uniquely unclean animal, such that for any word written upon it, its meaning is besmirched. I grant you that it might be characterized as "flame-baiting", in that it's known that partisans of a certain ideology find this juxtaposition offensive. Perhaps flame-baiting of religious ideologues is disgusting. If so, let's establish it as policy: no statements, lexical or visual, which might be interpreted as offensive to or intended to provoke editors with religious belief. Comfortable with this? (Cyde Weys, are you listening?) I'm not.

Otherwise, what can be the issue? I agree that, by the most natural reading, the image was intended to either challenge or make light of Islamic thought and prejudice, but why is this any worse that doing the same with Christian thought and prejudice? It seems that Islam is being treated as a race or gender here, something towards which one may has no moral right to arrive at any judgement except advocacy. That is not the way the unique sensitivities of other religions have been treated on wikipedia. Religions are not just backgrounds but also ideologies.

I accept that the proclamations of disapproval, including my own, were made in good faith, but in retrospect have come to believe that these were wrongly decided. My thesis is that pigs are not obscene, and the Arabic word for God is not sacred, nor is their juxtaposition in any way offensive, except to whatever degree that we've adopted and accepted - thoughtlessly, reflexively, defensively, politically, fearfully or otherwise - a religious point of view. This is the very same sort of dispute which has occured at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy, similarly Piss Christ, where one group finds something intolerably outrageous, where those outside this group find it perhaps objectionable, but within the pale of acceptable dialogue. Wikipedia:Wikiethics, one clause of which was clearly designed to prohibit the cartoons (hence its resurection by Raphael1), was rejected. Why are we proceeding as if it's policy?Timothy Usher 09:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• In defense of hate-speech are we now Timothy Usher? Rememer, Wikipedia is NOT a forum for unregulated free speech. Netscott 10:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. For what it is worth, I became aware of FairNBalanced from edits on article Bob_Newman. A read through the article history and Talk page shows several things. The article was created in two days, 1 to 2 October 2005, with massive cut and paste (including COPYVIO material later removed by others during cleanup) as a collaboration between Aj4runner and 67.102.198.2, an IP for Covad Communications in San Jose, CA, US. Aj4runner did a few of minor edits later in same month and was silent until May 2006 when they added a thanks to FairNBalanced for restoring the article after an edit war. Aj4runnerhas done nothing since adding that remark which is suspicious. User:67.102.198.2 was only used for the building of the article. I believe it to be a sock puppet of Aj4runner. I do not know if they both are sock puppets of FairNBalanced.

The article, which read like it was written by the subject (unsourced and not NPOV in my opinion), was tagged for cleanup in November 2005 and this cleanup continued into February 2006. By that time, the article was stable and looked concise and NPOV (at least to me - I don't have any personal interest in the subject of the article) for about a month. It had minor tweaking and even was vandalized and reverted until the edit war started on 7 April 2006. The talk page exchanges heated up at this time as well. User 71.198.141.63, was a major player and this IP address is an IP used by FairNBalanced as shown here on Karl Meier's talk page. (Karl was departing Wikipedia but came back. If that was for FairNBalanced, then Karl is commendable.)

On 15 April 2006, FairNBalanced re-grew the article, with a series of edits to nearly the original size, but without the COPYVIO material mentioned above. A series of reverts took place that ended with the article large, not sourced and not NPOV (again, my opinion) on 20 April 2006. Discussion on the talk page stopped at this point on the same day. This was the end of the edit war. FairNBalanced made some readability cleanups on 24 April 2006 and in May 2006 did clarify the copyright status of the photos that were in the article at the time. These are both commendable. However, readability was used as a reason to remove the source and pov tags left at the end of the edit war.

On 29 April 2006, after the talk page had been silent for over a week, FairNBalanced went back in and replied to one of the cleanup editors with comments about POV and citing sources which I find both ironic and baiting. It did get a heated response from one of the cleanup editors. I call this baiting because the next day, 172.166.237.185 an AOL IP address, came in with a sympathetic encouragement for the editor to leave. This IP has not posted anything else. Thanks for your time. --EarthPerson 06:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:EarthPerson has supposedly just now joined wikipedia, which in light of the jargon and formatting used in the preceding post, seems most unlikely..Timothy Usher 09:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All EarthPerson's contributions have been related to Bob Newman, one way or another. Pecher ^Talk 09:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ibrahimfaisal userpage

Speaking of user pages...User:Ibrahimfaisal...it's every bit as much in violation of WP:USER as the last report. Frankly, I think the one provokes the other, in both directions. My feeling is, don't ask, don't tell. All editors ought be brought into compliance. Tony Sidaway is the best example here - he doesn't even have a userpage.Timothy Usher 12:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really true. I actually have lots of userspace pages, but they're all subpages of the user page, which for convenience points to my hybrid user/talk page at User talk:Tony Sidaway. There is a navigation bar at the top that makes it easy to access the subpages. --Tony Sidaway 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I will remove myself from wikipedia if it cannot give me freedom to have such a simple userpage. However, here I want to talk about Dhimmi article only. You can start another section about my user-page. --- Faisal 12:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at the user page User:Ibrahimfaisal and I have to say I think it's really well written. It expresses his islam-inspired approach to a number of issues in a way that commands respect, without straying into proselytism. It expresses some disquiet (which I think most of us share) at the lamentable state of the religion-related articles on Wikipedia, specifically those about Islam. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'm flummoxed. That's totally absurd. Weren't you just saying that we want editors who will treat subjects neutrally? Also, see WP:USER. To wit: "What can I not have on my user page? Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia...Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia."

Timothy, if there were a double standard in the treatment of religions on Wikipedia, it would work to the advantage of the disfavored religion; readers would see us bending over backwards to accomodate one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we do, Tom. Editors which show up and blather on about Jesus saves, accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior etc. are immediately dismissed as spammers, trolls or vandals, even by editors who personally wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.Timothy Usher 14:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So, are you saying we are not bending over backwards? Pecher ^Talk 14:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. To the extent that we are going out of our way to avoid offending some sensibilities but not others, the reader sees that and reads more skeptically to accomodate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the evidence that the readers are reading more skeptically? And why should they; are you really arguing that NPOV has become a joke? People come to Wikipedia anticipating a factual and neutral account; 99% of readers don't even look at talk pages, and they have no idea of what's actually going on here. We must be fair to all editors regardless of religion, otherwise Wikipedia will indeed become a soapbox or, rather, a pulpit. Pecher ^Talk 15:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I read more skeptically when I sense political correctness. I hope others do as well, but I guess it is only hope. I agree that we should continue to work toward a presentation that neither favors nor disfavors any religion. I agree that we should not bend over backwards to show respect to one religion while telling followers of another to lighten up. It looks to me like we still have a ways to go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The guideline you cite emphasizes that "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." I don't know anything about Faisal's edits, and if they're non-neutral that is a quite separate matter. The user page, however, is a very respectful and Wikipedian one, emphasizing the tolerance and high moral values that he atttributes to his religion. That is a very good use of a user page. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, I think you need some diffs then. The talk page contributions are essentially continuations of the user page. I never met Jason Gastrich, but it sounds like the same idea. At this point, I've little choice but to post here, but it'll have to be tomorrow.

However, I'm still very confused about how you can take such offense at Chooser's statements, but not this. Are you under the mistaken impression that Islam promotes abortion? Guess again. In any case, neither can be squared with "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia...Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia." I'll say this until I'm blue in the face: the enforcement of established policy is the key to all of these conflicts. It doesn't matter if it's "well-written", or interesting, or in some vague and subjective way "wikipedian" The only thing that matters here is if it has to do with Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, one question: you say "I'm still very confused about how you can take such offense at Chooser's statements, but not this". My question: what makes you think any of this is about anyone taking offense at anything? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony's edit, " Let's wipe this crap off the face of Wikipedia"[19] is a little less than civil, and suggests that he'd taken offense (if not, how much less justified the summary!) I'd be fine with it were it consistent, but since then I've seen a defense of transexual advocacy and now a defense of user page Islamism...go figure.Timothy Usher 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest offense to me, it suggests that he was appalled that someone was using Wikipedia for hosting a fundraising link. Is User:Ibrahimfaisal hosting a fundraising link? I don't see anything like that on his page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus, Chooserr has removed the editorial statment, "MAKE ABORTION HISTORY" along with the link. If the former is allowed, someone ought let him know, so that he can restore it toute suite, as I'm sure he'd be inclined to do.Timothy Usher 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this policy prohibit FairNBalanced's post? Well, yes obviously. That's my point. Just get rid of it all. No userspace preaching, proselytism, polemic, extraneous userboxes, nothing. If it's not about wikipedia, take it elsewhere. That's the solution.Timothy Usher 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This report is sooner superfluous and unmerited. The justification for it based upon a false analogy comparison to User:FairNBalanced's previous user page. Netscott 14:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, Tony, may I ask you to read Talk:Islam_and_anti-Semitism#Why_does_this_article_exist.3F and especially Ibrahimfaisal's last comment? Pecher ^Talk 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[copied from Talk:islam and anti-Semitism ]

It's not my view, but that of Ibn Hisham/Ibn Ishaq and the Hadith. All the data comes from devout admirers of Muhammad, who considered his actions and those of his companions - the cold-blooded execution of Jewish POWs, the taking of female Jewish captives as slaves and wives, the sale of Jewish children into slavery, the confiscation of Jewish property and the imposition of serfdom upon its former owners, the murder of Jewish poets, etc. - right, just and glorious.Timothy Usher 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case then every Muslim should do what you have said above. I idealize Muhammad (PBUH), and after having above information I will also follow Muhammad (PBUH) Sunnah. Thank you for the information. --- Faisal 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[end of copied section]

Instead of reading what Pecher has pasted above read it completely at THIS . Then you can understand my above comments. --- Faisal 14:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tony; I don't see anything wrong with this user's userpage. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the copied comments above: "Sunnah" means "way"; Ibrahimfaisal is declaring his intention to follow Muhammad's example. Pecher ^Talk 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Indeed I will try to follow each and every thing that Muhammd(PBUH) sunnah offers me and yes I love him. But I do NOT believe that Muhammad (PBUH) has done those things. That is why there was an IF in the beginning of the sentence. Those comments was sacarcitic to what Timothy had said about my Great prophet, Muhammad (PBUH) is blessing to the whole world. Pecher please do something better than this. --- Faisal 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is what now passes for a neutral approach to Wikipedia?Timothy Usher 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody love something. A person without love is a nothing. You might have love for your country. I do NOT love Pakistan (my country). I love my religion and hence that means I am not acceptable in wikipedia. I do not want to hide my love, why should I hide it? Is it a crime? Oh, I become non-neutral when I say I love Muhammad (PBUH) and Timothy after having above comments (against Muhammad(PBUH)) remain neutral? --- Faisal 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, my comments were first and foremost about Muhammad, a real historical figure, not against him. They are based wholly on the most reliable Islamic sources, Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham, etc. - this idea that we're supposed to compromise between verifiable sources and the sentiments of editors to the talk page is an ongoing misconstrual of policy.Timothy Usher 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, there are many people/authors who have great things to say about Muhammad (PBUH). It is your choice to select some sources and reject others. You have strong feeling against Muhammad (PBUH) as you have expressed above and me in favor of Muhammad (PBUH). However, I think we both could still be neutral. I have to go now. I hope till tomorrow you will be successful in banning me. Good luck. --- Faisal 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What are we going to do with the editor who first says "I'm going to kill the Jews just like Muhammad did", and when pressed, switches to the reverse gear by saying "take it easy, folks, I was just kidding"? Are we going to tolerate that? Pecher ^Talk 17:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that Faisal's statement was sarcastic. As expressed eloquently on his user page: "I am not biased towards any nation, race, and religion; I try to judge people on individual bases. I assume good faith towards each new person I meet because my religion teaches me that; I will never want to abuse anyone because my religion teaches me that." --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Netscott. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal's userpage is perfectly within our guidelines. We don't expect editors to be unbiased, but we do expect them to try to avoid allowing their judgement to be clouded by their personal opinions. I don't know about Faisal's behaviour, but his userpage is perfectly acceptable. Johnleemk | Talk 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policy - which we've apparently all agreed to totally ignore is "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia." Opinions on Islam, or of any religious or sociopolitical doctrine, are, according to the most straightforward understanding, "unrelated to Wikipedia." I'm still waiting for someone to address this very particular point of policy. If it's not actionable, then let's remove it from WP:USER.

As for behavior, we can discuss this after I've posted with diffs.Timothy Usher 10:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised at Pecher's and TimothyUsher's recent edits here. There seems to be a certain amount of scrabbling for discrediting evidence going on that is most disquieting. On Faisal's part he makes a routine complaint about a content tagging dispute, but does so without incivility. Pecher describes that as "whining about being on the losing side in a content dispute" and TimothyUsher makes an off-the-wall attack on Faisal's user page. This is not a good way to interact with other editors. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you've clearly no idea what we've been dealing with, and one reason is we haven't provided diffs. It's not an issue of "scrabbling for discrediting evidence", but rather one of processing a mountain of it. If this could wait until tomorrow, that'd be great.Timothy Usher 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

guys, as long as we allow expression of personal bias, including religious bent, on userpages, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with Faisal's page. If we disallow expression of religious affiliation, we should do away with userpages altogether. I have no idea what this is doing on WP:AN/I. Is it an "incident" that Faisal on his userpage says he tries to be a good Muslim? I don't see how this is polemical at all. dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to see how people who pillory Muslim editors for expressing their beliefs (remember the shit Joturner had to put up with on his first RFA?) feel about all the users - including admins - who express their Christian beliefs on their user pages. Gastrich was a nut, which is a different matter. Faisal's conduct on the article in question is irrelevant when discussing his user page. His page is fine. Proto||type 11:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've answered below, but let me say it again: it should all be removed, as per the userpage policy.Timothy Usher 11:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"as long as we allow expression of personal bias, including religious bent, on userpages" - for starters, we shouldn't, it violates WP:USER as it's written. WP:USER should either be rewritten, or enforced.

• How does one enforce a guideline like WP:USER? Last I checked the only things truly enforceable were policies. Am I wrong? Netscott 11:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated below, let's treat WP:USER as seriously as we treat other guidelines such as WP:RS.Timothy Usher

Second, I'm not sure who created this section. It wasn't me, as the history will show, and I'm rather upset that my comments have been resectioned to create the impression that I'd meant to file a report against this user for his userpage.

I'd only brought up Faisal's userpage as related to the block of FairNBalanced, then someone else sectioned it off. My point was that the real issue comes down to WP:USER. Either editorial statments on matters unrelated to WP are allowed, or they are not. If there is some nuance here, it's not adequately expressed in policy. For example, write, it's okay to express support for a religion, but not to express opposition. That would be clear enough. I don't think it wikilawyering to ask that written policy bear at least some resemblance to enforcement. If WP:USER is considered unactionable, then I really can't see the basis of FNB's block, particularly in light of the fact that the image was speedy deleted (by me). We can't say, controversial statments are okay, and then block people for making them. Conversely, if controversial statements are not okay, we're kidding ourselves to pretend that promotion of religion - any religion - is not inherently controversial.

I once again refer to the text of the userpage policy, which prohibits "personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia." Are we just going to proceed as if this text means nothing? For the record, once again, I advocate the aggressive removal of all such statements from all userpages as per policy. It would spare us a lot of controversy, such as the perennial userbox nonsense, go a long way towards busting cabals or the appearance of cabals (both of which are harmful), and in cases of instransigence, purge editors who are here for the wrong reasons, as per, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Allowing userpages to be soapboxes sends precisely the wrong message.Timothy Usher 11:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• User:Timothy Usher please do proper research when trying to argue your points. WP:USER is not policy. It is a guideline, there is a rather significant difference. Netscott 11:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

this should be discussed on WP:VP/P, not here. There is lots of WP-unrelated stuff on userpages ("this user drinks beer"??). WP:USER is a guideline attempting to describe what is acceptable and what is not. As all guidelines, and indeed policies, it should be applied with common sense. Invoke it when people begin being disruptive on their userpages. I don't see how it is disruptive when people say "I love my wife and try to be a good Christian/Muslim" on their pages. If you think it is, try debating it in policy fora, not on "Incidents". dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

DAB, once again, it was never my intention of reporting this on incidents, and the history will show that I didn't. The original point of contention was that another user had been blocked for editorial statements in userspace, and I'd mentioned this userpage as a counterexample. That's all. What you call "disruptive" is highly interpretive: to a feminist, "I support Sharia" might be considered offensive. To a Palestinian, "I love zionism" might be considered offensive. I'm not saying there are no common-sense rules we can apply here, but frankly, writing the arabic word for "God" on a pig is not offensive to many people, and the choice of whose offense to mind is at best a concession to real-world fears of extra-legal threats - in which case let's say so - and at worst, arbitrary. Besides the copyright violation, which is a real issue, I still fail to see how or that FNB's editorial statement lies outside the policy as it's being represented here.Timothy Usher 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, now you are contradicting yourself. We can see that if you truly believed this last statement you yourself would not have submitted the pig image for speedy deletion. Also you wouldn't have removed the pig image yourself (prior to speedy deletion) nor would you have removed the "Anus Gigantus Assholicus" user box from User:FairNBalanced's user page as it appeared at the time. What gives? Netscott 12:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pecher was the individual who sectioned off this talk by the way. Netscott 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I removed these images not only because I found them inappropriate to Wikipedia, but also to protect this naive user from being involuntarily recruited as your whipping post. My goal was not only to protect others from offense, but also to protect him from controversy, because I saw him as a good-faith, potentially valuable contributor, in spite of several missteps. My position on userspace is 1) the policy should beno unrelated material whatsoever, including Allah Pig, I love Islam, I follow Pope Benedict, Make Abortion History, etc. 2) whatever the policy is, it should be explicit and consistent. I'm very sorry if/that you interpret this as hypocrisy.Timothy Usher 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, your mischaracterization of my motives (ie: "whipping post"?) are unfounded as I have previously explained to you on your talk page, I previously counciled User:FairNBalanced to refrain from inflammatory editing that sooner demonstrated a lack of good faith. In response to my last council, he put up the pig image, really stabbing the sword in to the hilt in demonstrating a lack of good faith. Let me remind you that I have been similiarly involved in examples similar to this one relative to both Muslim and non-Muslim editors. Again, you keep referring to policy, there is no policy there are only guidelines. Are you in fact expressing your position on userspace relative to those guidelines? Netscott 13:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As it seems we're wikilawyering, how about this: let's treat WP:USER as seriously as we treat other guidelines such as WP:RS?Timothy Usher 13:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I suppose it's logical that guidelines related to actual content might be taken a bit more seriously when the content is what the project is composed of. Hello? Netscott 13:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that FairNBalanced is being treated too harshly, and I am pleased that (apparently) an indefinite block is not in the picture. However, I don't think User:Ibrahimfaisal's userpage presents a comparable situation. It is obviously non-neutral. But is there anything in that page that offends people? Maybe I'm missing something.

My question is this: Are there users with photos just as offensive as the one FairNBalanced posted who are being left alone? To be fair, such offenders should be dealt with.--Mantanmoreland 01:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality was raised by Tony Sidaway when, in his very first comment regarding the FairNBalanced block was, "Seriously I question whether we want to allow Wikipedia to be edited at all by people who are obviously not here to write a neutral point of view encyclopedia."[20]. It's unclear how his approach to this section can be reconciled with that statement.Timothy Usher 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, and I agree the general principle needs to be applied uniformly. Also the user's statement that he will leave Wikipedia if not allowed to express these views on his user page is not encouraging. However, I think there are more egregious examples. User:Ramallite comes to mind, and I am sure there are a lot worse.--Mantanmoreland 01:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dabljuh

Dabljuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a extremely disruptive user that has a interesting take on our content policies. He speaks freely of destroying them, and acording to his block log, has been blocked numerous times for edit warring over policy pages and for engaging in conistant personal attacks. This note can be viewed with more clarity by reading his talkpage.

Proceeding the most recent slew of personal attacks, he has been blocked by PinchasC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [21]

This has been a non stop process of arguing policy, edit wars and disruptive behavior. I'm not paticularly concerned with the sensibility of his policy arguments as its edvident they will bear no changes on the policy pages. This is acceptable. However wikipedia does not condone personal attacks.

As of this post, Dabljuh has decended to the usage of sockkery to circumvent the block with User:80.218.7.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Comments..? -Zero^Talk 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User also has 217.162.112.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet as well. I've notified both the puppeteer and the puppets. -Zero^Talk 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Removed comment by blocked user)

IP's involved include

217.162.112.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

217.162.112.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

80.218.7.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

84.73.116.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

80.218.7.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

217.162.112.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I have blocked them and extended the block for Dabljuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to 1 week. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Further evasions of this block will result in longer blocks. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(troll comment and personal attack removed)

• This is unacceptable disruption and block evasion. I have extended Dabljuh's block to a month, and any further evasion of the block for the purpose of disruption should reset or extend that block. --W.marsh 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Any comments made on pages other than the respective user talk are to be reverted. This user's difficult demeanor has persuaded me he's an obvious troll with the sole intent of disruption. -Zero^Talk 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(removed troll comment)

By the way, if he will promise to stop evading blocks, that would be a start and I would reduce his block back to a week (he knows how to contact me on IRC, and I can be e-mailed). But further disruption after that week would still warrant blocks. --W.marsh 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have warned him about block evasion. I believe he uses rotating IPs, similar to ROHA who aggressively edits Adolf Hitler, Bob Dylan and Pizza Hut. --Sunholm(talk) 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone know how to deal with ROHA?? --Sunholm(talk) 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Blocked user comment removed)

Fair enough. Dabljuh, I strongly encourage you to comply with your block and stop evading it with comments like that one. --InShaneee 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Comments by blocked user removed.) JDoorjam Talk 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You know well that using sockpuppets or editing while not logged in is prohibited and will cause further bans and extensions of them. You also know quite well that your constant efforts to change wikipedia policies against consensus do not have support (even though you try and redefine 'consensus' and 'support' frequently). Endorse continued ban; user is well warned. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorse as well. Matthew is spot on. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure: Jayjg is not a neutral, disinterested party in this matter. He is on the opposite side of an ongoing content debate on circumcision and should therefore recuse himself from this matter. The same applies, of course, to Nandesula. Al 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm not involved in any content dispute with Dabljuh on the Circumcision article. Please try to remain factual. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I also endorse a continued block, for anyone keeping score at home. JDoorjam Talk 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to a ban at this point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A partial defense of Dabljuh

I think this entire affair has been unfortunate for everyone involved. I'm not an administrator and haven't had much involvement with Dabljuh outside the confines of Talk:Circumcision, so I'm new to this discussion. Within that talk page, I had already become aware that he was an iconoclast, very outspoken, and as he has described himself above on this page, a "smartass". However, there are a couple points I think should be made. Some editors seem to be of the opinion that Dabljuh cannot be reasoned with and that he should therefore be ignored as incorrigible. I was a bit bothered by this, since I prefer to believe people can always be reasoned with. All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes and understand their frame of reference and their initial premises.

For instance, User:Politician818 began his Wikipedia use as a typical POV-pushing MPOV editor, convinced there was a liberal conspiracy preventing the "truth" from being told about such right-wing luminaries as Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. I believe he got blocked a time or two in there. By extending Politician818 courtesy and sticking up for him on the occasions that he's been correct, I seem to have gotten him to calm down and edit in a more constructive manner. At least he isn't railing about cabals and revert warring as often as he used to. Maybe I'm assuming too much credit for this, but from what I can see, the turning point was about when I talked with him.

With this recent experience in mind, I visited Dabljuh's user page, read up on his interests, and read his Politics subpage, which for some reason which escapes me has now been deleted, despite containing nothing offensive that I could see. So rather than applying a label to him or calling him a name, I posted a polite and careful critique of one of the proposals on his Politics page. What did this incorrigible "troll", who some feel cannot be reasoned with, do in return? He replied with equal civility and thoughtfulness, and conceded the point and abandoned the proposal due in part to the objections I raised.

This does not appear to be the act of a megalomaniacal "troll" who cannot be reasoned with. This is the act of a person who certainly is not obeying Wikipedia policy at this moment, but I feel can be reasoned with. Anyone who's capable of listening to a critique of their ideas and politely responding, recognizing the flaws in their ideas, and conceding a point, can be reasoned with. To me this indicates that Dabljuh should not be driven away from Wikipedia, but instead encouraged to do better. I believe the reason Dabljuh listened to me was because I did not base my comments on a presumption that he is unreasonable. People respond well to being treated with respect; this is the entire point of being civil.

Furthermore, it appears that some of his comments on other topics, such as his vocal opposition to the NOR policy, are being responded to in a way colored by the respondants' opinions of Dabljuh the person. This is not appropriate. I do not agree with Dabljuh's critique of NOR but I will listen to what he has to say about it. Refusing to acknowledge someone's arguments because you feel they're a jerk is called the ad hominem fallacy. Every argument should be dealt with on the face of its own merits. The history of the person making that argument does not enter into the equation unless givens are proposed, in which case trust becomes an issue.

I'm certainly not defending Dabljuh's attempts to evade his block, but if a comment was removed, make sure it's removed for the reason stated. I'm sure there are aspects of this I haven't considered, and there are probably policy violations he's committed which I'm ignorant of. These considerations do not alter my main contention, which is that Dabljuh responds better to engaged debate than he does to being ignored or punished. Thank you for your time. Kasreyn 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the original block of Dabljuh lacked any basis and I can very well understand that he feels treated unfair. I suggest both sides apologize and use their time for something more fruitful. Socafan 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add my support here. Dab is outspoken and blunt, but he is quite capable of reason when treated reasonably. He is also entirely impatient with blocks that appear to have no basis whatsoever, which is understandable. Of course, he shouldn't be evading the block but I'm not clear why he was blocked in the first place. I realize he speaks out against popular policies, but since when has that ever been justification for a ban? I would think we should want editors to be active and controversial, rather than suppressing all dissent.

My take on Dab is that he's the sort who acts out only when provoked by unreasonable behavior. The solution, then, is not further unreasonable behavior but simply letting him speak. If you remove the block that shouldn't have been set in the first place, there will be nothing to evade, hence nothing to punish him further for. Al 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, evading blocks to disrupt is not acceptable, period. But if he'll promise not to do that, I'll remove my block. So far, he hasn't contacted me. --W.marsh 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think he will even look at his page after being blocked for a whole month with an original reason of absolutely nothing? Please email him. Socafan 03:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be a case of Ignore all the Rules. The initial block might have been a mistake. It sure seems not only ineffective but counter-effective. Its creating a bigger problem than we started with. If the goal is not submission, obedience but to get him to behave in accordance with the system and rules then we sometimes must be creative and use the right kind of tools to reinforce good behavior. Sometimes sticking to strict punsihments for rebelling, resulting in more rebellings, resulting in greater blocks, just spins negative cycle that only adds to the distruption. I say first the admin who did the block apologize and say he was sorry, he blocking was the wrong solution in this case and ask Dab to forgive him and that if he will be nice so will all the admins. Be extra nice and see if he will be nice in return. Use kindness as a tool. The carrot, not the stick. This approach will probalby work much better with Dab. If it fails, then too bad, back to the classic model. But, this is a good case to experiment given the personalities and the issues.Giovanni33 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of leaning toward an indef block against Dabljuh for disruption. I am shocked that you are suggesting that I should appologize for blocking a user who makes personal attacks after having a history of being blocked for personal attacks. If he cannot deal with a block for making personal attacks he should have not made them to begin with. He has outused the carrots a long time ago. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am, shocked that you refuse to apologize for blocking someone without any basis. There was no personal attack in the originally contested statement, and four users already told you so. All you do is to repeat yourself, unsupported with any argument. I find that offensive. Socafan 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not clear we have exhausted the carrot approach. Dab didn't see his comment as a personal attack and therefore we should assume good faith that didn't intend any such thing. Lets not hold his history against him, lets focus on the incident itself. I think a polite warning should have been tried first before the block, which is excessive. This is, in my view, part of the problem and is feeding a negative cycle. Oppression breeds resistence. He is just rebelling against what he pereceives to be an injustice. This is not wrong. We should back down and start over on a more correct footing. Otherwise we turn a good editor into a real distruptive bad one--even if he was never perfect to begin with. We should not be doing that just for egos. We can admit we are wrong and start over and make Wikipedia happy as that should be our real goal.Giovanni33 04:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it trouble you that he could make such a comment and fail to see that it is inappropriate? It's not as though he's naive. He's basically said in an RfC on his behaviour that he knows he's incivil and he doesn't care. It's an attitute that is readily seen in his evasion of this block: "my opinion is more important than Wikipedia policy and other editors".

The question is: does Wikipedia care? Do we just tolerate gross incivility, or do we declare that it's unacceptable? Jakew 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PinchasC, I and several editors do not view Dabljuh's comment as a personal attack. Please explain exactly which words or phrases in Dabljuh's comment you consider to be a personal attack. -- DanBlackham 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's debatable as to whether it's a personal attack or simply extremely incivil, but why don't you try wandering into a synagogue and saying "hey, I hear you guys don't want to hear about why your stupid practices should be outlawed"? (That's paraphrased from the comment which I originally reported.) You might want to wrap up warm, because I expect that the air temperature will fall a few degrees. Why? Because it is incredibly insensitive, disrespectful and downright rude. Jakew 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a complete distortion of his statement. His statement was a reasonable and thoughtful explanation of why he thinks people may feel offended if the state of their genitals is described in a derogatory way. He used vulgar language, but in no way offensive neither to anyone personal nor to any group. I find your distortion of what he wrote very incivil. Socafan 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And if I said pork was delicious, should I be banned for anti-semitism? There will always be topics that certain people are unreasonably sensitive about, but that's no reason to walk on eggshells or to ban people who refuse to. The whole point of Dabljuh's post was to warn a newcomer about how unreasonably sensitive the pro-circ group is, and it's clear that he was correct. Unfortunately, there is still no basis for the original block. Al 19:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing anti-semitic about saying that pork is delicious. Your opinion on the flavour of pork cannot in any way affect other people. Try to find a better example.

As for 'warning people about how unreasonably sensitive' people are, that is itself incivil. You do not, in a civilised discussion about editing an encyclopaedia, 'warn' people about other editors. As a minimum, it's divisive, and - as here - it unfairly misrepresents the editors and the situation. Furthermore, by giving such examples that would clearly violate NPOV, and dismissing objections as bias, it encourages the assumption of bad faith. Jakew 19:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's simply false. It is entirely civil and reasonable to warn people about a pattern of blocks caused by the oversensitivity of others. In a perfect world, there'd be nothing to warn about. Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. Al 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is policy, as is WP:POINT. Dabljuh's blocking was justified on either grounds, and his subsequent block evasion, and insistence that he would only stop evading his block if he was unblocked, only stengthened that. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

COuld you please elaborate on why his statement in any way violated the policies you cited? Vulgar language alone is no reason for a block. Socafan 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Complaints to ISPS

I've just noticed an unblock with the unblock text "AOL proxy; it is against guideline and policy to tell people to "complain to their ISP.", which is in response to a block "repeated vandalism from this AOL IP range, sorry, complain to your ISP)". The block was rather broad ranged (a /24) and for 3 hours which seems a little excessive for the collateral damage for AOL, but the aside the idea that it is against policy or guidelines to get users to raise issue with their ISP seems to be a nonsense. The block message actually suggests those impacted by the block can contact there ISP. Any views on this, should we be avoiding telling people to complain to their ISPs/Schools/Whoever? --pgk^(talk) 20:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have nothing to do with the block/unblock, but there's a separate section at Wikipedia:Advice_to_AOL_users and its advice includes no reference to contacting one's ISP, which in the case of AOL would be completely useless. Ken Arromdee 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I too have nothing to do with the block/unblock itself, just noticed it in the logs. As to if it's absolutely useless, you might be right on the other hand I'm sure a number of AOLs customers complaining will have more effect than the occasional wikipedia admin. --pgk^(talk) 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It was me who did the unblock and the nastygram. A primer for those who haven't heard this before: AOL proxies roll, and the user doesn't know which or when the IP rolls. It occurs, with AOL itself, with every page load. Thus, if you see 24.XXX.XXX.XX vandalizing, and you block it, that troll will never see the block. He or she will go on to a new IP involuntarily. Instead, some innocent person will roll into that IP and find himself blocked. I don't use AOL. Instead, because it's $10/month instead of $25, I use Netscape ISP. Netscape is owned by AOL, and so I get routed through the AOL pool. This means that I can write a full article, have references and everything, and then click to "save" and see that I'm blocked because someone decided he'd had enough of AOL and blocked the whole damn ISP and its hundreds of users. Great. I fully sympathize with the frustration of trying to combat AOL vandals. If you have an IP that resolves to AOL, block it for :15. That's about the longest that an AOL user will be at a particular IP. If you catch him just right, you'll mess up the vandal without slapping the innocent. For my part, I'll try to be more polite in my unblock messages if people are more polite and less contemptuous in their blocks of a whole ISP. Geogre 03:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that if your ISP does something unusual that makes it harder for the rest of the Internet to stop abuse from that ISP ... then you should expect to be blocked randomly once in a while. I'm not saying that the random blocking is good or that you deserved it for using an AOL-owned ISP. But as a technically aware Internet user, you should be cognizant of the fact that your ISP putting you on a random proxy makes it much harder for sites such as Wikipedia to block abusers on your ISP without blocking you too.

Your ISP is making it effectively impossible to block some but not all of its users. It is doing so by creating a proxy setup that is entirely idiosyncratic -- to my knowledge, very few (if any) other Internet sites do what AOL is doing. I see that you recognize that some of your fellow AOL-proxy users do abuse Wikipedia, and as a Wikipedian I assume you want to stop that abuse. But please understand that AOL is willfully making the job of Wikipedia administrators -- and other Internet abuse fighters -- needlessly difficult. Please lay the blame for that difficulty at AOL's feet and not those of Wikipedia admins. (And no, I'm not an admin.) --FOo 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can say that it's idiosyncracy, if you wish, and I am a Wikipedia admin (which is why I could unblock), but it is, as I've said, our guideline/policy not to block an ISP, to block AOL only for :15 at a time. Yes, AOL does something funky to its users and its clients, but AOL is far, far, far too large to say, "Tough! You Losers need to lump it." This is not an ongoing debate, but established. We all agree that what AOL does makes things virtually impossible, and some of the AOL vandals seem to know it and exploit it, but there's nothing we can do about it as things stand now. Geogre 11:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We really need to get blocking fixed so that IP blocking doesn't block logged-in users, if only because this AOL issue causes trouble regularly. --John Nagle 04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen, brother. This has been a pita since 2003, at least. I say this as a person who can't program a calculator, much less Wiki software, but getting the autoblocker fixed would be a great goodness. Geogre 11:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed? It isn't broken. AOL is the problem here. AOL is the only entity can solve this issue. /me adds to his list of reasons why AOL is a poorly ran busness. ---J.S (t|c) 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

When Geogre says "there's nothing we can do about it", it sounds to me as if he is saying, "We can't block AOL, so we have to let vandals vandalize, at least once every 15 minutes." I disagree. If a persistent vandal is operating from AOL, and AOL makes it effectively impossible to target a block narrowly at that vandal alone, then blocking AOL entirely, for as long as is necessary, is certainly an option.

The party that needs to change their ways in order to solve this problem isn't Wikipedia; it's AOL. It would be entirely reasonable to present a special page to users blocked under this circumstance, something that said, perhaps: "We're sorry, but your ISP's proxy setup is preventing us from distinguishing you from some jerk who's trying to replace all the adjectives on George W. Bush with "poopy penis". As a result, you won't be able to edit Wikipedia articles from this address for 23 minutes. If your ISP got a clue, or the vandal went away, this wouldn't happen." --FOo 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking AOL for more than :15 is against our guidelines. If you want to deny Wikipedia the edits of the five or six administrators who use AOL proxies, plus the 15-30 regular editors who do, simply because you don't like AOL, then you may not have the correct disposition for holding the block button. Yes, we do have to put up with the vandalism. No, we can't block an entire ISP...ANY ISP...because a vandal is operating from it. Blocking an entire ISP is done only after serious discussion and proof that, like Sodom and Gamorrah, not a single just man is left there. But, because you don't like AOL's business practices, you think that it should be an exception? That we wouldn't block SBC because it has vandals, but we will block AOL because you can't nail down the specific vandal? All I can say is that I profoundly disagree and suggest that you re-think your position. We can wheel war, of course, but there's absolutely no profit in that for anybody. Geogre 02:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:RevolverOcelotX --138.130.126.104 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)deleting and modifying talk comments at will

This user has been involved in an edit war over at 2008 Summer Olympics, which is now full-protected, and has carried over his warring into the talk page, where he is attempting to modify and delete my comments at will. First he moved all of my individual responses to a separate area. When I reverted this, he reverted me, then proceeded to unindent something I was quoting, revert me again, claiming that I'm "not allowed to insert comments between other's comments", and finally, DELETED my message pertaining to this from the talk page.

In the meantime, he sent over yet another template my way, threatening to get me blocked for 3RR. Can someone step in? 72.65.68.229 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't delete any of your comments on the talk page. I only moved them because you place your comments in between other users's comments. 72.65.68.229 have broken the 3RR on the talk page of 2008 Summer Olympics. --RevolverOcelotX 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Where did you move the comment at the bottom of this? The page history? That is vandalism. Your comments pertain to guidelines, not policy; stop trying to force in non-issues to provoke edit warring. 72.65.68.229 22:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, there's no difference between guidelines and policy except that policy is completely set in stone and takes an act of god to edit - guidelines aren't quite so fussy, but no less enforceable. Shell ^babelfish 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it true to state that I am "not allowed" to reply directly to certain comments, in the very specific context of how the talk page was laid out? 72.65.68.229 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved your comments to the bottom of section chronologically because you retroactively inserted them in between other user's comment which decreases readability and confuses the reader. But you keep reverting your comments back to in between other user's comments and in the process, you broke the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.65.68.229, it is true that you're not allowed to start edit wars or edit the talk page as if you "own" the talk page. Doing so is highly disruptive, leads to misattribution, and confuses the other editors. It is also true that you're not allowed to break the 3RR, which you have clearly done so here. --RevolverOcelotX 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, yea, don't insert comments in the middle of another user's comments in general. Just respond below it. Makes it a lot easier to read and understand. And if you seriously are going to complain about indentation or moving comments to another place, it will probably be ignored. Get over it. Frankly, there's no point to block over 3RR on such a pointless issue either. Just don't do it again. Edit wars are bad no matter where they are. Sasquatch t|c 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sasquatch, you misunderstand. I was not parsing anyone's comments. Look at the diffs. My comments were in between two comments, not within a comment. He is trying to say that if someone has posted a message below an existing comment, that I can not put a reply to the first comment at anywhere but the very bottom. 72.65.68.229 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, User:72.65.68.229 clearly placed his comments in between my comments and another user's comments to try to make it appear that he "refuted" them. That is against the talk page guidelines because it is disruptive. User:72.65.68.229 should have placed his comments at the end of the section so it would have been easier to read and respond to, but he keeps reverting back to the disruptive version, and broke the 3RR. User:72.65.68.229's edit wars are highly disruptive and he clearly broke the 3RR and should be blocked as such. --RevolverOcelotX 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't - he replied underneath each separate post, as is normal. see below.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Then take it to WP:AN3. JDoorjam Talk 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I already did reported User:72.65.68.229 at WP:AN3. But it seems the administrators still haven't blocked User:72.65.68.229 yet. --RevolverOcelotX 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There were a series of different comments lined up in a row, which were separated by signatures. It appears that User:72.65.68.229 has replied to a whole series, indenting to indicate that he was replying to each question individually. There is not instance where he butted into a person's comment at all. It is more convenient to have the reply indented below the post to which it replies, rather than having them at the bottom in chronological order, as RevolverOcelotX did by moving them. The positioning of the comments was not against the guidelines. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.65.68.229 has replyed in between each comment making it difficult to respond to and difficult for other editors to follow. It would be more convenient if User:72.65.68.229 replyed at the end of the section so its easier to respond to and easier to read. Its more appropriate to respond at the end of the section instead of retroactively in the middle of existing comments per talk page guidelines. It would also appear that User:72.65.68.229 has broken the 3RR while reverting. --RevolverOcelotX 03:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is customary to respond under the individual comment you are responding to, indenting to keep it organized. Revolver, as Blnguyen has pointed out the anon has done nothing wrong with his style of comments, and furthermore, I refer you to WP:BITE-M^ask 06:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon for 3RR (3h), without paying attention to the value or otherwise of the edits. If anyone feels that this is wrong, do please review and correct if necessary William M. Connolley 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure User:72.65.68.229 is not a "newcomer" here. He has been revert warring for a while on this and other articles with various other IP ranges. User:72.65.68.229's revert warring is highly disruptive to the article and other editors have complained about this. User:72.65.68.229 keeps insisting on reverting and will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. I feel a block is appropriate for 3RR.--RevolverOcelotX 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.65.68.229 and User:151.205.36.69 appears to be the IP addesss of TJive and YINever. Here he admitted it. [22] --138.130.126.104 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that User:72.65.68.229 and User:151.205.36.69 does appear to be the IP addresses of User:TJive and User:YINever. They both have the same disruptive editing patterns and a WHOIS shows they are from Reston, VA. Perhaps another check user might be in order for suspected sock: User:72.65.68.229, User:151.205.36.69, 141.153.90.177, User:TJive, User:YINever. --RevolverOcelotX 02:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User Ransom E. Olds has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Ransom E. Olds has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 05:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Valid block, offensive page moves. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tag team blocking happened, damn, I wish we could bot the pagemoves -- Tawker 05:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone would object to a bot that reverted the moves and tagged the resulting redirect for deletion. I sure wouldn't. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This could be a sockpuppet of User:Terrence V. Powderly who performed similar page moves awhile back. [23] Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:IronDuke

Continues to remove Talk page comments from Mike Hawash and removes warnings from his personal Talk page. He does not respect the contributions of anonymous editors and constantly accuses them of being "socks" (without any proof). -- 88.149.150.47 07:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if anyone has any questions on this feel free to ask me or Jayjg, who is taking care of it. IronDuke 16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Any admin, please answer this: what is the justification, given the edits involved, in Jayg's protections of this page (and others)? IronDuke claims "socks", but provides no proof. Please say what is improper with the edits. -- BlindVenetian 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should talk about sockpuppets considering this is your first edit. Newbies don't tend to find WP:ANI straight away and then jump right into talking about admin actions. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be a newbie. I've edited for a long time anonymously. I created an account because Jayg and IronDuke seem to have decided that anon's have no rights. I am simply asking whether any of the edits on the pages that have been protected have been out of order. I think they are edits completely within the range of normal on Wikipedia, and I am being targeted because of a desire to be anon. -- 88.149.148.0 20:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

plagiarism in the article on Caligula

I reported the information on the discussion page and I ask that the page on Caligula be removed until it all the material that was stolen is removed. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.46.225 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. This isn't just a question of one page, we have a serial plagiarist. Here are just a few examples of her or his handiwork: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] The edit summary "added to entire page" seems to be a favorite for this type of edit. I've reverted the above and done some work on restoring useful contributions since then but more is needed. Please help. See Talk:Caligula for some more information. Haukur 13:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Has the plagiarist been warned and/or blocked, or is it an AOL IP? Serial plagiarists are a serious problem. Geogre 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User EM MD continues to blank section after admin warning

User ER MD continues to blank out the "criticism" section in the American conservatism article even after we had an admin step in and restore the section and recommend better consensus editing. I and others have appealed to ER MD on both his talk page and the article's talk page to join the discussion. He does so only long enough to insult our intelligence, condescend, pseudoflame, and then he blanks the section anyway. I've tried discussing things with him but he generally declines to respond to any logic thrust of my discussion and continues to re-state that the criticism section is POV, we're all dunces for not seeing it his way, and then he blanks the section. It's become frustrating enough that I'm prepared to abandon work on this article entirely. Bjsiders 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is continuing to happen. The issue at question is that there is a "Criticism" section in the American conservatism article. A number of editors, both liberal and conservative, have been trying to craft a fair and accurate description of these criticisms. One user, User:ER MD, doesn't want it in there, and after an admin stepped in and said, "it's valid, keep it," he continues to blank it out anyway, or modify it so that instead of being a list of things that critics of conservatism actually believe and say, it's a list of things to laud and recommend conservatism ideology. ER MD's defense is couched in semantics (philosophy vs policy, etc). I've run out of patience with this article and have stopped working on it. I've never run into a more belligerant and uncooperative editor on Wikipedia. There will be no satisfying this guy until the criticism section contains no criticism. Bjsiders 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi protect?

This closed AfD keeps getting vandalized. Is it possible to get a semi on it? Yanksox 13:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, not to be overly beaurocratic, but the place for this is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --W.marsh 13:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, complete mistake on my part. Yanksox 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Request history deletion at Avery Johnson

Hello. There have recently been some abusive edit history comments left at Avery Johnson. Could an administrator please remove the edit history from Boogly (talk • contribs) and Texican25 (talk • contribs)? If this is not the appropriate place to request this action, please direct me to a more proper channel. Cheers, Lbbzman 14:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Their edits have already been deleted from the article (though their edits looked to be simple vandalism). --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The edits themselves weren't the issue, it was the edit summary comments. Glad someone removed them. Thanks again, Lbbzman 15:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oh, sorry. Yeah, I deleted them. It appeared from two of the edit summaries that they were brothers who were taking turns smack-talking in Wikipedia edit summaries. Clearly not the most efficient smack-talk vehicle... ah well. Anyway, they're gone now and both accounts were blocked as vandalism/disruption-only accounts. JDoorjam Talk 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

{{PAGENAME}}

is there anyway to make this swap " " for "_", as it is right now, very hard to work into templates, for reference, see template:AOLdos--205.188.116.65 16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just so you all know, there's a rather bad AOL DOS attack going on right now, a little autoblock clearing would be appreciated--172.164.37.84 16:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A space and an underscore are interchangeable. Wikimedia software automatically makes the substitution from space to underscore. Not sure this is the right place for this question tho:) Maybe the village pump or the helpdesk. ---J.S (t|c) 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, it doesn't, which is a problem, suppose you're trying to link to

check your socks at [http://www.checkformadeup/socks/{{PAGENAME}} sockcheck], thank you

works just fine, unless the {{PAGENAME}} contains a space, then it becomes a template-breaking-mess, and can only be fixed by manually changing the space to a _--205.188.116.65 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for the question, this doesn't require people with administrator access. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Use {{PAGENAMEE}} with an extra E, this is the URL friendly version. Martin 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--205.188.116.65 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Casey and dew

Links provided by the article's creator, User:ForeverYoung2, indicates that "Dew" is 13 years old, or at least was 13 in 2005. See the links at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey and dew. According the nashvillescene link, Casey is an adult, "living" with Dew. This seems like we want to question having an article about the "adventures" of a pederast and the 13-year-old boy he is having sex with. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, and as I'll note at the AfD, the only relevant question is whether the pair (or the Internet site on which they describe/depict their adventures) are notable; even as I'm not offended by much of anything, there are surely articles here, as we've well discussed, the subjects of which many readers find distasteful. To be sure, an article about an individual who has sex with a 13-year-old boy (see, for example, the numerous teachers at Category:Statutory rapists) is different from an article about the exploits themselves, but if the exploits, as disseminated on the Internet, are notable (per WP:WEB, for example), the article ought to stay. In any case, since there is no legal issue and since I don't imagine that anyone will invoke WP:OFFICE with respect to the article, I don't know that there's any issue here that requires admin intervention, although I imagine that Zoe probably brought the AfD to AN/I in order that respected editors might weigh in on a quasi-contentious issue, and that's probably fine. Joe 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, lets make Wikipedia like Perverted Justice or something. Lapinmies 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume Zoe's reason for raising it here is that there have been a number of cases recently where users were using Wikipedia talk pages to arrange assignations with minors. My presumption is she's asking whether this article raises similar issues. My advice would be: run it by Wikimedia's lawyers, just to be on the safe side. Nandesuka 20:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm wondering whether an article about the exploits of a grown man and his teenaged lover are something we want to retain. As well as whether it meets notability concerns. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I suppose I'm suggesting that the former concern isn't one I share (or that I think to be encyclopedic); it should be said, though, that, even with the inability of WP:NOT EVIL and Wikipedia:Wikiethics to command a consensus, there does seem to be a trend (see, e.g., in various discussions apropos of WP:OFFICE) toward users' opposing our having articles such as this on grounds other than WP:NN, and so I think, even as the question is easy for me to answer, it's one that the community likely wants asked. Joe 03:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Israel shamir - anti-semitism and personal attacks

User:Israel shamir, who may or may not be the same person as the subject of the Israel Shamir biographical article has been in an edit war concerning that article.

He has made the following comment on his personal Talk page:

"Don't you think here you guys prove there is a Jewish conspiracy? Or three Jews against one Christian is rather a pogrom? Israel shamir 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)"[29]

In my opinion, making a doubly offensive anti-Semitic slur such as this should result in an immediate block - preferably indefinite. Homey 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the person for 24 hours (revert warring, incivility) pending further discussion here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If he is not the person of the article, the name should be block for inproper username. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC) After reading his comments, I am pretty sure it is himself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He basically seems to accuse anyone who removes the pov passages from the article of being Jews. I am really not sure that Shamir is even notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and especially not such a long one.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he's notable enough to have an article. I have no reason to believe User:Israel shamir is not Israel Shamir (though, to be frank, there's some debate on whether Israel Shamir is Israel Shamir), I just have no proof that the user and the subject of the article are the same person and don't want to make an assumption either way.

My problem is with this user's anti-Semitic slurs both in asserting a "Jewish conpiracy" and in inverting the historical fact of anti-Jewish pogroms by accusing Jews of launching a pogrom against him, a Christian. He's crossed the line from incivility into base racism and should be blocked indefinitely. Homey 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Accepting Shamir's "philosemite" slurs against editors would be much the same as putting up with a contributor calling opponents "niggerlovers". Also the user has steadily ignored, as far as I can see, the exhortations on his talkpage to say whether he's really Shamir or not, and to either a) stop adding OR and opinions to the article if he is, or to b) change his username if he's not. As for notability, I doubt that he's remotely wellknown even in Sweden where he lives. I'm Swedish and take an interest in these matters, and I haven't heard of him. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

There's no excuse either way. If User:Israel Shamir really is Israel Shamir, he shouldn't be editing the article on himself per WP:VANITY. If he isn't Israel Shamir, his username is inappropriate and should be indefinitely blocked. Either way, there is no way such a username should ever be editing that article. Kasreyn 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. His comments are clearly stupid and offensive, but how is that grounds for an indefinite block? Al 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine saying to some noxious troll, "The community has found you to be stupid and offensive. You have been blocked in perpetuity." Let's do more of that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging from his contributions, the editor in question (username issues aside) has already demonstarated sheer contempt for the rules of conduct on Wikipedia, clear unwillingness to improve the quality of Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia, and inability to work cooperatively with other editors. I think there is a consensus that Wikipedia will be better off without him. Pecher ^Talk 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree woth an indef block at this time. He just has been blocked for the very first time, and to jump immediatly to indef, no go with me, because he could get the point. It is clear that just warning is not going to help, but I will assume good faith and recommend that we see if he improves. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose in good conscience I have to agree that this first block should not be indefinite. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's ignoring the username issue. Jkelly 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there is an username issue, and that it is indeed himself. Dealing with the person in question at the page about the person in question requires some more tact, because that person on one hand does know MUCH more about himself (Duh!), but also is more likely to want to skew the page in favour of himself. However, just reverting does not help out, as I just found that some links he updated are actually the new versions, and the old links do not go anywhere anymore. I have left some tips at his page, and I hope the other editors will deal with it in a concious way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. There is a significant username issue, no matter whether he really is Israel Shamir or not. I quote from Wikipedia:Username:

Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following:

Confusing, misleading, or troublesome usernames:

...

Names of well-known living people

Wikipedia:Username is an official policy and it states clearly that usernames must not be the names of well-known living people. The username is not acceptable, regardless of whether it is genuinely him. As far as I can tell, if a famous person wants to edit Wikipedia, they must do so under a pseudonym. Kasreyn 04:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Humm, I always have seen those rules as for using a name that it is not your own name, and I personally do not see anything wrong with having your own name. Otherwise, we should block Jimbo for using a well known name. That does not make sense as far as I can tell. I also recall older discussion in which the question was whether the person of the name was really that famous person, because in that case, it would not be an issue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The single quote Homey gives seriously understates the problem. A visit to User talk:Israel shamir shows this to be not an isolated remark, but an ongoing mode of discourse. It appears he's not bothered to appear on the talk page of the article itself, instead content to repeatedly revert. Finally, his edits are not just unsourced and stridently POV, but also objectively disruptive, as they insert references to the Jewish editors he's attacked into the article itself:

“He (and this article) is an object of a concentrated attack by many identity-concealing Wikipedia-based philosemites.”[30]

Israel Shamir is a writer and journalist who demands full equality of Jew and goy, everywhere from Palestine to New York. Such demand is considered antisemitic by Jews who are used to privilege. That is why Jewish critics and other philosemites created a Black legend around Shamir positively demonising him. The main source for the black legend is the string of ADL- related Jewish publications from Expo in Sweden to Searchlight in England. Here in the Wiki, where the Jewish presence is as great as anywhere, you can find a lot of sick stuff about Shamir.”[31]

Simply outrageous. I see no reason to believe that he will ever contribute positively to wikipedia.Timothy Usher 04:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also direct readers to WP:ANI#Proposal for an indefinite block on FairNBalanced, where a one-week block has already been applied for uploading the photograph of a pig wih the word "God" written upon it into his userspace, which is called hate speech. Meanwhile one who openly and relentlessly attacks other editors and Jews generally, even inserting these attacks into mainspace, with no visible good-faith contributions whatsoever, is being given the generous benefit of a non-existent doubt. Appalling.Timothy Usher 04:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 ours pending discussion here. I have no problem if another admin extends the block, or when there is clear consensus that it should be extended, I would do it myself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there reputable and reliable sources that even mention this guy? I tend to think that someone that would spend this much time acting crazy and editing his own article on an online encyclopedia is probably not notable enough for an article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem with viewing non-vandalism edits as vandalism?

Yeah, basically what the header says. If someone calls my edits vandalism, is there anything that can be done, or does one of us have to break 3RR? --SPUI (T - C) 19:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Take it up (in a friendly manner of course) on a talk page. --emc! ╬ ^{(t a l k)} 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of late for that :P Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop#JohnnyBGood and PHenry persist in misrepresenting SPUI's moves as vandalism --SPUI (T - C) 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why have you brought this here? This really should be confined to the Arbcom at this point. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Davis21Wylie (talk · contribs)

User complained of being blocked the other day with an odd message "Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Jayjg for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Alberuni Your IP address is 68.219.174.107" His account hasn't been blocked since the 26th of February and the IP address had been unblocked twice on June 11th and 12th because of collateral damage. Davis21Wylie reports that he still cannot edit and is getting that same odd message. Can someone else eyeball this and see what's up? Shell ^babelfish 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• blocks have been going slightly wonky, block the username and ip for 1 minute to flush any wonky blocks lurking around Benon 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  Tawker has run the blocks through for me Benon 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Ehren Watada

Basically I told User:Panzertank1 that the purpose of an article's page is to discuss the article, and that it's not a soapbox or a blog. He either did not understand or did not care.

I don't know if it warrants attention, but just in case it does, I'm bringing it to the admins' attention. Some of the stuff said is basically personal attacks in a passive aggressive manner. I don't know if the comments should be deleted, but I'll leave the admins to decide what, if anything at all, needs to be done. Hong Qi Gong 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't answer Panzer's comments and remove them after a few days after he has forgotten them, now it is turning into a fight. Lapinmies 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to divert his comments and not engage him. Hong Qi Gong 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I left User:Panzertank1 a message and will be patrolling Talk:Ehren Watada. JDoorjam Talk 21:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible inappropriate username

69ersforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Made some edits of vandalism with a possibly inappropriate username. Yanksox 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked by me. Jkelly 02:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a little extreme? I can't see anything wrong with the user name at all, and an indefinite block for what, 6 bad edits seems overly harsh. I would have blocked him for a few hours at most. Exploding Boy 00:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a play on the SF 49ers football team. So what if the number is 69? If you find that perverted, it's in your own mind. 69 is a number you know. Haizum 08:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, it may not have anything to do with the 49ers or sex (although both are good guesses). If you google '69ers', there are oodles of hits including this one, a motorcycle gang [sorry, club]. I agree that on the sex front it's a pretty weak criticism, but isn't there a rule about alluding to proper names?--Anchoress 08:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user still reverting articles as an Anon IP

User:Leyasu, blocked earlier today by Tony Sidaway, continues to edit articles as IP User:86.132.135.23 . Anger22 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jidan

A CheckUser revealed User:Jidan has been editing through open proxies. I have indefinity blocked his sockpuppet for this, but am unsure about what to do with User:Jidan himself. Advice requested. —Ruud 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the socks were being used to circumvent policy, I think a couple days block and a stern warning would be in order. --InShaneee 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated changes to WP:V w/o consensus

User:Light current has made at least four changes to the Verifiability policy without a consensus for the change and against stated objections from others. I have reverted, opened a discussion, and reverted twice more. I am done for 24 hours. Light Current's changes do not technically violate 3RR, but they are an attempt to change the same text to suit his lights. Can someone explain to him that this is not helpful? Thanks. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl and Lord Loxley

TharkunColl (talk • contribs) and Lord Loxley (talk • contribs) are engaged in an ill-tempered content dispute, complete with personal attacks and improper accusations of vandalism as is visible from their edit summaries. The edits on Talk:English people are rather depressing. Not reported at WP:PAIN or NPA warnings left as the editors have done a good job of plastering templates on each other's talk pages already. Perhaps someone could have a tiny word with these editors before things get any worse ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. I await the return of User:Wobble for a balance. Lord Loxley 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Improperly Blocked as a Sock

I have been improperly blocked as a sock. Who do I talk to to clarify this? What do I do? How do I find out which administrator blocked me and contact them Sorry, looks like I was mistaken. I misread something in my talk. Thank you anyway. --Zanoni666 01:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The tag was not added by an admin, and you are not blocked. Seems that User:999 is playing some more tricks.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, seems the rules indicated to do that. My error. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. Opuaut (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sock today. Could you have been logged in as that user and reading that user's talk page? Are you saying that you are also that user? -999 (Talk) 01:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that one was blocked, but a sockpuppet tag alone is worthless. If you suspect sockpuppetry, report it at the appropriate place. That helps better. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Same, my error. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Kim, User 999 has been playing games. We have gathered concrete evidence of his active recruitment of other users for revert war activity. Somehow today, he managed to convince an adminsitrator that Opuat is a sock of Frater Fiat Lux, getting both users improperly blocked. How can this be straightened out? How can I find out which Administrator did this? A cimple examination of each users IP adress should straighten this out. Opuat is an editor who lives and edits from Germany whereas Frater Fiat Lux is in the UK. And NO, User 999, your games are NOT funny. Should not User 999 perhaps be blocked for violation of Wikipedia's rule on disruptive behavior?--Zanoni666 01:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs) was properly block for breaking 3RR and Opuaut (talk · contribs) immediately made the exact same revert within minutes after FFL was blocked. And this was not the first time Opuaut had carried on reverting for FFL after he either ran out of reverts or got blocked. Go figure! -999 (Talk) 01:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean that they were engaging in the same behavior that you have been doing together with Baba Louis and SynergisticMaggots whom I can prove that you RECRUITED on their talk pages to do reverts. No one likes this. We are trying everything to get you guys to collaborate. Frater Fiat Lux had prepared a mediation request that he was going to submit just when you pulled this game on him today. This is certainly not a way to resolve anything--Zanoni666 02:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There are open discussions and surveys which Frater FiatLux declines to participate in. Again, go figure. The consensus is against your additions, even if you could cite them, which you can't. You yourself have dropped the ball on discussion, preferring to try to overcome your opposition with revert. We wrote the articles first, you can't just replace them with yours. Now, if you are sincere, why not pick up discussions left unfinished on the talk pages. -999 (Talk) 02:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hryun and the certainty elephant

Certainty principle was deleted. Hryun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is an advocate of the certainty principle declared his intent to wage a war about the issue, was blocked indefinitely for disruption, started creating socks on a daily basis (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hryun), and lately has been creating socks which impersonate physics editors. This was discussed for a while at the Physics wikiproject talk page including some participation by Hryun before he was blocked. Another discussion at that same page lists some of the impersonation socks. Lately we've just be permabanning all socks and reverting all edits on sight. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

New England

The article New England, is getting a bit out of hand involving a discussion about Connecticut's relation to New England. 66.159.172.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is also making uncivil comments.[32] Also, is attacking other uses and refuses to back down. Some kind of administrative assistance is requested. Thank you, Yanksox 02:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The North Carolina vandal?

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

They appear to follow the editing patterns of the North Carolina vandal, by tring to create a fake town called Zandi's Bay, North Carolina and make it a county seat as opposed to some rather large city. I got that article up for deletion, and all their screwy edits I or someone else reverted. Fake statistics, manipulation of North carolina articles. It seems like the NC vandal, so here's the notice on the noticeboard. Kevin_b_er 02:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have speedied the article as utter nonsense. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that so many people spend so much time creating an entire persona around their patterns of vandalism tends to make me believe that they are probably doing it because we spend so much time openly talking about them and giving them names like the "North Carolina Vandal", a result of this is we end up massaging their egos. I understand the importance of synchronizing the efforts to revert their abuse, but I still think a lot of the worst vandals wouldn't be spending so much of their lives screwing up wikipedia if we tried to treat them like any normal attention seeking wierdos in the real word, either ignore them (or pretend to) or ridicule them.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. We've practically built shrines to some of the more notorious ones (i.e., Willy, Wiki is Communism, etc.). We should just give them case numbers and use really dry language to discuss them: "Lonely Nerd #5708 is vandalizing articles related to North Carolina. His edit habits are similar to LN3472; suggest CheckUser." JDoorjam Talk 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Worthy sentiment, but I don't think it'll catch on. "North Carolina Vandal" is easier to remember. And the 'shrines' do serve a purpose - perhaps when we start giving them special pictures, like Willy's car, that's going a bit overboard, but when someone new to Wikipedia asks "hey, why was this guy blocked indefinitely? All he did was move a few pages, maybe he's just experimenting" or "why was this guy blocked indefinitely, POV isn't grounds for an indefinite block?", we should be able to point them to a centralised history. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand the complaint, but this particular vandal confessed and promised to never do it again. Either recidivism or boredom appears to have set in. Geogre 12:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

List of unrecognised countries

A serious attempt to deceive editors and mess with the system has been committed in the above article by anon User:83.66.22.10.

1. The user changed the content of the article to include a POV edit that has been rejected by all other users in talk, using the edit summary: "based on consensus on discussion page"
2. S/he then modified the talk-page accordingly to justify his/her alleged consensus!

These nice new versions stayed on air for two hours before I reverted both. Please see to it, as the said article suffers frequently from relative POV edits. NikoSilver 09:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. The user also made a cute edit at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which was also reverted an hour later.

User:CAYA

Could some other administrators keep an eye on the recent history of the user page and talk page of CAYA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He is inviting people to vandalize his user page. An anon added an image of a penis, which was reverted by JoanneB, was put back by CAYA, and was reverted again by me. We've discussed similar issues recently at this noticeboard. If people don't want to see such images, they can't reasonably complain if they suddenly see them when they read articles about penises; but they do have the right to be able to click on a link to a user page without finding such images. AnnH ♫ 10:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing the text to say "Don't vandalize" would be vandalism, wouldn't it? I've started. After all, vandals change to displease, don't they? If a person is interested in being offensive, then vandalism of such a person would be things like, "I love sitting quietly in my room and coloring in my primer." Geogre 12:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dabljuh - continued block evasion

Despite being blocked, and despite this having already been extended for evasion, User:Dabljuh continues to evade his block and edit Wikipedia.

I reverted this edit to Talk:Circumcision, and added a polite note to his user talk page, inviting him to add it once his block expires.

He left the following message on my talk page in response:

There is no provision in policy that allows vandalizations of legitimate contribution to wikipedia. In fact, policy explicitely discourages "kicking someone while down" such as personal attacks directed at blocked users. The rules serve to protect everyone, explicitely including blocked users. You appear to have the "Policy is whatever I like it to be" problem. Please stop removing my comments from Talk:Circumcision. One could assume good faith and say "You simply didn't know". But if you do it again you will be reported for disruption of Wikipedia, which may result in you getting blocked for it.

In addition, despite my explicite wishes you have again posted on my user page. Please abstain from this, it is extremely incivil. 213.113.27.69 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jakew 12:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This editor has decided to willfully and repeatedly edit despite being blocked, and has indicated that he has no intention of stopping. Therefore, it's my personal opinion that it is time for an RFArb on this user, focusing specifically on his unacceptable behavior in evading his block. But I might be a little too close to the situation to evaluate that objectively. Would any uninvolved editors and admins care to weigh in on that issue? Nandesuka 14:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If he's going to ignore blocks this flagrantly, I think it may be a good next step. --InShaneee 15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Konob protected

Konob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism and has created numerous accounts, Konob2, Konob3 etc. up to Konob14 at the moment, to continue vandalising. He has continued to edit User talk:Konob to document his vandalism and those that block him ("I am going to start adding administrators that banned my accounts ~those ass holes~"), as well as to proclaim his hatred of emos, gays and communists. Rather than let him continue to glorify his own vandalism I have removed all that and fully protected the talk page. If he wants to request unblocking, which he hasn't so far, he can use email. As this does deny him the ability to request unblocking in a public forum, I bring this here for review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of his talk page and repeated attempts at editing while blocked are certainly grounds for protecting the Talk page. I concur. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board

Oh yes, this is going to go over well--name 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the stated purpose of the page was to use a Wikipedia: space page to organize editors to promote a partisan point of view, I am ignoring all rules and deleting the page. I am very specifically not using any existing speedy deletion criteria to do this, and am putting my action up here for review. I will not revert any admin who undoes my action. Nandesuka 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's physically impossible to pour too many megatons of salt over the earth where this page once stood. --Cyde↔Weys 14:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I agree with the deletion, but I also think that there is very little good that could have come from the association. If the association had been present, like the saints portal, to be sure that neglected figures of conservativism (are there any?) were represented, it wouldn't be a big deal, but there's no need for a project to do that. Besides, eventually the thing would have to have succumbed to battling "liberals," and liberals are, according to the sorts of people who hang out at conservativism projects, everywhere and include pretty much everyone who dissents, so it's probably delete it now or delete it after the RfC's, RFAR's, etc. have gone on. Wikipedia should never have factions. This is not Guild Wars. Geogre 15:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this deletion fully. Wikiprojects should be for widespread topics, not points of view. --InShaneee 15:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The avowed purpose of the page is not to promote a partisan point of view. It says: "This is the Conservative notice board, for Wikipedians interested in articles related to Conservative topics. It should be noted that this is intended to be a noticeboard for all Wikipedians interested in these issues, not a noticeboard solely for the use of conservative Wikipedians." It seems similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild among others. I don't see any pressing reason this needs to be deleted now rather than after five days of deliberations at WP:MFD. I've restored the page. Haukur 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Haukurth's reversal. Take this one through process; or establish a policy to remove all projects about political philosophies (since, of course, the adherants of those philosophies will be the most interested in the projects.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between WikiProjects and "noticeboards". This one had a list of "action items" with links to Afds and Cfds on conservative topics. It was transparently a vote-stacking page. The deletion should not have been reversed. --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh boy! WHEEL WAR! Someone get the lawn chairs; I'll bring the beer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Stop trolling. --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Personal attack withheld. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Cyde's assesment. This is humor. --mboverload@ 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have suggested elsewhere, this is not WikiProject:Conservativism, this is Smash the filthy liberals: you bring the petrol and I'll bring the marshmallows. Unlike the Muslim project cited above, it makes no attempt to be neutral, merely listing pages on which "action" is required. If the Muslim Guild went the same way, I would advocate for deleting that also. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is deleting it better than just editing it into something neutral? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If a house has a rotten foundation you don't just keep pouring more plaster on the walls to cover up the cracks ... you demolish the house and start somewhere else on a steady foundation. If someone wants to try this thing from the ground-up with a neutral perspective, then that's one thing ... but the purpose of this page was very transparent. --Cyde↔Weys 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty useless metaphor on a Wiki. Reworking a page like this into something neutral and then moving it to a better title would be a excellent way to communicate how we function. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you deleted this project when it simply followed the model of the pre-existing Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board . --Facto 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board

Why was this debate closed so early (less than four hours after it started) and closed by an admin User:JDoorjam that voted for its deletion? --Facto 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that page was an utter violation of Wikipedia's policies. --Cyde↔Weys 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it conformed to the model of the pre-existing Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board, which also has lists of "action items" with links to Afds on LGBT topics. --Facto 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One is an issue of sexuality and another is an issue of partisan politics. I don't see the similarity. --Cyde↔Weys 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the US, everything is political. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism is a philosophy not just an issue of partisan politics. And LGBT is not all about sexuality, see http LGBT_movements and LGBT_Political_Investment_Caucus. --Facto 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I closed the MfD as a matter of housekeeping: the article was already deleted (appropriately, IMO, though not by me). You keep going back to the LGBT board, but obviously political conservatism and LGBT issues are not at all of the same ilk. It's the content and potential for misuse, not the formatting adopted, which editors objected to. In any case, WP:AN/I is the incorrect forum to discuss the form and merit of the Conservative notice board. JDoorjam Talk 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam, you say that political conservativism and LGBT issues are "obviously" not at all of the same ilk. I find that statement very un-obvious; certainly not obvious enough to warrant bypassing discussion in favor of a speedy deletion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. The MfD page was the place to discuss it, and you short-circuited that discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:MFD: "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas." From WP:DRV: "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted." From these two page-purpose descriptions, it's my interpretation that MfD is not, in fact, the correct place to discuss pages which have already been deleted. JDoorjam Talk 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The LGBT notice board has potential for misuse as well. Also, I did not start the discussion here. --Facto 18:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the LGBT notice board has the potential to be misused and believe you would be within the guidelines at WP:POINT, I would recommend airing those concerns on the talk page of that board. However, this discussion has not been about, and most likely will not morph into, a discussion about the LGBT board. That you did not start the discussion here does not mean that this is the correct place to discuss these issues. I am not placing blame for using the wrong forum; I'm simply pointing out the fact that this isn't the appropriate place to have the discussion. If you would like the deletion reviewed, I would recommend you air your grievance at WP:DRV. You are unlikely to receive any response or cause any action on this board that you would find satisfactory. JDoorjam Talk 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you and other editors believed the conservative notice board had the potential to be misused then why didn't you air those concerns on the talk page of that board instead of ignoring all rules (Nandesuka) and deleting the project. I'll check WP:DRV later.--Facto 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people want to delete a page, some people want to keep it. Outside the narrowly defined speedy-deletion criteria, our procedure in cases like that is to hold a discussion at *fD on the merits of keeping or deleting. Meanwhile the page itself is kept readable to all. After five days or so someone closes the discussion and if there is a consensus to delete, the page is deleted. This mechanism has served us well for years. When individual admins ignore all rules and summarily delete content they don't approve of they are spitting in the face of our community-based decision making. Now non-admins can't even view the page to comment intelligently upon whether it should be undeleted. I can understand that in cases where something is seriously embarrassing or damaging (and yet doesn't meet the CSD criteria) it may make sense to shoot first and ask questions later. But no one has claimed that allowing the page in question to stand open for five days would cause any damage. Haukur 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the impatience. Why bypass *fD, if it seems remotely controversial? Maybe this didn't seem remotely controversial to Nandesuka, but by now it's clear that there is difference of opinion. I don't even think it's clear that this page should have been deleted instead of improved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Haukur, you've said just what I've been trying to say. I rather think this page should be deleted, and would happily say so on WP:MFD. However, I am very strongly opposed to this out of process deletion, and worse twice. It doesn't come remotely close to any of the CSD criteria, and is a perfect candidate for WP:MFD. I don't understand why the admins who deleted this are so bothered by it hanging around a few days while it undergoes the proper deletion process. Incidentally, I really can't see any difference between this and the LGBT one, it seems to have exactly the same purpose to me, and therefore either both should be kept or both deleted. Petros471 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that when the page is such an outrageous violation of Wikipedia policies, like this one, it turns the situation on its head. It's not "what's the harm of letting it hang around a few more days," it's "why should we have to put up with this egregious misuse of Wikipedia for a few more days?" Crap gets deleted immediately, not after a waiting period. --Cyde↔Weys 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you are quite wrong about that. Crap very, very often gets deleted after a waiting period. Your impatience (or Nandesuka's, or anyone's) is no reason to change how we do things. Take your time, explain why something is crap, and if it's truly obvious, everyone at *fD will agree, as very, very often happens. If it's not that way, it's possible that it wasn't crap, and that some course of action other than deleting might be wiser. It is utterly unobvious to me that this noticeboard is an egregious violation, when almost identical noticeboards exist unmolested, and I really don't see the argument that Conservativism is different from LGBT issues in a way that makes it obviously un-noticeboard-worthy. This seems to me to be a perfect candidate for rescoping in a way that educates all the editors involved about how we see the NPOV policy working. Handing them a cause to complain about process violation, practically begging to be criticized on utterly beside-the-point procedural grounds, is actually stupid, and helps to prevent the right conversation from happening. "Crap gets deleted" is a foolish motto to speedy-delete with, unless your goal is to generate DRAMA! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I regret commenting about the LGBT page. This discussion is not about that page. It's about the merits of and problems with the now-deleted conservative portal. "Either they both stay or they both go!" arguments are rather pointless, as the page in question needs to be able to stand on its own merits. The deletion of the LGBT page would have no bearing on whether the page in question has any value. When this inevitably makes it to DRV, I'll comment there; as WP:AN/I is the wrong forum for continued discussion about the matter, this will be my last comment about the deletion on this page. JDoorjam Talk 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Crap should be edited, not deleted. -- Daniel Davis 02:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This would leave you with well-edited crap. Which would, nonetheless, still be crap. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatsamatter Calton, you've never edited crap into something that was no longer crap? You should try it sometime. POV-ectomies are good perspective stretching exercise; speedy deletions cause that part of the brain to atrophy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wavering on this until I saw that the defence of it was "well the gays have a noticeboard". Salt the earth, set the salt on fire, douse the fire with cyanide, nuke the cyanide from orbit, then throw the orbit into a black hole. WP:NOT Fark.com. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the deletion of the project unwarranted but also the page protection. None of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Protection_policy#A_permanent_or_semi-permanent_protection_is_used_for: are met. --Facto 20:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You were caught trying to recruit over 50 conservatives to your new noticeboard. Why I didn't just block you for spamming escapes me at the moment. This clearly was not a good faith effort to create a noticeboard about conservative issues. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of spamming Tony as it is incivility. I already told you on your talk page that the precedent had been set for inviting people to notice boards. I individually invited editors that showed interest in conservative issues to a project page where we can share articles of interest. Admin User:Samuel Wantman did the same thing when he started the WP:LGBT notice board, inviting editors interested in LGBT issues. See [33] and [34] Thanks. --Facto 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to grant you any assumption of good faith when you continually give me a good solid reason to doubt it. You say: "I individually invited editors that showed interest in conservative issues" but this is what you said to those editors (my highlighting):

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks.

You contacted those editors, not because of their interest in conservative issues, but because of their self-asserted conservative political leanings. You're pretending that it didn't happen. And just because you did the spamming by hand doesn't mean it wasn't spamming. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the canonical defense would be truth, and that one seems to be ironclad. You've spammed many talkpages for this. Also, WP:SALT is where you'd look for the protection precedent. -M^ask 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SALT says, "In cases where pages of inappropriate or unencyclopedic content are continuously re-created after several deletions, it becomes prudent to protect these pages in a deleted form. This practice is commonly known as "padlocking" or "salting the earth" and should be used at the discretion of the deleting administrator. You can use {{Editprotected}} to edit these pages." Also, please do not accuse me of spam when I followed cross-posting guidelines and admin precedent. --Facto 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're highlighting the wrong part there, chief. "This practice is commonly known as "padlocking" or "salting the earth" and should be used at the discretion of the deleting administrator. Try again. -M^ask 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No I did not highlight the wrong part. Protected pages are considered harmful. "These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances." And the limit is defined as "In cases where pages of inappropriate or unencyclopedic content are continuously re-created after several deletions" --Facto 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness

Folks, you are kidding yourselves if you think Muslim Guild and LGBT noticeboards are not centers for precisely this type of advocacy and solicitation. Alternately, you're fully aware of this, which is even more disturbing. I'd suggest that all such partisan Guilds and projects be deleted, but short of that, this smacks of manipulating the system to achieve a desired content bias throughout the affected articles. Nor is this the first issue in recent days which suggests that the idelogies of favored "minorities" are acceptable, but American conservatism is not. I'm not opposed to drawing distinctions, as some ideologies are broadly accepted to be beyond the pale (e.g. Nazism, segregationism), but I'd like us to be upfront about what they are and not play games like "conservatism is political, LGBT is sexual." There is a name for the ideology which considers Islamism and LGBT as oppressed classes worthy of special protection (never mind that under Islamic law the LGBT crowd must be executed), while conservatism merits scorn. It's called political correctness, and it doesn't deserve our support.Timothy Usher 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A simple endorsement. Haizum 08:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you worry about our political bias: this would have been nuked had it been the other way around, you can be assured. In any case, anybody who accuses me of "political correctness" obviously has never actually paid attention to anything I say; now excuse me while I go and give my cats a good laugh! HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete them all and anything like them. They're all partisan, they're all edit rings, and they all should go. There are already categories to help editors navigate through related topics, and there are already article talk and user talk pages to discuss things. Such projects are just ways to facilitate and evade restrictions on spam by gathering like-minded editors in one place.Timothy Usher 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

POV clans and vote solicitation are known problems. Whether it's for a cause we favor or one we oppose, we need to stop it when we see it. I think we sometimes fail to see it when we like the result. I know I see it more clearly when I don't. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

POV clans and vote solicitation are known problems. At some point, it would be very useful to collect some explanation of and evidence for this claim in a place where we could point people to it when it comes up. If that already exists, I'd appreciate a link. It seems we are obliged to repeat ourselves far too often on this point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Alliance and this one are two that immediately spring to mind (since I was involved in dealing with both). --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia.Timothy Usher 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Careful now we don't want anouther wikpedians for decency on our hands. Some things are just a bad idea. The old wikiproject alt med was so POV that it caused problems.Geni 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch is ok, but this group of links isn't? - brenneman ^{L} 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We really need a policy about schools. They're constantly swamping WP:AFD, and it's really never clear what to do with them. Paying attention to the fates of the myriad school articles -- kept, merged, deleted -- may be the first step toward establishing at least a guideline in that arena. You don't see that as a value-add? JDoorjam Talk 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it actually possible to delete schools again? For a while, even hoax articles on schools were hard to delete. --Carnildo 06:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As uncomfortable as I feel about people discussing me and my motivations, I would hope that people assume good faith whenever a notice board is created. I put some effort into the creation and management of the Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board so that it is not seen as politicizing Wikipedia. The LGBT notice board has stated clearly from the start that it is for ANYONE interested in articles related to LGBT topics. The reason someone is interested may well be because they believe they should all be deleted. When I found out about the current controversy, I went to look at the deleted pages to see if they were so constituted. It concerns me that this page has been deleted, because it puts the LGBT board in a similar threatened position.

I think the conservative board was presented in a pretty much NPOV way, and I appreciate that it used the LGBT board as a model. The test for a board that has postings about controversial articles or issues, is if it would be useful to people on both sides of the issue. In this case, I would have found the board useful even though I in no way consider myself a conservative.

Anyone who works on controvesial articles, whether they be related to politics, reproductive rights, religion, or sexuality, more likely than not will bring their own bias into play to some degree. The question is, what is the best way for the Wikipedia community to address those biases. People may think that the LGBT notice board is attempting to organize support around LGBT issues. I don't see it that way. I see it as people being honest about the issues that concern us. The LGBT notice board is as much a vehicle for everyone to watch us, as it is about us watching an issue. I hope that the conservative board, and those like it can be restored, stripped of any POV bias if necessary, and allowed to peacefully coexist. -- Samuel Wantman 03:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at WP:LGBT? Obviously, deleting this conservative noticeboard was correct ... but I see multiple xFDs listed on the LGBT board that all got plenty of vote stacking. Why is ANYTHING that serves as a clearinghouse for votes allowed to continue? Having a list of articles of interest that need work is fine IMO - for gays or for Conservatives - but listing xFD debates is pure vote stacking. BigDT 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best to assume good faith. The notice board lists are a useful feature, not vote-stacking. And it exists in many Wikiprojects (Schools, etc) - not just notice boards. We all know there are MANY POV-motivated nominations for article deletion. Most of the editors who use the LGBT notice board are busy working on other projects - and unable to constantly check up on the VFD (AFD) boards every day (or every week), because instead of being involved in the politics of voting for deletion every day or talking on talk pages, we are writing - or editing actual content articles. The notice board allows us to give notice to each other when articles in our area of expertise are being discussed or voted on elsewhere - probably by folks who are honestly ignorant about issues and factual realities. Notice boards ensure a sunshine law-type running of this project and allows experts in topics to voice their opinions/concerns and helps ensure the quality of this project will steadily improve. Davodd 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with it, as someone might easily in good faith believe, and in these cases probably usually does believe, that religious, political or otherwise partisan revert-solicitation and vote-stacking improves wikipedia.Timothy Usher 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I still cannot understand why conservative noticeboard was has been singled out for speedy deletion and protection. At least for the sake of consistency, other similar noticeboards must be speedily deleted and protected. Pecher ^Talk 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of this project is outrageous, and I'm disappointed in the "logic" used to justify it. Haizum 08:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Logic:

• A noticeboard is for those intereted in the topic, all are welcome.
• Since all are welcome, a "conservative" noticeboard may attract conservatives, yes, but it will also attract those that wish to make sure articles related to conservatism are kept up to quality standards.
• A conservative noticeboard will therefore attract a diversity of editors; this is no different from any other article on Wikipedia; it attracts people that are interested.
• Since all are welcome, and since various groups may take an interest in a conservative noticeboard as they may take an interest in any other article, you cannot assume that such a board will only serve a conservative agenda just as you cannot assume that any particular article will serve any agenda.
• If you cannot assume that an agenda will be served, you have no reason to oppose the creation of a conservative noticeboard as it will only serve to attract a diversity of editors, which is positive. Haizum 08:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful block must be stopped - URGENT ! (prior blooper corrected)

Since this user persists in breaking his block, I've decided to discourage him from that and asked him to take his complaint to the Wikien-L mailing list. --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• 15:58, 15 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "213.216.199.2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Used for block evasion. Please take block challenges to Wikien-L mailing list) --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this related to persistent edit-warring and POV-pushing at Kven - which has gone on for years? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems so. Thatcher131 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

TheWolfstar reincarnated part 235.

207.210.64.48 (talk · contribs) is making odious comments and more or less suggesting this is our well-loved and always friendly editor Thewolfstar (talk · contribs). Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Another backslashing proxy. [35]. Thatcher131 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are blocked users allowed to just reappear with a sockpuppet and post RfC?

Just wondering, because apparently User:PatCheng, having had several administrators already review the block and have plenty of opportunity to comment, waited for the relevance of the ANI post on this matter die down in order to create more sockpuppets and post Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blnguyen. Quite frankly, everything he claims there can be demonstrated to be a lie, but I'm wondering if this is considered an appropriate move for a blocked user. --TJive 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, no. Blocked is blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I believed too. Can you or another administrator take action on this matter, then? So far it has been left up to Blnguyen to clean up, leading to this user's hysteric claims of impropriety. --TJive 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. For what it's worth, I archived the RfC contents, which are basically a short retread of his rant on the mailing list, and can respond point by point on the matter if and when necessary. --TJive 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the sock and deleted the RfC. We're getting a spate of blocked editors openly socking and trying to Wikilawyer. This is never acceptable. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ais523

Ais523 (talk • contribs) seems to be a sock puppet of some busybody. I refer to my article start in Jimi Tenor. As a non-English and non-perfect user I have enjoyed the welcome-atmoshpere yet. -- Simplicius 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman

I call Administrators attention to a discussion on the Gregory Lauder Frost Talk Page which is rapidly spiralling out of control.

• Rubbish. Its what a "Talk" page is for. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Sussexman has used this talk forum in order to make a series of barely concealed legal threats against me on the grounds that I have made mention of a criminal conviction obtained by the subject Gregory Lauder Frost which in my opinion and the opinion of other administrators is essential to a fairer understanding of the article.

• I am happy to act as an investigator here. Sussexman has not "legally threatened" anyone. What he has attempted to do is to make clear the legal implications. I cannot see that he personally has said that he is acting for anyone or that he personally is personally "threatening" anyone. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate has also spilled over on to other sections of the web and it appears that Mr Lauder Frost himself has intervened: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conservativedemocrats/message/8915?l=1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conservativedemocrats/message/8973?l=1 http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/XCG9j5kNnxPaa (Message on this site is a little hard to find, you have to keep flicking through the list so I shall reproduce it here) You don't have to look far on the WWW to discover that these Reds on Wikipedia have smeared a lot of people. We should be complaining about this organisation's Tax-free status to: Internal Revenue Service, Exempt Organizations Determination, P.O.Box 2508, Cincinatti, OH 45201. 60 pence for an airmail letter is a small price to pay in the battle against The Left. Who said communism is dead?

• This complaint by Chilvers is against Sussexman. Not one of the above quotes which are not from the Wikipedia are by him, or by Lauder-Frost. So what is the point here? 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sussexman#Regarding_banning

• What is the relevance of this link? 86.129.79.148 20:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to mediate in this matter? User:Edchilvers

It appears (from the article's talk page) that it was suggested by another editor, User:Homeontherange, that Ed come here in order that he might reference Sussex's legal threats and incivility. SlimV, Fred Bauder, JzG, and other admins seem to be active in editing the article and discussing edits and user conduct on the article's talk page, so I'm inclined to think Ed's concerns might be better directed to them; they are, I think, already intimately familiar with the situation. AFAICT, Sussex has made legal threats (although, in this case, the new off-wiki comments guideline shouldn't apply; he has made on-wiki threats); many on the talk page, though, also seem to think Ed's been inserting material inappropriately (though I disagree), so I think this is a situation best dealt with my those who are well acquainted with the discussion. Joe 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In the past hour I have received the following threatening message on my talk page: Good, 81.131. Let's hope that our British compatriot will be held to account for his activities. 86.129.79.148 17:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (Under section "Your points answered") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edchilvers

• The problem with Chilvers is he came onto Wikipedia as part of his off-Wikipedia campaign (all to evident on Google - just type in Ed Chilvers) and has gone into overdrive smearing people, vandalising articles, etc etc. Hoping for something is not yet a crime or a threat. Or is it? He can give it but he cannot take it. 86.129.79.148 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also feel the need to point out that an outstanding editor,User:Humansdorpie has been hounded to quit Wikipedia altogether after a series of disgraceful legal threats made against him on his talk page by supporters of Mr Lauder Frost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Humansdorpie#Gregory_Lauder-Frost (See sections 'Gregory lauder Frost') User:Edchilvers

• I have been on Wikipedia for about six months. I have witnessed more bullying, unnecessary smearing, biased attacks on articles, by politically motivated Users than anything Sussexman or GLF's supporters ever dreamt of. Humansdorpie made his fair share of irrelevant and sneering remarks and got a robust response. If he has drifted off it is of his own accord. One might say don't give it, Mr.Chilvers, if you cannot take it. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I wish to give my support to Sussexman who, unlike troublemaker Chilvers, has obviously done substantial research on the many good contributions to Wikipedia articles. He has defended Gregory Lauder-Frost's natural civil and human rights out of respect he had for someone he was familiar with and clearly respected some 15 years ago. That is all. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To repeat what I posted on Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost:

I would like to point out that veiled threats by indirection are in my opinion still threats. I would urge Sussexman and sundry IP contributors to avoid anything along those lines. Further, I would encourage the cessation of personal characterisations of other Wikipedia contributors. Bluntly, it is going to do you no good and will simply serve to weaken your argument among Wikipedians neutral to your conflict, regardless of their appeal to your own factions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I must repeat also what I said on that page:

I hear what you say, but are you saying that anyone who supports GLF should just lie down and take everything that is often very provocatively thrown at them and various other articles on Wikipedia? As for "sundry IP contributors" most people with their funny titles (Homeontherange, et al) are 100% anonymous to the rest of us and act with impunity. Why does not having a funny name make us second-class citizens here? I am not appealing to any "faction" but to commonsence decency. 86.129.79.148 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To sum up (more detail on that page), my response is that you look better than an opponent if you comport yourself with dignity and do not stoop to their level. While IPs are no more anonymous than usernames, I have trouble distinguishing one from another and prefer addressing people who give me a name to use - my personal preference. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, having seen the venom with which 86.129.79.148 has just attacked myself and anybody who agrees with my line I may as well rest my case

User:Edchilvers

Not venom but simple facts. After all, it is you who came onto Wikipedia with your campaign, prompted deletion nominations for three different biographical articles, and called for smearing materials to be inserted into them. Naturally you inspire anger in all decent men. 86.129.75.212 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rotating magnetic field

Can someone checkuser to see if User:Rotating magnetic field is a sock of User:Reddi? If so, arbitration rulings may have been violated. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Go over to WP:RFCU. Sasquatch t|c 18:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If In The Future If I Should Happen To Have A Complaint

Such as my jerk/ex friend Sid that stole my passcode! I'm afraid he may vandalize, is this where I report it?MarkMcGavel 19:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Change your password, in case of vandalism (by any person) the account will likely be blocked. Conscious 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sid" must be quick, since the account only started contributing today. Could this be your famous "ANI troll?" - David Oberst 19:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. --InShaneee 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Help fixing a page move.

Someone incorrectly moved the article U.S. 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment to U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and I cannot move it back. The Army does not title this unit "3rd", as one would incorrectly expect. The unit is in fact the "3d" cavalry. (Atfyfe 20:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

• Thanks (Atfyfe 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

An administrator has moved the article back. -- Kjkolb 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is it possible to remove a comment?

Hi, another user added an unpleasant comment to my user page and I would like to see it removed. See history of my user page, the one with hell. Is that possible? JKW 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am able to change the template on my own, can you please change the comment in the history? JKW 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This can be removed because it's your user page and it's vandalism by someone else, and it will involve deleting and then restoring your user page minus the offending edit. It's not regular practice to do this however except in cases of excessive vandalism (e.g. to the featured article on the main page). -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks! I just do not like rude comments, since it would have been more polite to leave me a message first. JKW 22:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I need help.

I am trying to make important additions to Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation. I am having a problem with one or two editors who are hostile to Hugh Everret and theory. They revert everything I add. I help obtaining a mediator and mediation. I find Wikipdia procedures arcane and highly esoteric. If you can help me, please email me. Michael D. Wolok 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I will try to help also. Can you use your or my talk page?? Thanks --Tom 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal action threatened re: Esteban Carpio

See this edit; threat was removed from article and text modified ('convicted' => 'accused') in this edit. 'Threat2' template added to User talk:72.192.39.170 in response. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Claiming that someone has been convicted of murder who hasn't been is usually considered libel under US law. Especially in the midst of their trial. That's an issue for Forestfufighting (talk · contribs), who added that statement, and I would place more blame there than on the person who pointed out the problem. Is there a template for "Please don't make libellous statements"? Checking other edits for that user, he did change Rhode Island's reference to "Vincent Cianci" from "indicted" to "convicted", but that checks out; former mayor Vincent Cianci is now Federal Prisoner #05000-070. --John Nagle 06:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Josie the pussy cat yet another Thewolfstar sock, short introduction in 37 volumes

Josie_the_pussy_cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be yet another bann-evading Thewolfstar sock. Yawn, compare "TheWolfstar reincarnated part 235" above. This because of the cat theme (compare metrocat, etc, etc ), and because of Josie's recommendations to other people of the only two policies TWS knows, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (in hilarious counterpoint to her own rudeness and suspicion), and because of her posts to users Ed Poor and CorbinSimpson, two people TWS has frequently contacted in other incarnations, and because of her trademark greeting--and, you know, I started writing this up as a Request for CheckUser, but why bother them? For my part I won't block it yet, but suggest giving it a chance to edit responsibly (even though the self-righteous pugnacity of the start isn't very promising). Anyway, what's the point of blocking, when it's far quicker and easier for the user to create a new sock than for admins to block and post sock templates? It would be nice if a few more admins would watch this one, and block and roll back in case of (the usual) escalating aggressiveness. Bishonen | talk 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

Update: the sock has gone into Thewolfstar mode with a vengeance at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kimchi.sg, and has now been indefinitely blocked. Stand by for volume 38. Bishonen | talk 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)..

Yes, ran across this one on my own. Hello. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mackensen, thanks. Looks like we commented with uncanny timing on Kimchi's RFA. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

You'll have to excuse me for this one — I thought it was an old girlfriend, XD. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:71.158.149.97 and Amber Benson and Rick Berman

I removed some gossip about Amber Benson's personal life, which User:71.158.149.97 reverted see here, and then presumed to 'warn' me about it. Inspection of the "sources" indicated they are not even vaguely reliable. I notice also this user had a week ago posted an unsourced serious libel of Rick Berman here - I've never even heard that rumour before. I'm going to bed - can someone keep an eye on this person. Morwen - Talk 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The user User:Cuthbert11, presumably the same person, then proceeded to warn me again that I would be 'blocked' if I reverted again. Since I have no inclination to play games at the moment, and don't take idle threats kindly, I have blocked them for 24 hours. Morwen - Talk 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who post these kind of libellous statements on Wikipedia without having reliable sources to back themselves up are a dangerous to Wikpedia. The IMDB message boards are not reliable sources when adding such information regarding someone's personal life. Morwen is right to block this user, who should stay blocked in my opinion until they truly understand the concept of reliable sources. If the Seigenthaler incident taught us anything, it should be that we should not post this kind of information about a person unless we can get some truly reliable sources to back us up. jaco♫plane 01:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any block in their history. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the user: the IP autoblocker would have got the IP. Morwen - Talk 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

B&B are not exactly popular among devoted Star Trek fans ... so it's no particular surprise that stupid vandalism shows up. I occasionally used to hang out on Star Trek message boards and I've never heard anything like that "rumor" ... (it's well known that Lt. Hawk was going to be gay ... but the reason given in the vandalism for not mentioning his sexuality is patently silly) ... probably from a disgruntled fan who wishes Paramount would clean house and get some decent writers and producers in there BigDT 03:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And certainly we didn't have a source for crap like "on her official message board are immediately removed and denied, as are similar references here on Wikipedia (her entry is continually edited to eliminate such information; see page history for details)." !!! The tv.com page referenced does not appear to be fact-checked, and certainly isn't a source in itself: they get their trivia from user submissions and might check it - but how much? TV.com's credits and 'biography' page are probably more reliable. And I simply can't believe anyone is proposing using "amiiannoying.com" as s source : in this particular case it says "Credit: Julie C", who doesn't appear to even be a regular poster, having submitted only that page as far as I can tell. Who did fact checking?

Bizarrely a new user User:Cheezypoofs has requested I enter into mediation over this issue! Morwen - Talk 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood socking?

I'm a bit suspicious about RevolverOcelotX's evident experience with Wikipedia. He looks like somebody's sock. As it happens he seems to share similar interests with Instantnood. And also, he first edited at 0447 UTC on 19 May, just 35 hours after Phil Sandifer blocked Instantnood for two weeks, implementing the two week Wikipedia ban under Instantnood's General Probation. This was a ban that was proposed by me as part of my enforcement of the arbitration remedies on Instantnood.

In his short time at Wikipedia, RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has managed to get himself blocked twice, the second time by Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). At 0235 UTC today, RevolverOcelotX reinstated an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, an RfC aimed at Blnguyen, that had been inserted by the self-declared block-evading sock of another editor blocked by Blnguyen and removed by me.

I think it's time to throw this open to other administrators. Thoughts? --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, do you have any evidence of this? Many different editors here share similar interests but that does not mean they are sockpuppets. Accusing somebody of sockpuppetry just because of their "evident experience with Wikipedia" is contrary to the policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Posting a different RfC aimed at Blnguyen because I question his use of admin powers is completely legitimate. --RevolverOcelotX 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that "republishing" material contributed by blocked or banned users is disruptive de facto. So regardless of the sock issues that edit on the RFC page concerns me greatly. Nandesuka 05:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, I did not "republish" material by a blocked user. I posted a different completely legitimate RfC. --RevolverOcelotX 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

See this archiving of an ANI post regarding PatCheng. Note ROX's later removal of a comment that he will "will cease from defending him [PatCheng]". Now, after so many PatCheng socks have been blocked, and the mailing list has so far not overturned it, ROX decided to repost effectively the same thing on RfC? Hm. --TJive 05:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive, I only removed that comment because I saw that the administrator Kungfuadam had unblocked PatCheng. And I posted a completely different RfC on Blnguyen. --RevolverOcelotX 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that your level of defense for PatCheng is contingent upon his ability to edit at any given time. Hm.

You didn't post any RfC that I can see. You simply re-added the link to the already deleted one. And what would it concern if not PatCheng? --TJive 05:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive, that is a complete red herring. I had only removed that comment I made because I had saw that Kungfuadam had unblocked PatCheng and justifyed it by saying "removal of personal attacks does not constitute 3RR".

The RfC that I posted was removed because I did not make a document to link to. It concerned Blnguyen POV abuse of admin powers including unblocking an anonymous IP address who had broke the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 06:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing sock warfare over Rajput articles

The other day I reported edit-warring abuse by Tatra (talk · contribs), probably a "Rajput" sockpuppet, which lead to an indef block by User:Tony Sidaway ([36]). He was back yesterday with a new throwaway account, Y not (talk · contribs), making the same series of rapid blind reverts (and removing the sockpuppet warning from User:Tatra.) He seems to have access to some automated editing script that lets him make dozens of reverts in a few minutes. Is there anything to stop him creating new socks of this kind every day? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unethical Behavior and Possible NPA Violations

On the Laura Ingraham talk page, user Sandover has repeatedly cited a temporary block that I had to serve. This is not relevant to the discussion and is merely being used to fallaciously discredit me [37],

On top of that, and mainly the reason I'm here, I've discovered some underhanded methods on the Keith Olberman talk page[38].

I have addressed this on the Laura Ingraham talk page for full disclosure [39].

I look foreward to your input. Haizum 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Users 220.239.134.188 and 140.159.8.2

The first user has been rightfully blocked by Kukini for 31 hours for making personal attacks and vandalising articles, but I doubt this will be worthwhile. The user responded to the block with racial slurs and personal attacks.

Of more concern is the second message [140.159.8.2 posted] after the blocked, by 140.159.8.2, repeating similar racial slurs and saying "you can't block me". Note that 140.159.8.2 has now also been rightfully blocked, for vandalism, by AmiDaniel. It's possible, I suppose, that by "you can't block me" he was referring to his own blocking in a confused way. Another theory would be that he is a meat-puppet of 220.239.134.188.

A look at both users' contribs indicates a history of extremely similar edits: vandalism of pages with the word "gay" and repeated personal attacks against other editors, usually using racial slurs. I haven't see one constructive contribution in 220.239.134.188's contribs history, and very few in 140.159.8.2's.

I think it would be worthwhile to consider whether these two accounts, or at least the first, are vandalism-only accounts, one possibly the meat-puppet of the other. 220.239.134.188 in particular does not seem to have anything to offer this project but abuse.

This is the first time I have brought an issue to this noticeboard, so please bear with me if I've left out any important details. Thanks, Kasreyn 09:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)