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

From SledDogAC

The information I have added to the webpages is all correct and verifiable. I have provided documentation for what I write, in sharp contrast to AKMask's edits. AKMask doesn't want wikipedia to be neutral. This person has an a pro-Iditarod, pro-musher agenda that he or she only wants the public to know. If wikipedia wants to be held in high regard, it will ban administrators and editors like AKMask who act like dictators to keep facts from being told. I certainly don't deserve to be banned. Here's an example of what I've added and what has been repeatedly deleted by AKMask: (removed due to enormity)

The Rockets

Hello,

I don't know all the rules or procedures of Wikipedia, for that I apologize. However I have attempted to edit the page for "The Rockets" with some but not total satisfaction. One of the definitions you have posted reads as follows:

"Crazy Horse (band) — An American rock and roll band which was originally named "The Rockets".

In fact the Crazy Horse band was only one of at least two bands that have used the name the rockets The Detroit band mentioned was probably more well known as "The Rockets" than The crazy horse band was. While Crazy Horse is certainly notable, They used that name for a year or so, The Detroit Rockets used the name for 10+ years. and can still be heard frequently on Detroit FM stations.

The second, as one of your own admins pointed out, was a well known Band from Detroit. They put out 6 albums total, had several songs that charted and were formed by two of the former members of the "Detroit Wheels" Their singer sang for a period with Ted Nugent. They were the opening act for major bands of the period such as Kiss, ZZ Top, amungst many others. They had some but primarily local Detroit sucess with such hits as "Turn Up The Radio", "OH Well", "Takin it back" and others. They deserve more than a "See also, Detroit Wheels" I would be happy to attempt to do them better justice but I'm not sure I would be the best person to do so given my inexperience of WIKI and all the ins and outs, formatting ect. I will probably never find a reply so it may be better to send replies to crider.john@comcast.net

Thanks

See the following links:

http://www.johnny-bee.com/ http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Street/2818/ http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=3550 http://madrabbit.net/rockets/

User:Ti mi- publicgirluk sock?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jon Awbrey project spam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found it, "The Sophist Troll" •Jim62sch• 10:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain page move

There was a survey being taken at Talk:Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain as to whether the article at Catholicism in Great Britain should be moved to Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain. As it appeared that there would be no consensus for the move, JzG aborted the vote and moved the article to agree with his own previously stated POV. -SynKobiety 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From the talk page the matter appears more complicated than that; please don't bring half-told content disputes here. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend to be misleading. I was just trying to follow the instruction: Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes. Are administrators exempt from WP:AGF? I brought this issue here because of what appears to me to be an administrators abuse of privilege. Would another unbiased administrator please look into this? -SynKobiety 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the page history [4] is very suggestive. Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) appears to be move-warring. Furthermore, I'm surprised this is an issue at all. Catholic is ambiguous. Roman Catholic is not. Why is this here again? Mackensen (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't bring this here to inquire about an administrator's POV about the content: A survey was being conducted to address that. An administrator chose to abort the vote in progress in order to push his POV (one with which Mackensen apparently agrees). Are administrators given the charter to override users when they disagree with the users? -SynKobiety 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to matters of common sense and clear factual accuracy, I should imagine they are - that's why the community made them admins. Some catholic churches are seperate from the Roman Catholic Church. If the article is about the Roman Catholic Church and not inclusive of those Catholic churches that do not recognise Rome (and Rome doesn't recognise them!), then there it should remain. Crimsone 04:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What you believe to be common sense and clear factual accuracy may be seen by others as biased POV, whether or not you are an administrator. That is why a vote was being taken. Is an administrator entitled to ignore a vote in progress and impose his own POV? -SynKobiety 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was moved unilaterally in a copy-and-paste move. I fixed it. One of the editors involved in the move war states on his User page his agenda the "Defense of the Catholic Church in the use of her name". Do not bring your battles to Wikipedia. All other articles on the national RC churches are at Roman (only Canada and Great Britain are out of step with the convention, I started a discussion on moving Great Britain to be consistent with the rest, there is already a discussion at Canada). Voting is evil. The last move created double and triple redirects, most of whicih I think I have also fixed. In other words, I did what an admin is supposed to do: fixed up the mess caused by editors on a mission. Guy 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the concept that "naming conventions of pages" is not subject to a vote. Once a norm has been established that should hold sway. Just because "k.d.lang" likes to downcase her name doesn't mean we should. Just because someone decides that the "Catholic church based in Rome" is the only legitimate one, doesn't mean we do. The standard is "Roman Catholic Church of xxx" and that's what should hold. Don't be a scone. Wjhonson 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually when it comes to personal names we should depict them the way they want. In fact v/v kd lang, it says right at the top of her page that the first initial of her name is cap'd due to 'technical restrictions' in the Wiki software. The 'l' is lowercase. Anchoress 10:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a 'move lock' would be appropriate here to stop the POV pushing, and move waring. But since I've already expressed opinions on this issue, I won't be the one to do it. 'Catholic' is a ambiguous/contested title - and it is not NPOV for us to describe one denomination as the Catholic Church. Keep it at Roman Catholic, and note that the denomination in question usually self-designates by the contested title. --Doc 10:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I came here because of a procedural issue, which is exactly the kind of thing where I thought adminstrators should hold sway. What I have found is that there are many administrators who feel that their place is to enforce their own POVs instead of enforcing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. There is more consideration about what the policies and guidelines mean among users in the discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Church than has been exhibited here by administrators. Of course, administrator JzG has shut down a survey being conducted there also. He tells us "voting is evil." WP:NCON says otherwise.

The title I gave this section has now been censored twice. It was originally Administrator JzG aborts vote in process. Please excuse me if that violates some procedure, but show me the guideline it violates. -SynKobiety 01:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 evading block

Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is currently evading his block through an anonymous IP: 69.227.167.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). See contribution history and specifically [5] where he admits that it's easier editing with the block now in place. -- Gogo Dodo 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Plautus Satire

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

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

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

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

voting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, this user was rightfully blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks; offending comments: [6], [7], [8]. —Centrx→talk • 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

How does one deal with false accusations and WP:OWN on a sensitive topic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because of my change above, SlimVirgin and Jayjg accused me of trying to remove the various key points [9] [10], of whitewashing and POV [11], and of distorting thing with my own opinion [12]. The only way accusation that some could have made sense was if one stopped reading through the paragraph half way. The problem is that none of these accusations by SlimVirgin or Jayjg are true, but it doesn't seem to matter. It's really quite strange, over the top and frustrating. Is my change really such a distortion of the original that I deserve such accusations and to be marginalized so effectively?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that I purposely stopped editing that article you just referenced to accommodate 6SJ7's WP:OWN concerns (see [13]). Unfortunately, stepping away from the article does leave it in a semi-finished state (especially since no one else stepped in to edit it in my absence) while also exposing myself to criticisms such as yours (that I don't finish articles.) I think I made the right choice and the situation is only temporary. For examples of readable articles that I have written or contributed to see the list on my userpage. --Ben Houston 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abuse of Wikipedia by a hacker

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

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

I sent a message

---

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

Subject: Am I blocked?

My user name is Comps.

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

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

Pls advise.

Thanks

---

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

Later I noticed the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Thnx, Comps

Comps

Response

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

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

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

Surely the note was this:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Comps 15:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made some pretty hostile comments on an afd earlier today [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], adding personal attacks both in edits and edit summaries. He was blocked [20], and I suppose he emailed the blocking admin and was unblocked shortly. Travb came to my talkpage to apologize [21] and removed the comments he made on the afd[22]...then, in less than an hour, he saw that rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was in trouble [23] and quickly arrived at arbcom [24] in what appears to be some retalitory effort against me since rootology filed an arbcom case against me that isn't going according to his plan. Would someone have a word with Trab and get him to calm down?--MONGO 19:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Looking over his edits and especially his edit summaries...he insults an arbcom member, insultingly mocks others comments by quoting them in his edit summaries,[25], [26], tests the waters on a proposed ruling that links to encyclopedia dramatica will be removed by adding this...can someone have a word with him and explain that whjile I welcome all comments to the arbcom case, I hardly can see why he needed to show up today for the first time and post over 40, yes forty, mostly harassing comments on the arbcom case.--MONGO 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Travb's response

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

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

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

"Anyway, I am unwatching the page, if you need more help, let me know."[27]

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

"I am waiting for you or another admin to start threating me for expressing my opinion. (Remember this sentence--if it doesnt happen, I will admit I am wrong)."[28]

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

My WP:NPA violation

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

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

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

"You may never see this edit, but I mentioned your name in a recent AfD you voted on. I removed the offensive comment. My apologies sir, happy editing."[29]

I realized my mistake and retrified it.

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

Please let me know if I am stepping over the line at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mcilvaine I am being very careful not to even "skirt" WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I will stop editing this page if necessary, or change any edits I make.[30]

Mongo's accusations

MONGO wrote:

"...then, in less than an hour, he saw that rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was in trouble [31] and quickly arrived at arbcom [32] in what appears to be some retalitory effort against me since rootology filed an arbcom case against me that isn't going according to his plan."

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

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

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

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

I got involved with MONGOs arbitration, because rootology messaged me.[33] That is what got me involved with MONGOs arbitration. I have known about MONGOs arbitration for weeks, and added no comments. As mentioned above, MONGO and I have known of each other since I became an editor in October 2005 with WSI. We frequent the same political sites. We also are in contact with the same people. Unfortunatly we have radically different views, which up until this point has never been a problem.

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

Mongo's second set of accusations

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

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

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

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

"I'm done talking with you...either an Rfc or I'll take this issue to arbcom."[34]

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

Mongos Conduct

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

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

MONGOs failure to work with others continued today: Full text here:[35] [36]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mongos supporters

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

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

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

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

Suggestions to resolve this dispute

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

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

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

Update

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

WP:Civil Trolling and harassment

WP:NPA WP:AGF You have trolled and added many harassing comments today...I think you are harassing me. If this doesn't end, I will be forced to write up an Rfc on your actions. I have already brought the matter up at AN/I.[37]--MONGO 04:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

WP:AGF WP:Civil WP:NPA "Are you serious....are you so blind to your editing and edit summaries that you fail to understand that you did nothing but attack me and even an arbcom member? No doubt, you showed up at arbcom to pick a fight immediately after discussing matters with rootology...who spent yesterday attacking numerous wikipedians in the worst way he could....guess what that makes you look like? A supporter of a troll. I'm done talking with you...either an Rfc or I'll take this issue to arbcom."[38] (emphasis my own)

(Please let me finish explaining my side)

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

Comments

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

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

"how about you apologize to Fred Bauder for the comments you made about him" See my section about my comments to Fred #Mongo's second set of accusations. If Fred wants me to apologize to him for calling him a lawyer, and pointing out a template on his user page, I will happily apologize. In fact, if it helps difuse the situation, I will apologize to Fred right now.[[39]]

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

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

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

Outside Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I wrote above:

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

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

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

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

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

Unprofessional behaviour?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBDunkerson loses it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary Section Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make your case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lar can you please tell Chairboy that its ok for me to state people are acting like petulant children when I feel they are in fact doing so and are permitted on this page to talk frankly about users express their behavior. Thank you. How can it be disruptive if the concensus here is its permitted on this talk page? [40] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is useless

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

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

Possible Devout Christian sock

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

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

Croclover (talk · contribs) block and Bindi Irwin stuff

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

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

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

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

User:Lorrainier

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

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

Single purpose account!

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

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

User:Arvin Sloane

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

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

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

Dynamic IP User evading 3RR

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

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

Recent history:

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

(switch ip)

• 213.240.3.43 [44] [45] [46]

(switch ip)

• 213.240.3.215 [47] [48]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtney Akins blocked for trolling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linkspam from anon IPs on TV channels' talk pages

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

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

Rory096

Something odd is going on with Rory096 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). If you check his contribution history, he seems to be running a bot to add templates, but then all of a sudden you see these three edits: [55] [56] [57]. It's a very strange looking (at least to me) edit history. There seems to be some past history that I am not aware of. Can somebody look into it? -- Gogo Dodo 04:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He isn't running a bot, just making many minor edits. The other edits are apparently part of some IRC joke. JoshuaZ 04:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. I noticed that Teke just blocked him for 15 minutes. And I did read Rory096's response on his talk page. If this is some joke and admins are involved, I am very disappointed. -- Gogo Dodo 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a joke that admins are involved in. I saw the tail end of Rory acting batty on IRC and discussing these edits, so I hit his shutoff button that's on his userpage. The block was to calm him down. It can be extended if he continues, no problem. Teke ^(talk) 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get some explanation either here or on IRC for the people who use that method of what is going on here. JoshuaZ 04:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here would be better than IRC; not everybody uses IRC. -- Gogo Dodo 04:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't either but since this seems to be IRC centered I presume it has a chance of being resolved there. JoshuaZ 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rory was talking about being bored, and then went to do the Cats. Then, randomly, he mentioned his odd edits and in a matter of a minute after looking I went and temp blocked, he said he was going off for a bit. There's really not a whole lot to what happened; it was as quick and confusing on IRC as it was here. As I said I just hit the shutoff once I gathered the pieces that he provided willingly; I invite him to comment further or for another administrator to extend the block if necessary. Teke ^(talk) 05:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He's just being stupid, and he's keeping it out of the article namespace, so it's not a big deal. Don't make a bigger flap out of this than you have to.--SB | T 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He was making minor edits because he was bored, resulting from a conversation about trolling on IRC. Shadow1 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I have a feeling this isn't about redirect categorization. --Rory096 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is totally unacceptable! Let me suggest that social networking take place on a social networking site. I hear there are many of them to choose from. This is supposed to be an encyclopeida, not a social scene for in which to make "joke" edits out of boredom! There is plenty of realy work to do, and here's a bunch of wasted efforts Pete.Hurd 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This entire thing has been blown completely out of proportion. I made those edits as a joke that affected nothing encyclopaedic. I was in the process of self-reverting when Gogo beat me by a matter of seconds. Nothing malicious happened; my edits were completely harmless. Yes, there's work to do, but that doesn't mean that every editor should be forced to do whatever has to be done every second he's on Wikipedia. Might I remind you that editing, especially editing the encyclopaedia portion, is completely voluntary? There's no harm in edits like those that I made- do we ban "vandalboxes" because anyone editing those isn't editing the encyclopaedia itself? That would be silly, because if we weren't allowed to have a bit of fun here, the rate of editors burning out would almost inevitably go up exponentially. --Rory096 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The wasted time wasn't yours, it was all the people chasing after you trying to figure out what was going on. They could have been doing other things than playing an unwitting part in your joke. Pete.Hurd 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, this has been blown out of proportion. If this was never put on ANI, it would have saved Gogo's time, JoshuaZ's time and your time. As soon as I showed that it wasn't malicious it should have been dropped. --Rory096 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a joke, I was on IRC, User:Jasabella said that his userpage redirected to "Bitch", then Rory actually redirected it, thats all. Just a joke no one died, completely over exaggerated--Coasttocoast 22:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about freaking out over nothing. I like the IRC crowd, I spent a lot of time on there. They do this. A block? You've got to be friggen kidding me. Self professed vandalism to a userpage of two people in a joke? That's the sort of thing that shows how our community interacts, keeps level and has fun, an important part of life. Next time this sort of thing comes up, unless someone actually complains, have some fun yourself. Everytime someone reverts take a shot or something. -M^ask 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Offensive username

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

He is [58]. It's just not on the usertalk. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking on meta:Right to vanish

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

User:Mike18xx personal attacks on living scholars and distortion of other editor's comments

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

User:Mike18xx was reported to ANI before. Now, he is making personal attacks on living scholars and had distorted other editor's comments.

Please have a look at this where he distorts my edit. When user:Itaqallah noted and fixed this vandalism [59], Mike showed his persistence by this revert and calling Itaqallah's edit as vandalism [60]. But later he self-reverted.

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

• Bernard Lewis is a *hack*

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

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

• Carl Ernst is a hack.

Mike's interpretation of wikipedia policies: "Bernard Lewis" is not a reliable source for wikipedia since [61] , [62]

Mike is not contributing to wikipedia in a civil manner and removes sourced material (e.g. [63]). --Aminz 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

request to block user:Broodwitch

The user pasted about 750kb of image links into Template:Wiktionary (history: [64]) and, after having reverted that vandalizm pasted the same stuff onto my talkpage. See: special:Contributions/Broodwitch --katpatuka 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Removal of critical comments at Talk:Ezebuiro Obinna

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

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

Indef blocking of meatpuppets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A look at their contributions shows [65] and [66]. New users don't start talking about some random "User:Tobias Conradi" who they've never encountered before and have no reason to have any knowledge of, on RFPP citing semi-protect policy no less. If not sockpuppets of User:Tobias Conradi, they are at least sockpuppets of someone who is circumventing something. —Centrx→talk • 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:PAIN needing attention

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

posting racist quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandal watch

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

• User_talk:155.247.166.29
• User talk:155.247.166.28

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

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

Flame wars, and the exporting there of..

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

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

Sysop restores vandal glorification pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed community ban on Nixer

Unfortunately I was unable to reply to this notable discussion [67] because of a traffic accident that led to a broken foot, so I'll try to do it now.

• First, I fully respect not only the literal meaning, but also the spirit of the rules, the spirit of discussion and arguments. Unfortunately the rules in Wikipedia not always enforced enough and some users feel they can freely broke the rules if their opponent has long blocking history.
• Next as you can see, most of blocks of me were done by involved admins, which supported their own versions. I always invite other party to discuss the changes. I can even present cases were I asked other user to explain his opinion either in the revert summary, article's talk page and his own talk page - and still no answer did I got.
• My contributions you can see from the Moscow, Colonization of Mercury articles as well as many others. My fight the vandalism you can see here: [68]. Unfortunately I was not awarded an anti-vandal barnstar by anybody for this work.
• As you can see from the Talk:Pluto, I did not object calling Pluto a dwarf planet since it's official designation. So any occusations me in lamerism originated from misinformation.
• Thanks to Alex Bakharev.--Nixer 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Violation of 3rr on FK Partizan

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

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

Request intervention on inappropriate Usernames

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dasondas POV-pushing edits/personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

I protected the article to break the ongoing edit war. Please note that the reporter of "POV-pushing edits/personal attacks" is far from being innocent here: [69] [70] [71] May I suggest all parties to please tone it down, WP is not a place for political/anti/religious activism. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Sockpuppet block requested

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

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

Misuse of policy template for questionable proposed policy

A proposed policy, and yet in userspace: User:Kelly_Martin/Policy_council. When the template has been removed by three consecutive editors, Kelly has replaced it each time.

Kelly having a history of unilateralism when it comes to policy since wikimania, the proposed policy is alarming enough on it's own, seeking to limit who creates policy and how policy is amended, while being drafted in userspace away from an unsuspecting community and proper community input, but it gets worse when one considers that recent IRC discussion on this topic at #wikipedia Kelly proposed that all policy needs to determined by a small group of policy makers in face-to-face meetings funded by the foundation, and away from the community and its' input, led by Kelly Martin and Kim Bruning. Viewed in this light, Kelly ignoring calls for this proposed policy to be placed in the Wikipedia namespace, then edit warring to keep its' proposed policy template while hidden away from community review is simply unacceptable. I'd like to hear what regulars here have to say about this before I try to remove the template again. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 23:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly should not edit war, even in her userspace- this cannot simultaneously be a proposal AND a page that only she can edit. However, I don't see that what namespace it's in is a big deal. Discussions of the merits of this (IMO appalling) proposal belong elsewhere, of course. Friday (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a somewhat pointless edit war. If this proposal is to be put before the community, then it'll obviously need to be publicized, so there's no problem with letting it sit in her userspace for the time being. Conversely, if this were to be a fait accompli from the WMF, the location of the proposal wouldn't matter in the least—so there's still no problem with leaving it in userspace. Kirill Lokshin 23:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The Land 23:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of where it is, it needs to be discussed and other people have to be allowed to edit it, so I suggest that Kelly moves it to project space so that a discussion can begin. The Foundation would presumably want to know the strength of feeling about it, Kirill, if they were to involve themselves in any way, so that's why it needs to be in project space, or at least publicized and open for editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If it were a fait accompli from the WMF, community participation would not be an issue. It's a fait accompli from Ms. Martin that I'm concerned about. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the level of community involvement being proposed—elections, WMF support, that sort of thing—I think that concerns about this being imposed by any single individual are somewhat far-fetched. (At the very least, there would need to be enough support from the stewards to get rid of the dissenting admins! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. Please stop removing the "proposed" tag from what is, wherever it may be in Wikipedia's namespaces, clearly a policy proposal. This is an utterly ridiculous and petty little squabble. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm about as worried about all this as I am an invasion of Michigan's Upper Peninsuala by Canada. People work up policy ideas in their userspace all the time. The assumptions of bad faith flying around here are staggering. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• So what exactly is the problem with people being reminded that "This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy""? Demiurge 23:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing whatsoever. I'm in favor of it being marked as such. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk about a tempest in a teakettle. It's a subpage of Kelly's userspace. What does it matter whether it's labelled a proposed policy or not? Stop reverting Kelly in her userspace. --Cyde Weys 23:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy template is not being misused, so it should be left alone. There is nothing wrong with her drafting a proposed policy in her userspace. If you think the policy itself is questionable, then question it. Mexcellent 00:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

I'm still very confused about all this. This is a policy proposal under development. The {{proposal}} tag specifically covers this possibility. I really can't come up with a rational reason for the passionate insistence that it is wrong for a draft page in user space to have the {{proposal}} tag. And given some of the comments above, I find it extraordinarily hard to assume that the objections being levied at the mere existence of this proposal are truly offered in good faith -- especially the charges of "unilateralism" and of attempting to engineer a personal "fait accompli" for a proposal that would create a majority-elected body whose principal function is to recommend policy to the community. I did say that I would seek to get Kim Bruning drafted to the council.

I've already told the people who are so vehemently objecting to it being in user space that they can move it. Radiant! removed the tag in what appears to be me to have been "good faith" because it appeared to have been "stale". He was mistaken, however, and I reinstated the tag and solicited preliminary comment from a variety of people. Some of those comments have been fruitful (thanks, Alison), and have led to what I think is a better proposal. However, I was not quite ready to take it fully "public"; I should think that that should be a choice I get to make (but apparently not). So, I invite anyone who feels that this proposal should be debated in full now, before I've decided to move it for discussion, is free to move it to an appropriate page in Wikipedia: space.

Oh, and FeloniousMonk, this proposal in no way limits how policy may be created or changed. I suggest you reread the proposal, as you are clearly mistaken about that. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no issues with why {{proposal}} should'nt be used in the user namespace. El_C 00:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But isn't there an issue with an edit (which Kelly later says seems to have been a "good faith" edit) being reverted with the edit summary "kindly stay out of my userspace"[72] when the page is described as a proposed policy? AnnH ♫ 01:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. The editor in question is quite capable of negotiating on this with Kelly. There's no need to bring every piddling little spat to this forum, which is already groaning with serious problems requiring actual administrator attention. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, if I wasn't assuming good faith, I'd say this sounds a lot like a 'let's get Kelly for this' thread. --Doc 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD reverses valid DRV decision

Now going completely against the policy he claims to be inviolable, CBD has recreated Bad Eisenkappel out of process even though it was deleted and then had its deletion unanimously endorsed at DRV. Evidently it is ok for him to ignore process, but not for anyone else. pschemp | talk 00:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears CBD did the correct thing. The town does exist, right? El_C 00:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This should be a fairly simply one. If there is really a town called Bad Eisenkappel at those approximate coordinates, then obviously Deletion Review got it wrong. If not, then CBD is being a bit overkeen. And yes, fuck process. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the article is now significantly longer than, Eisenkappl (slov. Zelesna Kapla) is located in Austria in Völkermarkt (district)., which was the entirety of the previous article. Dragons flight 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why this article should not exist. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with what CBD did. DRV is not infalliable. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason he should be complaining about other people's out of process deletions and technicalities then as was done earlier this week. Good to know. pschemp | talk 01:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What an odd series of events. Nice article. --Zer0faults 01:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have asked the user not to violate WP:POINT again in a casual manner. --Zer0faults 01:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not point, I beleive the article should remain deleted. pschemp | talk 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is that? I am sorry your reason an article on a real town should be deleted is because CB did it out of proccess, however thats not a AfD appropriate reason. If this was deleted by accident and missed in review, then why exactly should it return to deleted status? --Zer0faults 01:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He also called not one but two people trolls [73] (edit summary) which according to him is a personal attack and admin abuse. --W.marsh 01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. What happened to assuming good faith? I think Pussy Galore probably meant ever word sincerely. pschemp | talk 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whats this have to do with the DRV? --User:Zer0faults 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I can start a new topic then if it bugs you so much. Maybe I should go back and resection all those long conversations up there where someone goes off on a different subject? I wouldn't want anyone to be confused. pschemp | talk 01:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a complaint about a personal attack the proper forum is WP:PAIN --User:Zer0faults 01:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about a personal attack, its about a double standard. Or do you think its ok for CBD to tell people not to use the words trolls and trolling, and then do it himself after lambasting wmarsh for doing it? If you do that's fine, you are allowed. pschemp | talk 01:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You said this was about the town, the section is, a user above then complains about the usage of the words troling to describe them, thats WP:PAIN. I am not sure about the confusion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Zer0faults, please change back your sig as you did above — so that my sigh of relief wouldn't be for naught. El_C 01:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the out of process restoration is not the big issue here, really, although the article is not worthy of life. What matters more to me is that it's a demonstration of what we've all been saying, no one is perfect. CBD would do well to remember htat and perhaps cut his fellow admins a little slack instead of attacking them on the talk pages of disruptive users. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV endorsed the deletion not because it wasn't a real town, but because the article was effectively contentless. I've re-deleted it. I won't do it again, of course, but my suggestion would be that if this town is deserving of a real article, that someone actually write a real article, rather than a stub that says "X is Y." If no one can be bothered to actually do that, then I really can't be bothered to cry crocodile tears over the poor abused baby article, cut down in the prime of its life. Nandesuka 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming the town dosen't exist? El_C

This is rather strange. If the town exists, why not let the article exist? Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, DRV said make it larger. CBD already made it 3 times larger than what DRV endorsed, and I would have happily said it was a border community with a population of about 2800 [74]. Dragons flight 01:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

nevertheless Nandesuka got it in one. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I also have some content to add, however I am not sure if its already noted as the article is deleted. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ye gods. This is another non-issue. The town exists; therefore its article should stay. Please find another forum to crusade against short articles. — Dan | talk 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was restored by Rdsmith4, who beat another admin (not me) to the draw. Please stop pointlessly deleting this article. It isn't going to work. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Rdsmith edit-conflicted my undelete.  ;-) The town exists, and there is absolutely no reason we shouldn't have an article on it. It is really that simple. This is not a valid CSD G4 or WP:SALT candidate. As said before, this should be a non-issue. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The point you are missing here all is that the original author of the article had MONTHS to recreate it with content, at which point no one would have complained. However, he refused to until he got his way with the original article being restored. Indeed he spent those months whining and complaining about admin abuse rather than writing a decent article. And now, by restoring it, and writing it for him, we have sent the message that that kind of behaviour and manipulation is ok. pschemp | talk 01:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You should be happy that Wikipedia did not lose an important article on an actual location, if anything this drama helped expand an article. I am happy when Wikipedia grows in content in general. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[Zer0faults, see sig comment above] We do not make such a point at the expense of the encyclopedia, on a town entry, pschemp. El_C 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was Tobias who refused to rewrite it not me. If anything his refusal to do it until he got his way is what hurt the encyclopedia. Note also I didn't vote to delete the original. I objected to the ignorange of process when just this week CBD blasted me for not following it perfectly. the article is just an example of this. pschemp | talk 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)pschemp | talk 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So this is entirely personal issue. Accordingly, please take it to the relevant user talk pages, and discontinue this conversation. — Dan | talk 02:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Should I go remove all the other personal issues posted on this page too? Though I hardly think an admin behaving badly is a personal issue as its discussed at lentgh in threads up above where I was accused of not being perfect. pschemp | talk 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sorry edited a few after Tony did, just havent edited the actual settings yet, 2 minutes, thanks for reminder. --User:Zer0faults

What's wrong with an article about a place that says "X is a village in Y at Z?" For heaven's sake, this is a place. It was probably here before we were born, and it will probably still be here when we're all dead. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeping this is a no brainer. This is exactly why we should not let silly squabbles get in the way of the encyclopedia, which I remain convinced is around here somewhere. Friday (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Davkal blocked for personal attacks, please review

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

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

Mexican politicians and BLP

All my previous interactions with administrators have been highly negative, but I'm posting here anyway, just for kicks.

There's an ongoing, lively debate on Vicente Fox (mostly), Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and Felipe Calderón about whether WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPA are policies, or just really bad ideas.

Pgk, Geoffrey Spear, Chacor and Hseldon10 believe I am a "dictator of Wikipedia" [75] for insisting that sources actually support the content. For example, my first edit to Vicente Fox removed a long diatribe about "racist comments" made by Vicente Fox. Notice no references or sources were provided[76]. I removed ([77]) the assertion that Fox's "campaign promised to provide every Mexican a job in Mexico" when the source provided[[78] did not mention this claim or anything close to it. Hseldon reverted those two edits with no explanation[79]. I then removed all and only unsourced content[80]. Hseldon10 then made extensive edits re-adding the content to an amazing assortment of dead links and obscure Spanish-language sources[81] followed by a wonderful edit from Joseph Solis of Australia that completely undid my enforcement of BLP by adding in other unsourced content I had previously removed[82]. I reverted these edits[83]. For the next ten or so edits there was relative peace with Bnguyen adding a reliable source to Fox's controversial comments and I removed a few references linking to blogs - forbidden by WP:RS. The next twenty or so edits consisted of a revert war between Hseldon and various vandal anons over when Fox's term ends. The details are irrelevant. At this point I went through all of Hseldon's "reliable sources" and realized I had been duped. I altered the content to actually reflect the sources here[84], removed a pov eulogy to Fox here[85] that was sourced to Fox's state of the nation speech[86]. I removed several more broken links and obscure Spanish language sources[87]. Since then Geoff Spear and Pgk (twice) have reverted my edits. Chacor is now claiming I'm violating WP:OWN and is demanding an WP:RFC[88]. He refuses to call me by my username and instead refers to me as "yyyyyy." The comments on the talkpage are a wonderful assortment of personal attacks. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, you do realise "yyyyyy" is easier to type than "Ya ya ya ya ya ya", right? Btw, just to point out WP:RFCU - here. Also, this is a content dispute, not an administrative problem. – Chacor 02:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)