Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:21, 6 March 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

User:One Night In Hackney's signature

One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) has today started to sign his name with IRA at the end (linked to his talk page)- see for example. I asked him why he was doing this- but haven't managed to get a direct response yet. I don't think it is appropiate to have the name of a terrorist organisation in an editor's signature. WP:SIG states that a signature must conform to the username policy. It clearly states that Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime) are not allowed. Astrotrain 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a terrorist organisation. Thanks. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oy. This is just what we need. One Night In Hackney, is it possible that you could be urged to voluntarily desist from this practice rather than bring about controversy and divisiveness regarding it? Newyorkbrad 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He was asked about it on his talk page. He did not respond positivly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I engaged in polite discussion with someone who has spent days trolling several pages I am involved in, then he continued it past the point of relevant discussion. For example see the discussion on the Ivor Bell talk page and the related discussion here. Please can someone actually clarify that if the author, title and ISBN number of a book have been provided that is everything that is required for an editor to verify a reference, there is no requirement that the source is available online. Are books not reliable sources any more? One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This has to do with your WP:SIG how?--Isotope23 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you maybe give a response as to why you are using IRA in your signature? You must know that people will associate that acronym with a terrorist organisation that is outlawed in the United Kingdom? Astrotrain 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He should keep it, why should he change it because Astrotrain doesnt like it, the Irish Republican Army is not a terrorist organisation.--Vintagekits 21:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he could add a date, to make it clear which IRA he's talking about? Many people will think he means a modern paramilitary organisation. There are better ways to educate people about the history of the IRA.DanBeale 12:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Isotope23, I feel it is important to put this situation into perspective. The editor in question has done nothing but troll me for several days, this is nothing but more of the same in my opinion. In reply to Astrotrain, the Irish Republican Army are not a terrorist organisation. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See Harrods#History. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just needlessly divisive. Regarding the contentions of trolling etc, this should be resulting in a user RFC or an AN/I report to deal with it.--Isotope23 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's a fan of IRAs. --Mperry 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the IRA is a terrorist group or not. This is about the arguments about the nature of the IRA that having this in a sig will inevitably cause.

Does this disrupt Misplaced Pages? Yes. Is there any good reason to have this in a sig? I'm having trouble seeing any, and the implicit "it's my sig, I can do what I want" don't seem to outweigh "this project is here to build an encyclopedia, please limit your actions here to things that help that goal." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

this is laugable - whatever wikipedia says, the majority of people with the UK see the IRA as a terrorist organisation - it's presence in a signature will only cause unrest and problems - it should be removed ASAP. --Fredrick day 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What's truly laughable on Misplaced Pages are all the self-important editors running around talking about "disruption" and "problems" when there isn't any. Where are the British citizens wailing and moaning about this user's signature? They, uh, don't exist. Like in so many other "controversies," the actual DISRUPTION is caused by mealy-mouthed editors pulling their own chains and getting into tizzies over NOTHING. MoeLarryAndJesus 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine how this is helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You trying to draw attention to yourself there MoeLarryAndJesus? You are pretty close to a WP:USERNAME block as is.--Isotope23 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"British Citizens" - well I perfer english gentleman myself... --Fredrick day 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat Fredrick. My signature was temporarily removed (by me) at 21:42 anyway as a gesture of good faith while this is ongoing, and I have since replaced it with something else entirely so we can hopefully draw a line under this whole sorry saga. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Both the original ("IRA") and revised ("1916") are fairly clear WP:POINT violations. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for one's political viewpoints. In good faith, per WP:SIG (surprised that isn't policy, btw) and given that the sig suffix is likely to cause disruption, ONIH might consider getting rid of it as an easy solution. Badgerpatrol 12:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1916 isn't "likely to cause disruption", because people won't know what he means by it unless they have prior awareness of this discussion. Lots of things happened in 1916. --Random832 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is crystal clear that the only reason he's doing it is to annoy Astrotrain, which is both childish and petulant. And the IRA in Misplaced Pages are not a terrorist origanisation, assomebody has a bee in their bonnet, but IRA should really be redirecting to the Provisional IRA article, which is what it is most commonly denotes. And the Provos were / are terrorists. Proto ► 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Badgerpatrol that this looks like a pretty clear WP:POINT violation. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. When one's actions are under scrutiny, it's not usually helpful to gratuitously antagonize one's colleagues. Raymond Arritt 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the links ONIH provided, regarding on-going content and citation disputes with AstroTrain. While I'm not thrilled with the IRA sig, I do think that this is not a fully 'good faith' submission of a problem, but rather a way for AT to distract ONIH from the disputes. I think that the 1916 is a perfect compromise, and the two should both be focusing on content. This is pretty much a showboating case of system gaming, not unlike Astrotrain's argument that since he can't see a copy of a book to verify it, it's not a clear reference, and shouldn't count. I support the 1916 signature compromise. ThuranX 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I also support the 1916 sig compromise. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought IRA was an acronym of 'I Ran Away'.4kinnel 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps that advice is helpful. InBC 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Worldtraveller blocked? Can't believe it.

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

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

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

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

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

• Personal attack removed. InBC 15:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was told the correct action was to file an RFC or RFAR, but he ignored that advice and continued harassing. Dbuckner please be civil. InBC 15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

In this very thread. InBC 15:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

No, if you insult other editors I will go to your talk page and leave a no personal attack warning. InBC 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

That is still a personal attack. You cannot just stick "seems to me" onto an insult and sling away, that does not justify abusive language. I would not try to dance on the line of personal attacks. InBC 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

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

Basically if the community tells you something is disruptive, and you keep doing it, then you are disrupting the community. It was only a 24 hour block, and I think that it was done to prevent disruption. InBC 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

And what do you think about the 24 hours I added for personal attacks? Do you also think that behavior is acceptable? I would like to point of that even a reasonable request can be harassment if you make it enough times. InBC 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblocks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps that advice is helpful. InBC 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Worldtraveller blocked? Can't believe it.

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

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

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

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

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

• Personal attack removed. InBC 15:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was told the correct action was to file an RFC or RFAR, but he ignored that advice and continued harassing. Dbuckner please be civil. InBC 15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

In this very thread. InBC 15:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

No, if you insult other editors I will go to your talk page and leave a no personal attack warning. InBC 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

That is still a personal attack. You cannot just stick "seems to me" onto an insult and sling away, that does not justify abusive language. I would not try to dance on the line of personal attacks. InBC 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

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

Basically if the community tells you something is disruptive, and you keep doing it, then you are disrupting the community. It was only a 24 hour block, and I think that it was done to prevent disruption. InBC 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

And what do you think about the 24 hours I added for personal attacks? Do you also think that behavior is acceptable? I would like to point of that even a reasonable request can be harassment if you make it enough times. InBC 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblocks

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

I certainly was not, what are you talking about? InBC 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I increased the block for personal attacks "fuckwits like CBDunkerson, HighinBC and InShaneee", not sure what polemics you are referring to, but that block was very justified, and I think your unblock is inappropriate. Even if you undid the first 24 hours for harassment the 24 hours I gave for personal attacks is clearly justified. InBC 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline

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

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

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hitting our selves on the head with a hammer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block of User:Dbuckner

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

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

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

The point

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

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

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

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

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

Complaint about JzG

JzG, in your complaint about my "unilateral removal of information at ArbCom," you have carefully avoided mentioning one inconvenient truth, as you are in the habit of doing: the information I was deleting was personal info about a Misplaced Pages member. As Moe said on my Talk page, posting such information is unacceptable and worthy of a block. I will also mention, in this venue, the e-mail you sent to me this morning that said, "Fuck off." If I did the same things you've been doing, I would instantly be blocked for incivility and posting personal info.

Is anybody going to do anything about this?

Furthermore, according to the logic that was used to permablock Fensteren ("no new user goes straight into dispute resolution"), both Apj-us-nyc and Eschoir should be instantly permablocked as sockpuppets.

Is anybody going to do anything about that? Dino 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been clerking this arbitration case. Much of the behavior on the evidence and workshop pages has veered between borderline and completely unacceptable. I have refactored the worst instances of inappropriate material being added (by various parties) and left the rest for the arbitrators to sort through, and urged all the parties to bear in mind that the evidence and workshop need to be relevant and comprehensible for the arbitrators to use to resolve the case. It would best at this point if everyone would stop editing the pages, unless absolutely necessary. Evidence inappropriate for presentation on-wiki (including but not limited to information revealing real-world identifying information) should be e-mailed directly to the arbitrators and not posted on-wiki. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect Brad, I feel that some of your conduct has been the same. You posted a spurious defamatory email from banned multiple checkuser confirmed sockpuppteer user BrianfromPalatine - who was determined through multiple RFCU's to be a serial liar about every aspect of his life including his indentity, age, location, employment, background, etc. You published this wild unbelievable screed full of spurious unfounded allegations of harassment and stalking without one bit of evidence to back them up. The documented facts are that in the 100's of posts by Bryan on Free Republic during that time frame not one claims harassment - but instead they document his own malfeasance such as bragging about being a 'long time trouble maker' on liberal boards, and even outlining a plan to infiltrate liberal discussion boards, post phony threats against conservatives, and then report those threats to the police, to benefit Free Republic! 'Dean' accused BenBurch of felonious harassment that involved the police, but when I offer to have someone get the 'police report' for verification, you delete these comments, while letting banned user 'Bryan's' 100% undocumented claims of stalking and worse, and 'Dean's' claims of felony harassment against an editor in good standing stay. Thank God that Bryan didn't claim in his email that 'Dingoes Ate My Baby!', as I'm sure it would have been entered into 'evidence' by you, as credible, true and correct. - FaAfA (yap) 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the clerk for the arbitration case. Blocked or banned users are permitted to submit evidence by e-mail, to be either posted to the evidence page or forwarded to the arbitrators. To an extreme degree of obviousness, this does not mean that I vouched for the content of the evidence as "credible, true and correct." If you had requested at the time that I remove this evidence and forward to the arbitrators by e-mail instead, I would have considered your request. That you are raising the matter instead at this time is really extraordinary. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of 'Bryan's' email tirade was not pertinent to the matters being Arbifatrated. I had no idea that we could request removal unless there was specfic personal attack, BLP violation or similar (my fault) and that was one reason why I challenged 'Dean's' claims of felony harassment by BenBurch - and even arranged for a friend to drive from Chicago to Palatine to get a signed statement from the police - but you deleted all that - while 'Dean's' claims of felony harassment not only stand, but get posted to 1000's of users talk pages via the Signpost. (not your fault) Your last name isn't Hinnen is it? (That's a JOKE - JUST KIDDING! ;-) - FaAfA (yap) 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any paticualr point in posting this message here. It seems like it would be more appropriate on JzG's talk page. Viridae 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's completely status quo for Dino's behaviour. SirFozzie 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Of course there's a point to posting it here. We are absolutely not allowed to draw inferences from the fact that Dean Hinnen told us that Bryan is his brother. We absolutely may not infer from that that Bryan has the same surname, that would be an intolerable invasion of privacy. And most especially we may not report that external parties state that Bryan is in fact Bryan Dean Hinnen. That would be very wrong. No no no, we may not report that. It would be as bad as assuming that an editor who picks up the vendetta of a banned user from the same IP address is the same person - impossible to support. How could that be the case? It never happens. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Ouch, that was one Catch-22. So we are not allowed to point out absurdly obvious connections without the threat of a libel lawsuit? --physicq (c) 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If information is not able to be put on a Misplaced Pages page it can always be given via email to the ArbCom. JoshuaZ 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This case was sent to arbitration precisely because this group of editors had become an incredible resource drain on our administrators and editors—just like now. Let's end this thread here. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn right. The case should be closed, endorsing Bryan's ban, applying the blindingly obvious, i.e. blocking Dean, and probably an article ban and civility parole for FAAFA. It has been far and away the most ill-tempered and pointless RFAR I have ever been involved in. The only real result is that I have moved from cautious distrust of Dean to outright contempt. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first Arbitrator has weighed in and I don't yet see an endorsement of a Dino ban. I do, however, see a proposed one-year block on FAAFA. Happy to disappoint you, sir. Now then. According to the logic that was used to permablock Fensteren ("no new user goes straight into dispute resolution"), both Apj-us-nyc and Eschoir should be instantly permablocked as sockpuppets. Is anybody going to do anything about that? Dino 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing hubris. Totally amazing. You really think you going to be vindicated by this process, don't you? --BenBurch 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Vindicated? Probably not 100% ... but FAAFA is going to get what he deserves, and so are you. Stalking is serious. Admitting that you were stalking me was generous. Now then. According to the Fensteren precedent, Apj-us-nyc and Eschoir are sockpuppets and should be permablocked. Is anybody going to do anything about that? Dino 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite strange, as all three parties are being dragged down the same ArbCom ban hole, you among them. And the proposed decision page is still blank, so I won't draw arrogant conclusions from nonexistent sources. And we always have a community ban bludgeon to wield at some, if those said people dare step over the line...again. We're not very kind with people who think they are more than what they are. --physicq (c) 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to respond to that. My entire purpose in starting an account was to remove an abysmally sourced criticism from an article about an organization that, in the time period that was described by the abysmally sourced criticism, was a one-man website run by a living person named Jim Robinson. I happened to know that the abysmally sourced criticism was a lie. It has been removed. WP:BLP has been served. Anything that I manage to achieve beyond that is pure gravy. If I'm doomed, and if I manage to drag down the two incorrigible trolls who posted it when I go, it's a fabulous fringe benefit. They have track records that make the worst goat trail in the Sudan look like the Autobahn. Misplaced Pages will be better off without them.

What matters to me, sir, is making Misplaced Pages better. Dino 02:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You can improve on Misplaced Pages without creating needless friction and animosity within the community as you have done, thank you very much. And your own self-inflicted bloody footprints here aren't any better than their goat trail, so I suggest you read your words twice before posting them. As the community can do without them (assuming that your assertion is correct, just for the sake of argument), we can do without you. --physicq (c) 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In my view Dean is User:BryanFromPalatine or (less likely) a meatpuppet thereof. The sole purpose of that account on Misplaced Pages has been to get a retaliatory ban against FAAFA and BenBurch, after BryanFromPalatine was blocked. I will be most disappointed if ArbCom give him what he wants. FAAFA would not be much of a loss, but BenBurch is generally a reasonable editor. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that explains Ben's admission that he was stalking me, and his bogus sockpuppet allegation that other admins immediately identified as vexatious process. Dino 16:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Only because you preemptively poisoned the well, Dino. BTW.. that's a new one on me, calling a "related" CheckUser result and an admission that you are "Bryan's Brother" who continues his fight "Bogus". SirFozzie 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparent mass copyright violations...

I've come across an anon editor making very large additions to a wide variety of country articles with no references. They seem to have come from FOXNews.com - from each country page. Try Western New Guinea, East Timor and Kiribati, have all had copyright material copy and pasted from and other country pages on this site. Another issue is the Balance of Payments section which miraculously appears in countries as diverse as Kiribati and Libya - suggest another copy'n'paste job. I haven't found it's source, but it is unreferenced and substantial. Even if he was to reference this material, its it really what we want wikipedia to be - a mass copy and paste from FOXNews or similar? The ed appears to be continuing with this edit mode after having been warned by others on his talk page. Not sure what can be done given that it is on a large scale, and I can't chase the ed all day. I've left a message for 'him'. regards --Merbabu 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Did FOX get that text from CIA World Factbook originally? --BenBurch 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you find the original edit these were introduced? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the source of this person's edits in a google search. The Western New Guinea edits were word for word from the Fox website, but other edits appear to be reworded a bit, although probably not enough to avoid copyright infringement. The Fox website takes about ten minutes to load each page, so checking is very laborious. I agree that the edits are not acceptable without sources, and have removed a number of them.

The three ips/accounts used so far that I know of are: 68.157.29.52 (talk · contribs), 70.152.248.166 (talk · contribs) and Longjohn3 (talk · contribs).-gadfium 20:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I quick-checked the CIA World Factbook entry for Kiribati - the facts may come from there, but the text does not; if it's copied off the Fox site, then it's a copyvio. Georgewilliamherbert 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

...And I can confirm that spot-checking of contributions shows they came from Fox. I am going to 24 hr block all three users (two IPs and the Longjohn3 account) for this massive and sustained copyvio - we have to get them to stop it. Georgewilliamherbert 03:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anytime you see lots of copyvios it's possibly a sock of Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He added material to many small country articles. -Will Beback · † · 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Slashdotted again

Just a heads up, User talk:Jimbo Wales just got slashdotted again. There will probably be a load of troll comments over at that talk page. Here's the article. Cheers, PTO 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Surprise. Of. The. Century. Picaroon 03:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not kidding ;). Yuser31415 06:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That explains the pig flying by my window. Natalie 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that was my fault. Teke 06:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So are we still evil? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a spam ruling from an admin

Could someone make the call where links to Tiny Mix Tapes are spam? User:Mangle is adding this link to a large number of pages, but argues it's a legitimate review site. The site does contain a lot of advertising. RJASE1 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Has no obvious authority, so why would anyone link it anyway? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely sure why being an admin asserts any more authority over the subject at hand than a regular editor, but I would say it's spam. It doesn't have any authority; it's just like Purevolume links: they're there to be there. Shadow1 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• You may find the relevant guideline useful. --Spartaz 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The site does not contain a lot of advertising. It now has three banners, but, before that, the site operated for several years with absolutely no ads whatsoever. And, it should be noted, the ads in question are music related (it's a music journalism website). It should also be noted that Popmatters and Pitchfork contain far more ads than three. I only added links to tinymixtapes in the "professional reviews" catagory for albums, as the reviews on TMT are the hallmark of professional. I never just spam linked the basic site link. I only provided relevant content to specific albums. I deeply object to the association of Tiny Mix Tapes as spam. It is a professional music journalism website and should be allowed to be mentioned along side other professional reviews.--Mangle 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The above editor has admitted to a conflict of interest but fails to see how that should matter. He seems to think that since he linked to individual pages all over as opposed to the main page of the website, that somehow makes it not spam. I happen to disagree. IrishGuy 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an editor for tinymixtapes, or any publication for that matter. And I fail to see how adding professional reviews under the professional reviews catagory is spamming. IF you don't want people to post professional reviews, don't have a professional reviews catagory in albums.--Mangle 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangle, the problem I have with linking to Tiny Mix Tapes is that you haven't shown it to be a notable web site, in accordance with our policies. I looked into it a bit, and couldn't find anything to change my mind. You can read our web site notability guidelines here. While that is specifically for articles about websites, in my mind it would also apply to external links of this type. If someone wrote a review of an album on a blogspot blog and linked to it in an album's infobox here, I think we'd all agree that most editors would object to including it. In the absence of evidence that Tiny Mix Tapes is a notable or respected website providing reviews, it should be treated the same way, I'm afraid. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, he got blocked for spamming. I ended up pulling out about 120 links by Mangle dating back to December. Pretty much all his edits here have been to insert those links into articles. As far as I am concerned, that is the definition of spam even if the site had some notability to it. IrishGuy 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• TMT reviews are syndicated through Metacritic, which meets WP:WEB criterion 3. Tiny Mix Tapes, especially its playlist generator, have been featured in reliable media as well. and discussed in a scholarly journal. For further reference, Definitive Jux (home to Aesop Rock, RJD2), Young God (Devandra Banhart, Angels Of Light), Type Records (Midaircondo, Xela), Saddle Creek (Bright Eyes), Benbecula (Christ., Frog Pocket), and Madlib's Stones Throw, all very prominent independant labels, as well as Kill Rock Stars band Deerhoof (as seen here)all reprint tinymixtapes reviews the same as Pitchfork, among many others. The reason none of this was spam is because I only added those link to the sections entitled "professional reviews." I strongly believe Tiny Mix Tapes to be a professional review source, and placing those reviews along side allmusic and pitchfork in the proper catagory on album pages is the very definition of what wikipedia is supposed to be about... good, comprehensive content.--Mangle 03:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't a reason it wasn't spam. It was spam. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI again as you don't seem to understand the policies. You are associated with the site. You made widescale edits to various articles where your only addition was a link to the site you are affiliated with. That is spam. IrishGuy 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, I created album pages that otherwise would not exist, complete with tracklisting, then added a link to a tinymixtapes review under the prefabricated "professional reviews" heading. That's called content, not spam. Good call. By the way, I wouldn't call adding one link a "widescale edit." You are exaggerating.--Mangle 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, you created exactly two articles...and, of course, made sure that tinymixtapes.com was the only review linked. Other than that, you placed links to tinymixtapes.com in at least 120 other articles. Yes, that is widescale spamming. IrishGuy 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In 120 other articles under the "professional reviews" catagory, linking to professional articles relevant to the artist = content. And I didn't "make sure" TMT was the only review linked. I just didn't put any others down. The other million Wiki editors are free to add Pitchfork or whatever they want to the pages I created. Quite frankly, I don't know how to "make sure" TMT is the only review linked.--Mangle 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained WP:COI and WP:SPAM to you countless times. You cannot link to a site you are associated with and claim it isn't spamming. It is. It isn't adding content, it is advertising reviews you wrote. IrishGuy 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So then what is the professional reviews catagory for? For not having content?--Mangle 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me exactly what parts of WP:COI and WP:SPAM you are having trouble understanding. IrishGuy 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what the professional reviews catagory in album articles is for.--Mangle 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So once again, you attempt to deflect the fact that you have willfully violated WP:COI and WP:SPAM by adding 120+ links to a website that you are affiliated with. IrishGuy 08:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive Attacks On Wiktionary and Wikispecies connected to Essjay?

Hello, I am an editor over on Wiktionary. In the past few moments, both Wiktionary and Wikispecies have been hit by MASSIVE automated attacks coming in through numerous IPs. All the attacks replace a random page with "ESSJAY'S REVENGE" numerous times, and do the same to the edit summery. So far, there has to have been about 1000 attacks in numerous waves. I would like to see what the Misplaced Pages community thinks of this and warn them in case it happens here. Good day all.

Wiktionary Attacks

Wikispecies Attacks

WIKTIONARY REP 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We could just do a range block on those IPs unless someone sees a reason not to --BigDT 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I C&P-ed some of the IP addies and a couple have had brief spates of vandalism here over the past 2 months or so. I'd support a short range block.

• Dina 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

These two are open proxy outproxies. If you test 216.163.188.40:80 you will see outproxies in that range (I already managed to get .200 and .203). The range is .200-.230 according to rDNS; I will do a range block soon. --cesarb 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I briefly investigated doing the block myself and realized that it was beyond me. Good work. Dina 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note User:WIKTIONARY REP has been indef blocked. this is not the first time recently that a cross-project issue has been raised here by the user causing the trouble in the first place. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible, but the block was a username block, I assume because using "wiktionary" in the name is a violation of WP:USER. The account was not blocked for any other reason that I'm aware of. There is no evidence I've seen that this user was the one who caused the problems, is there? Dina 12:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The username claims that he is an sanctioned representative of Wiktionary, which is blockable under our username guidlines as implying authority within Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia. Pretty much, Wiktionary Rep can get another account, since all it is just a naming issue. User:Zscout370 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting to the block, which I totally understand, but I read Neil's comment as implying that the block meant this user was up to no good. Having Wiki-something in your name must be the most common, and least "offensive" indef block reason there is... Cheers. Dina 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Godfather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Falsifying copyright info, OTRS info

In this section, I am not using the term, "fraudulent", in any legal sense. I believe it is the best description of the actions described. Prince Godfather (talk · contribs), after being blocked several times before for copyright violations, was caught placing false OTRS permission information on the following images:

• Image:Rajini in spain.jpg
• Image:252157716 887607f66c.jpg
• Image:Vijaytamil.jpg

Given this user's history and given that there are numerous other images with either dubious or obviously deliberately fraudulent information (for example, Image:Shriyanew.JPG has a fraudulent email exchange copy-and-pasted and slightly edited from Image:Asinthottumkal.JPG), I have blocked this user indefinitely and plan on deleting all image uploads from this user. Given that we know we cannot trust the information this user provides, I believe it is safest for Misplaced Pages simply to ditch all the images.

I am sorry to have to have taken these steps but in my opinion, the actions of this user have placed the Misplaced Pages in danger. I welcome any constructive comments about this situation. --Yamla 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support this move. User:Zscout370 20:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yep, absolutely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Jkelly 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that's the second time I've seen this. Please block aggressively for this sort of activity; it's wilfully and deliberately malicious. Shimgray | talk | 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Total support. -- Nick 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As a photographer myself I appreciate your aggressive pursuit of copyright issues. Just a comment here, when I give permission to use my artwork, I send one of half-a-dozen form responses, and I send them from various names/websites, depending upon where the request originated. However, it appears you have handled this correctly by contacting the sites, rather than making an assumption, and erring towards deletion (they can be uploaded again if necessary). In the end, though, it doesn't matter, the user had already been banned from editing Misplaced Pages under another name. Again, I do appreciate your working to honor others' copyright by deleting all of the images uploaded by this user. People think a camera makes everyone a photographer, so pictures on the Internet are up for grabs--neither assumption should be part of Misplaced Pages. KP Botany 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have protected Prince Godfather's talk page for abusing of the unblock template and also for making legal threats on his talk page while blocked. . - Aksi_great (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved that there has been no violation of WP:COI -- Avi 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and claims of COI

A small set of editors have been making an increasing number of personal attacks on me, claiming that I have some sort of unspecific conflict of interest, and that they therefore can revert my edits. Most recently I have even been called a "POV pusher" (with a conflict of interest) in an edit summary. This follows on the heels of similar accusations from a small number of editors. I'm a fairly patient editor, but this constant abuse of the WP:COI guidelines as a way of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF really needs to stop. If you throw enough mud, some of it eventually sticks, so I'm going to nip this process in the bud by applying educational blocks to editors who falsely claim WP:COI in the future. Just letting everyone know. Jayjg 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what they think the "conflict of interest" is based on. SlimVirgin 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no idea, but COI has been the "new sexy policy" editors have been trying to enforce. I have no idea when it first started, but I did see some applications of it around December of last year. User:Zscout370 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious. Jayjg is passionate about improving Misplaced Pages , yet he none the less edits it in a direct conflict of interest. You can't edit what you deeply care about and for him this includes all of Misplaced Pages. For shame Jayjg. WAS 4.250 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, and yet I am unrepentant. ;-) Jayjg 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely nonsense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Anyone can have an area of expertise and should certainly edit in those areas as long as they follow Misplaced Pages policy. Should Colonel Saunders be editing the Kentucky Fried Chicken page? No. Is this the same thing? No. Elizmr 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if Colonel Sanders turns up to edit from the grave, we should consider letting him since I'm not sure he'd be violating COI either being that he is no longer in a position to benefit financially or otherwise. --MPerel 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless of course he faked his own death, moved to Belize, and has taken a discrete but significant cut of KFC's profit every year since. In that case he should be blocked on sight.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're going to block people who you are in a conflict with? Isn't that, you know, a conflict of interest? Hbdragon88 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

COI occurs when making an article biased would lead to personal gain (e.g. money for some quackery treatment, votes for politicians). I cannot see how Jayjg editing the Ahmedinejad article would achieve that. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hbdragon was using "conflict of interest" in a manner different from WP:COI; he was using it as a way of pointing out Misplaced Pages's policy that you do not use administrative functions on editors with whom you are in conflict. You ask others to investigate and take appropriate action. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that it's obvious that Jay's supposed "conflict of interest" is that he is Jewish. Jay is an editor, not an ethnicity, and trolls other editors who can't or won't make that distinction need such "educational blocks" in order to make that perfectly clear. <<-armon->> 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

More nonsense from Gerash. Not surprising seeing as he called me a racist on this very noticeboard for noting that Iran does not play cricket, as well as accusing me of perpetrating "Zioattacks". In any case, by Gerash's reasoning, he may be in CoI himself on the MA article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this attacking of good editors making good edits under the guise of WP:COI seems to be a violation of WP:CIVIL and . --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see how you establish Jayjg as a Jew. His user page does not say that he is, so unless he stated it elsewhere, I do not know how you reach this conclusion.

What I do know from my experiences with Jayjg is that he doesn't usually AGF and can be somewhat uncivil ('snappy'). I can provide diffs for these problems if you need them, but looking at the archives for Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be easier & more informative, since they are rather lengthy conversations. I'm no expert, but I think this won't happen if he becomes more respectful towards other users. He assumed bad faith by writing off other users as "apologists," and often justified his editing as counteracting these supposed apologists. While it is possible that some users may be apologists, to assume that that they are is not AGF, and acting based upon this assumption yield edits that are controversial to editors who do not agree with this assumption. I did ask him once to back up his "apologist" assertion. He provided some diffs, but the only example that made sense was for User:Sarastro777, who barely edits there anyway. Even if some editors are apologists, that should not justify edits; as Jossi quoted, and I now paraphrase, 'address the edit not the editor'. Jayjg would also make insinuative comments (insinuative towards me as an editor), but when I tried to address this incivility, he would hide behind the "talk about the article content" line. It makes no sense that I should be attacked, but not allowed to defend myself, and that he gave me the whole "talk about the article content" thing is just hypocritical since I was simply responding to his not-content insinuations. So, in sum, he should simply drop this practice of making edits in response to perceived "apologists."

Also, Jayjg should try to reach consensus with those who he is in disagreement with rather than simply insisting that he is right for his own reasons, and then enforcing his own opinion on how the article should be. In other words, he should be more compromising when discussing with other editors.

Another point, that is minor but I found amusing, is citing "per talk" when there is no consensus on the talk page for the action . The problem, of course, being that the consensus simply wasn't there. He had been against the 'Easter Egg', but should not remove it simply because he didn't like it, and he definitely should not edit per a talk page not authorizing consensus on the matter. It became clear that he did not like it, not for being an 'Easter Egg', but because it linked to the section that explained the translation issue. This is clear because he was willing to keep the link only if it pointed to a different spot.

While I am sure Jayjg is probably a great editor in general, he has had issues on at least the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page. I urge you other administrators not to let him give "educational" bans to the various editors who he has had conflicts. Obviously, they reached some conclusions & expressed them inappropriately (as far as COI goes), but it would be unfair to punish them for their statements while leaving Jayjg 'uneducated'.

Calling other editors "apologists" is itself an accusation of COI, akin to those accusations against Jayjg that led to this ANI. For one, Jayjg should not give any of the these proposed bans himself. More importantly, if the editors who have unfairly accused Jayjg of COI are given "educational" bans, Jayjg should also be given an "educational" ban of length greater than or equal to theirs for his "apologist" accusations (and other AGF violations) because they too were unfair accusations of COI & bad faith.

I hope Jayjg reads this & considers improving his behavior in the ways I have touched upon here. Thanks. The Behnam 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I hope he ignores all of it; it's a very out-of-place diversion from the original point, which is that of improper allegations of conflict of interest. Regarding the "educational blocks", handle it like I've handled other editor's allegations of vandalism: I first made it clear to him that unjustified accusations of vandalism constitute personal attacks; after a bit more of it, I said explicitly that the next time he called someone a vandal and I disagreed, I'd block him for 30 days (he'd already been blocked more than once for incivility and personal attacks, so the long period was justified.) The next time I saw him referring to other editors (in this case, Blnguyen was one, as it turned out), I invoked the block I'd warned him about. He's whining and claiming abuse, but that's hardly surprising. Unjustified accusations of COI are not as extreme as unjustified accusations of vandalism, but they are still tantamount to personal attacks if not backed up with copious proof. --jpgordon 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is plenty relevant. Jayjg falls into the same group of 'improper COI allegers' and therefore should be 'educated' along with them. The Behnam 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Jay is or isn't Jewish, it's that the editors harassing him think so. That is, unless you're suggesting that maybe they think he's a Christian Zionist. This seems unlikely to me. Being an "apologist" usually entails making excuses, and is not the same as a COI. <<-armon->> 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the Jew versus Christian Zionist dichotomy comes from. I have seen a dichotomy on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page form that is basically "ZioAttackers" versus "Ahmadinejad Apologists" (to use each sides' disparaging description of the other). Anyway, "Apologist" is how he described us, and it is much more than simply making excuses. If we are "apologists" for Ahmadinejad, we have an obvious conflict of interest with the neutral editing policy, because as apologists we want to make Ahmadinejad look good & refute/downplay criticism of him, which aren't neutral goals. This is the basic reason behind considering the accusation of "apologist" akin to the accusation of COI. And from there, it only is right that Jayjg be 'educated' for the same wrongdoing. The Behnam 04:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issues you are describing are relevant to POV rather than COI. I've seen these COI accusations thrown around and completely agree that they contradict WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. ←Humus sapiens 09:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg and I have often disagreed about an edit, but in my experience he has always based his position on Misplaced Pages policy or good style. As with all Wikipedians there are some areas in which he has greater expertise than others. But I have never seen a conflict of interest and I have never seen him push a particular POV - at most I have seen valid disagreements over what may constitute NPOV, a reliable source, or relevance to an article that can easily be resolved through discussion ... this is thus most mundane fodder of editing ... Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is rather transparent that a group of editors (none of whom have any kind of importance in the eyes of the community) are attempting to engage in a character assassination of another wikipedian solely on the back of a baseless charge that they are trying to proof by assertion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this kind of disparaging comment about the other users really necessary? Of course there are a lot of people who like Jayjg. But it seems there are also users who do not like him. What you just wrote seems kind of no-value-added. What does "trying to proof by assertion" mean anyway? What are you referring to? The Behnam 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that your only "proof" is the fact that you keep saying it and hope people will eventually listen.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, seems that you are accusing me of trying to 'assassinate his character'. That is a very rude accusation, and of course that is not my aim. I haven't provided diffs or pointers to specific conversations because I felt that most of the editors who have been involved at this ANI post are well capable of going to the archives for Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. My details are in those conversations with Jayjg, but he mostly ignored or avoided responding to the feedback. Am I mistaken? Would you like me to point you in the right direction? Was your rude & accusing statement here an indirect way of asking me for specific links? Or would you rather I not? The Behnam 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I now see that WP:COI is much more specific in its scope than 'conflict of interest' is in general usage. I think that these people are improperly alleging COI because they don't realize that COI applies pretty much just to company & autobiographical situations. In that case I definitely take back my conclusion that Jayjg is an 'improper COI alleger', though the situations I brought up still constitute at least a consistent violation of AGF without any regard to repeated requests to AGF & be civil (on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). Perhaps this is a common mistake? I believe I have seen other people refer to the policy when describing 'general' usage elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Anyway, knowing this, I think that the people should receive good explanations as to why they are wrong in their COI claims before something severe like 'educational' blocks are applied. Their problems with with Jayjg seem to be, in reality, about perceived POV/bias matters, so they should simply receive an explanation as to why they are improperly classifying their issue. Unless they actually think that Jayjg has some sort of autobiographical, corporate, government, etc affiliation. Then they should bring real proof or completely drop the charges. In sum, the COI allegations could easily be mistakes over the scope of COI, so the 'educational' block seems unnecessary, harsh, and will not actually fix the problem. And, if it is done by Jayjg, will be a blatant abuse of power. The Behnam 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have actually read WP:COI before commenting on it; what do you think? Jayjg 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that what you just wrote is another example of you being disrespectful. I already realized I was mistaken and corrected myself; your 'suggestion' is not appreciated. What is the deal; are you trying to be rude or something? The Behnam 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is that "conflict of interest" must mean more than "has an opinion about something". Else we are all barred from editing everything. If Jay's "conflict of interest" is that he generally supports Israel and dislikes Ahmadinejad, then the accusations are meaningless. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to be mistaken in confusing a bias claim with conflict of interest. How does this warrant 'educational' blocks? How do those blocks educate them? A good explanation is much better. Perhaps Jayjg is frustrated with their improper claims, but I simply do not see what a block will do other than provoke them & cause more conflict. Of course, he'd win out in any such conflict (since he is 'important in the eyes of the community'), but the aim should be to encourage other editors to mend their ways rather than provoke them into a graver violation. Doesn't always work (User:Kiumars), but a better start than this apparently useless 'education'. The Behnam 15:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

These editors are long-term violators who are unrepentant in their attacks. Education, entreaties and admonitions have already failed. Escalating the consequence is the next logical step. Jayjg 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, this seems like another example of when people cannot get their POV pushed across wikipedia (and rightfully so), they engage in trying to destroy the credibility of the wiki guardian in order to eliminate the obstacle to their attempted violations. I will agree that Jay, at times, has ben curt. But who wouldn't be if they were the target of as much improper accusations, allegations, argumentum ad hominem, name-calling, and other nonsense. I think we can all agree Jay is human, and has bad days as well as good ones. But looking at his overall prodigious wiki history (including ArbCom) there are FEW editors in wikipedia who have done more to KEEP the balance, the peace, and uphold the guidelines and policies of wiki than Jayjg. Unfortunately, the bigger the target, the easier it is to fling garbage at it :( -- Avi 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not expecting you, Humus and others, not to defend Jayig, however, editors have noted that Jayig routinely ignores the talk page, and edits the article as he wishes, leaving "per talk" in the edit summary. As an example despite most of the editors agreed that dispute on translation should be included, he removed it, citing "per talk". Although Avi and all others users and admins have a POV, but they never tried to use their admin status to intimidate editors of Ahmadinejad article, which is why no one seem to get in conflict with them. Also, while a POV and hence "conflict of interest" (general term, not WP:COI) is OK, one should ask why is it that only Jayig is always being accused of. Obviously its not his religion and ethnicity, as he might share that with Avi and others, but his constant defamation of Ahmadinejad, whom he sees as an obvious monster, not worthy of any "apologist".--Gerash77 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I agree that this assertion of COI is invalid. -Will Beback · † · 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Blocks for personal attacks

Am I confused? I know that blocking people for isolated personal attacks is not a proper action. But when somebody develops a pattern of personal attacks, and has been warned, and warned again, and warned about being block for it, then keeps doing it, surely a block is warranted? Am I missing something? I have been getting grief over 2 blocks I did today, both people had multiple warnings about personal attacks, and continued to do it. I just don't understand what I have done wrong here. InBC 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(copied from a thread higher on the page to centralize discussion here:) I see that HighInBC has now also blocked Dbuckner for 24 hours for personal attacks made in the above thread and continuing on Dbuckner's userpage. The user has argued against the block but has not posted an unblock request to date, and has instead e-mailed the blocking administrator. I find much of the language of Dbuckner's comments to be highly unnecessary, but am troubled by the concept of blocking a serious content contributor based in part on comments made in response to an administrator's comments on the user's own userpage. I post the matter here for comment. Newyorkbrad 23:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, I don't think anyone is defending personal attacks. The questions are, what constitutes a personal attack, and what constitutes a blockable personal attack. I do not endorse, by any means, all the language used and comments made by the two users you blocked today. But we administrators are supposed to have thicker skins sometimes; and comments made in the context of discussing administrator actions, or on a user's own talkpage in response to an admin's comments there, may deserve a bit more leeway than might otherwise obtain. I would have strongly deprecated the comments made today, but I would have walked away rather than block for them. Of course these are often judgment calls. Newyorkbrad 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is the course of actions leading to the short block I gave: (from my original block message)"By contrast, the one called Inshane specialises in inane puerile drivel". You made a personal attack this morning, I warned you about personal attacks, you made another personal attack, then I had to warn you again, now you have made yet another personal attack, and I have blocked you for it for 24 hours. Please do not engage in personal attacks once this block has expired. InBC 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see somebody insulting people all day long, and not responding to warnings, then getting blocked for it. The block was preventative because I had every reason to believe he would continue. My skin is plenty thick and I never got angry, this was simply me enforcing policy. I do not think that "the situation" justifies personal attacks, any situation. InBC 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rename Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks to Misplaced Pages:Only a few personal attacks, as long as they are not too bad. InBC 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree that thicker skins are needed. If I blocked everyone who got annoyed and used inappropriate language, half the editors on Misplaced Pages would be blocked.

Secondly, the incideents in question were on places like the editor's own Talk page and WP:AN/I; that's surely much less important than if they were made on article Talk pages, or even on another editor's Talk page. In other words, did it really matter to Misplaced Pages if he continued? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Personal attacks are okay in certain places? All I can do is read the policy and follow it, how do I learn these unwritten rules about talk pages being exempt from NPA? To answer you question, yes it matters, slinging insults drives away editors, and creates a hostile atmosphere. InBC 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)If this is about judgment calls, the please respect my judgment. But if I have gone against some sort of well established rule please point it out and I will repent. As far as I know if a user has a full set of NPA warnings then a NPA block is justified if the user continues. InBC 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So, if you hadn't blocked, someone might have given up on Misplaced Pages in disgust, but because you did.... 81.179.115.188 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your info I am not giving up anything. Yes, someone might leave if they keep getting insulted. InBC 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is a personal attack. Experienced editors should know better, and Dbuckner didn't seem to even consider backing off when he was asked to do so. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Being called pompous is not necessarily a personal attack. Like I said on Dbuckner's talk page, that was his opinion of you and, yes, you did have an attitude, even to me. You say that you are a laid back person, yet, I haven't seen that once today. If everyone got blocked for calling someone a name, 75% of editors would be blocked every day. "Sticks and stones man......" MetsFan76 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If that were the only comment, it would of course not warrant blocking. I count three or more others though, despite requests to cut them out. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the illusion that I took it personally. It is just me enforcing policy. What I take personally is the accusation that I had some sort of childish motive. I would not tolerate that behavior from a new user, why should I take it from an established user who knows better. Even if calling me pompous is not an attack calling a bunch of editors fuckwits is, and that was the first final warning I gave him. InBC 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You say to him "Don't call me names." That sounds personal to me. If someone called me a name, I would look at the person and feel pity as he/she needs to stoop to a low intelligence level. And again, I don't think being called pompous is so bad. You gave me an attitude as well on his talk page. MetsFan76 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be personal, if a) I cared, and b) it was not against policy. The fact is a) it didn't hurt my feelings, b) it is against policy. For god sake, I have been enforcing the NPA policy for months, and I have never had a complaint. InBC 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, don't worry about it. Everyone has different standards for when repeated personal attacks reach the level of blockable disruption... and for far too many people those standards seem largely dependent on who the person is and who they are insulting. At 'worst' you applied a strict standard for civility - while adhering to that standard yourself despite considerable provocation. Hardly worthy of condemnation, though varying degrees of 'disagreement' are inevitable. Worldtraveller, Dbuckner, Giano II, and even MetsFan76 have clearly engaged in insults over this issue and ought to cut it out. If they continue you can always ask another admin to step in to spare yourself yet more attacks for stopping their bad behaviour. --CBD 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I was trying to take a Wikibreak when this issue came up. I just want to assure people that I am acting out of policy and not the petty motives being attributed to me. Goodbye, I will see you all at a later time, not sure when. InBC 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CDB, can you provide diffs as to where I have insulted someone today please? I don't think you are in any position to tell me to "cut it out" as I have not once insulted anyone today. MetsFan76 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that calling HighInBC "pompous" and suggesting that he was acting under the influence of drugs were not insults we will have to disagree. --CBD 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

HighinBC was acting like a child because someone called him a name. As an admin, he should have a "thicker hide" and set a better example. In terms of him being under the influence of drugs, I got that directly from his user page which has now been conveniently blanked. MetsFan76 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CDB, I am still waiting for my diffs. If you are going to make an accusation like that, I would like you to provide evidence that I have insulted anyone today. MetsFan76 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Add "acting like a child" to the list of insults you supposedly haven't made today. No, his user page did not say that he blocked Dbuckner because he was drug addled... that was all you, 'extrapolating' from his pro-marijuana comments. As to diffs... I provided a diff for the drugs comment and the other two insults were made (or repeated) by you right here in this thread. Surely you can find the statements on this page where you said it was ok to call him pompous and that he was acting like a child.

Yes, admins should have thick hides. No, that doesn't mean a bunch of users can get together and insult them with impunity. Just discuss things in a civil fashion without the insults. --CBD 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You just insulted me right then. I told you why I took those actions, I told you I was not upset at the name calling, I told you the block was based on policy. Then you say "HighinBC was acting like a child because someone called him a name.", I don't think you know what a personal attack is. InBC 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I insulted you?? And yes, he was acting like a child. I find it very immature that he blocks two people today and then goes on a wikibreak. That is not very responsible at all. If he can't handle criticism, then maybe he is in the wrong business here. MetsFan76 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Responding to repeatedly being called a "fuckwit" with a mild warning about personal attacks IS 'handling criticism' fairly well. As is the way he has dealt with your repeated insults. Eventually blocking when the incivility went on and on is a debatable matter, but I don't think there can be any question that HighInBC has remained considerably more civil than various of his detractors. Including you. At least, I haven't seen him calling you "immature". --CBD 00:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course he isn't going to call me immature, I haven't acted as such. My problem was that WT decided to leave hours ago, yet, you continued to pursue the matter by not dropping it. I'm sorry but that doesn't say much about you when the issue has already been dealt with. MetsFan76 00:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WT posted to this thread just a short while ago (as an anon) and people have continued to complain in the discussion you falsely claim was dealt with and dropped. Basically, this spiel you keep repeating about how 'everyone has dropped it and you keep dragging it out' just isn't true. You, amongst several others, certainly haven't dropped it. If you believe that 'saying nothing is the best course' you could try following it yourself. --CBD 00:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

CBD, do you see what you just did? This is one of the problems on Misplaced Pages and why someone like Worldtraveller wrote an article such as WP:FAIL. People here sometimes are too quick to get their thoughts down that they don't bother to read what other people have written. If you scrolled all the way down, you will see that me, Giano and HighinBC have resolved our dispute. In fact, HighinBC sent me a personal email which I greatly appreciated. What you just did was why some editors resort to personal attacks. The issue here has been dropped yet, you have continued it. You are doing it now and you did it before with WT. You push people to the point where they are going to resort to harsh words. It seems as if you would rather not has this resolved but continue going back and forth with mindless drivel. If you do not have anything constructive to say in this matter (which has been resolved) then I suggest you back off. If, however, you are looking to start something with me, feel free to email me as I do not think any further discussion here is necessary. If your prefer not to, then I am done talking to you. MetsFan76 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going on wikibreak for unrelated reasons. I am taking time off my wikibreak to deal with this, how is that immature? I think you simply disagree with me so you are calling me childish. Stop calling me names, or anyone else for that matter, it is against our WP:NPA policy. If you need insults to make your point, perhaps you should rethink it. InBC 00:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't need insults at all. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. Try it sometime. Enjoy your break. MetsFan76 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the two of you have made your points and it would be good to have some other input on this issue. HighInBC, you should know that your work here is valued even by some of us who might disagree with a particular block. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Brad - as astute as ever. Can I just say this is becoming a little farcical were it not for one of Misplaced Pages's finest editors leaving. CBDunkerson and HighinBC are begining to sound like Laurel and Hardy why don't they just unblock everybody, you and I will try to pursuade World that they were just inexperienced and to come back, then we can all have a nice cup of tea and get over it. Giano 00:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And I will apologize if anyone has felt insulted by me today. I would like to help persuading World to come back as well. As for that tea, can I have a shot of scotch with mine because I need it. =) MetsFan76 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No we want no hard liquor or noxious substances on a Sunday. Giano 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will take a rain check for tommorow =) MetsFan76 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I gladly except your apologies, I have tried to urge Worldtraveller to come back earlier today, his response was not promising. InBC 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best if you didn't try again. Me and Giano will handle it. MetsFan76 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Don't you worry about in HighInBC, we'll handle it Giano 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure it's been said by others, but I cannot pass up the chance to go on the record again. Blocks for "personal attacks" should be so rare as to be shocking. They should be exceptional. They should be because of things that simply are so far beyond the pale as to be unconscionable. They should be for saying that X is the Zodiac killer. They should not be for "defiance." They should not be for four letter words. After all, some people (including me) can be very insulting without ever using a dirty word. Some people (including me) can be calculatingly belittling. Some people (including me) can push the right buttons to make the other person want to explode in anger. Other people can do the same with hitting the "block" button.
• Argumentum ad block is not a valid argument. You cannot win by blocking. The blocking policy makes this clear enough. Therefore, a person making you angry and angrier and angriest is not a reason for blocking. It's a reason to call a cop -- to call in a third party.
• So, no blocks for "personal attacks" unless you can define what is and is not a personal attack, how much of an attack makes a block, how much of a block goes with what level of 'attack' and, most of all, a good explanation of how Misplaced Pages was harmed and productivity inhibited by that "attack."
• Because of the exceptional misuse and misreading of WP:NPA (which shouldn't be policy at all, as it says virtually nothing), most of AN/I is "block X for insulting me!" More, people are going around poking at others to get them to utter a dirty word so that they can be blocked. Others are blocked and then, when the blocked person gets angry, have that anger used as justification for a bigger block. That's insane! Other people are going around with their radar dishes spinning, hunting for an insult anywhere and everywhere. Way, way, way above I tried to wittily satirize HighinBC in my comment on unblocking by using the word "high" in several combinations. It was playful, but it was intended to express an opinion. On the other hand, on my talk page right now, HighinBC is worried that, when I said I didn't want to get into an electronic tarbaby argument, that I was making a racial slur. You have to break syntax to even get a racial slur in there, and the main meaning was straightforward. Now, he didn't threaten to block me, but that kind of alert and tripwire sensitivity to anything that might be an attack is really not helpful to our productivity.
• At least that's my view. Geogre 04:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Geogre, we already know your view. :) I think that there have to be consequences to personal attacks. They are inherently disruptive because they negatively affect the frame of mind of other people trying to edit in peace. Warnings and short blocks are quite justified. Let's side with the people who are defending the tone of Misplaced Pages, not the people who undermine it.

Then again, I suppose everyone already knows that's what I think. Also, I'm not talking about defending the kind of hair-trigger actions we have seen in the past from a small number of high-profile admins who won't be named. But this "Oh no, someone blocked a poor uncivil user!! Let's all play the violin!" mentality doesn't help, either. Let other admins do their job and use their discretion unless they develop a pattern of trying to act like petty tyrants, in which case the community will eventually bring them back into line, as we've seen in the past. Metamagician3000 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, In general we don't block for personal insults. IIRC It has never been a part of the blocking policy until last fall when "persistent personal insults" was added (I see it's just been removed again, and then put back). These types of blocks used to come under "disruption", and you had to make that determination.

In some of your comments you seem to be asking for hard and fast rules. Use your judgment instead: is the block preventative? Is it going to do more harm than good? Is the user a juvenile little prick trying to run someone down, or is he a great editor who gets exasperated once in a while? Before you block a productive editor for disruption (personal attacks) try to interact with them to find out if they are in the midst of a legitimately complaint or if they are just trying to cause trouble. If it's the former, a block will nearly always make things worse. While productive editors almost never do the latter.

CBD mentions above that some admin's blocks "seem largely dependent on who the person is and who they are insulting". This is absolutely right. Would you treat a 14yr old who comes here, without doing anything productive, and calls every one a "fuckwitt" the same as a great featured article writer who blows his top from time to time? Put the interest of the project first when you make these decisions. --Duk 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes edit conflict again—well, it can't be helped, I'll just reply to HighinBC and Metamagician3000 as I intended (and thank you for your sensible words, Duk). Metamagician, what about the productive users being driven off while "eventually" plays out? How long an eventuality can the project afford? I want to ask HighinBC (as I asked CBD above, which went over like a ton of bricks, so why not try again) to exercise his imagination—to put himself in another person's place—while I play the violin myself if necessary. HBC, when I posted a polite message on your page some hours after you blocked dbuckner, urging you to at least take the block to ANI for review, you told me "I can't believe this shit" and then promptly "archived" mine along with several other messages on the same theme—well, actually just deleted them (there are no archives) but no matter. I won't quote your pronouncements today about civility back at you. I'll be glad to overlook your calling my message shit and deleting it. I assume you were a little stressed and upset. But please consider that you lengthened Worldtraveller's block because he was a little upset (he'd just been blocked by CBD! He was probably very upset!) You blocked Dbuckner for being a little upset. And you have made up a perverse rule—I'm sorry if you don't like that way of putting it—you thought there was a rule?— about how it's extra criminal to be upset while you're blocked: ".. it was for calling me and a few other admins fuckwits while asking to be unblocked that I gave extended the block. That is standard when people are abusive while asking to be unblocked." Standard? While asking to be unblocked? What standard is that? No, the standard is to have "extra" patience with users who have just been shocked by a block. Altogether, it's standard for admins to look the other way if a blocked user loses his/her temper, because it's a natural thing to do. It's standard for admins, decent ones, to be less sensitive on their own account than on behalf of other people. If that's playing the violin, we need a bigger string section. We have the buttons for the defense of Misplaced Pages, not for our personal fights. Enough with the "personal attack blocks" already, HighinBC, everybody. Please. Let's use the buttons with fellow-feeliing and imagination. And now I'm going to unblock Dbuckner, because there's no way the project is at risk of being "disrupted" by him. Bishonen | talk 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

My two cents: I agree that we need to give people who are blocked some space and steam to vent on their talk pages without considering it a personal attack or incivility. This is not to suggest that we let them go berzerk there, but I would suggest that everyone keep in mind that if they play ball with the block (only edit their own talk page) there's little damage to prevent by blocking for longer if they get upset at people - nobody is forced to go read the blocked users' talk page. If they make severe attacks, that's a different case. But I would suggest that allowing them slightly more leeway than a normal incivility block, under these specific circumstances, and limited to their talk page, is in the interests of the project as a whole. It gives people space to vent, which is important. People get upset about being blocked, even if the blocks are completely called for. We need to be able to block without it escalating into a functional ban or driving people away. Georgewilliamherbert 07:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with being very lenient on blocks for personal attacks, especially those directed at yourself. Indeed, I don't think I've ever blocked anyone solely for personal attacks. However, there comes a point where persistent attacks, incivility, and/or harassment have to be stopped. Because it IS disruptive to the project. Bishonen, you are wrong in claiming that Dbuckner wasn't being disruptive... you said yourself that you assume HighInBC was stressed/upset by the attacks on him. Yes, that argues against him being the one to place the blocks, but it also demonstrates how such incivil behaviour harms the project. And Dbuckner didn't just do it once, but over and over again. At some point it has to be stopped. There will always be disagreements about precisely at what point the disruption from incivility outweighs the benefits of tolerance, but IMO when multiple people have told you repeatedly to stop and you don't then a block is the proper response. People have to be able to control their tempers and act civilly when asked to do so. If they won't do that then they need to be blocked to prevent their continual incivil behaviour from provoking more of the same. --CBD 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to endorse the unblocking of Dbuckner and Worldtraveller. The block of Worldtraveller was a very bad idea, and was quite surprising, coming from someone who shows a lot of sensitivity about the vulnerability of users who are being reverted, hassled, and threatened when they remove unwanted comments from their talk pages. Surely, CBD, you can see that for a productive, established user, a block for anything other than 3RR is a shock, an insult, a slap in the face. Blocks for disruption are meant to be extremely rare, and used only in cases where it could be reasonably considered that not blocking would harm Misplaced Pages. They're absolutely not meant to be used as a "Do what you're told or I'll smack you" weapon. Worldtraveller had a very legitimate grievance. Inshaneee's original block of him was completely improper, and admins have been desysopped for such things. I've looked at this "harassment", and honestly, I've had worse than that from Alienus, but I didn't block him or ask anyone else to block him. An administrator who uses a block in a content dispute does not have the right not to be questioned about it, and the fact that it happened some time ago does not mean that Worldtraveller should consider it satisfactorily resolved. It would have been preferable and more dignified to have dropped it, but his not doing so was not a blockable offence. Especially refusing to drop it with an admin was not blockable, because (a) admins should be ready to publicly explain actions that are queried (unless it concerns a block of a sockpuppet or of someone who was posting personal information, in which case explanations can probably be better given privately by e-mail to senior Wikipedians), and (b) admins absolutely need to have thick skins and be able to put up with it if they feel they're being pestered. I could grudgingly accept Inshaneee's refusal to provide a proper answer, but for someone to block the aggrieved victim is extremely counterproductive. Surely the Giano affair has taught us that when someone starts making a fuss because he's annoyed at what he sees as an unfair block, it's the craziest possible solution to block him again. I'm not talking about obvious trolls — teenagers who registered last Thursday, have two article edits, and fourteen obscene edits on user talk pages. I'm talking about respected users being humiliated by a permanent record in their block logs.

As for increasing the block for being uncivil to the admin who was increasing it, that's so obviously wrong as to hardly need comment. But apart from the level of involvement, of course someone who sees himself as unfairly blocked will be upset. If he does this, then by all means, increase the block. If he lets off steam by speaking his mind against those who blocked him, then ignore it. As for HighInBC being upset, I'm sure he was, but I doubt if it was because of disruption and harassment, or because of the naughty word used. If I blocked someone and he filled his talk page with "Musical Linguist is a $&£$*£&$", I wouldn't feel undermined, but if I blocked someone and found that respected administrators were criticizing me for an improper block, I'd feel embarrassed. Please don't blame Dbuckner for HighInBC being upset. If an admin places a proper block, he shouldn't be upset if people query it, even if they refuse to drop the matter. Musical Linguist 13:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It also gets to the point as to who is being more disruptive, the blocker or the blockee. Both WT and Dbuckner kept their cool after they received their respective blocks, however, the blocking admins continued to debate this fiasco. If the issue was done, then it should have been let go, regardless if they felt the need to defend their actions. It is not productive at all and only leads to this AN/I getting longer and longer when there are articles out there that need to be edited. Sometimes this place is no different from a playground. Just my two cents to start the day. MetsFan76 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Both WT and Dbuckner "kept their cool" by making personal attacks, and your claims about the 'blockers dragging this out' are belied by your own continued (and patently false) 'campaigning' on the issues. As you call everything I say in response to you proof that >I< am 'dragging it out' I think I will just have to ignore you going forward. --CBD 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to scroll up and read what I wrote to you yesterday (00:43, 5 March 2007 ). And yes, you are dragging it out. It's two days now and you are continuing this. Drop it. MetsFan76 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(overlapping edits, response to Musical Linguist) I actually agree with most of what you say, but strongly disagree about ongoing harassment. Yes, Worldtraveller had every reason to be upset. Yes, he had every reason to request an explanation. Even continuing to pester InShaneee about it was 'ok' (though not good) up to a point. However, nobody has the right to continue harassing another user indefinitely - for any reason. You are correct that 'just because two months have passed' "does not mean that Worldtraveller should consider it satisfactorily resolved"... but there is a vast difference between 'thinking it is still a problem and following dispute resolution procedures' and 'thinking it is still a problem and harassing, insulting, and threatening the other user'. I would have supported, and indeed had already actively encouraged dropping the personal attacks in favor of DR. You say that Worldtraveller's comments about InShaneee being a "witless moron", his threats to 'do everything in my power to get you de-sysoped', and the rest of it 'were not so bad'... and in comparison to some other incidents of abusive behaviour that's true (though I've also seen plenty of 'established users' blocked for alot longer than 24 hours for alot less - without fuss), but I didn't block Worldtraveller for his personal attacks or his threats. I blocked him for harassment. InShaneee had made it clear at least two weeks earlier that he wanted to be left alone. Alot of people had told Worldtraveller that it was time to leave InShaneee alone and follow DR. Worldtraveller actively refused. He insisted on his 'right' to "keep on harassing"... and I blocked him for it. I would do it again. Because I do not believe anyone should be allowed to deliberately go out of their way to try to make another user miserable on an ongoing basis over an extended period of time. Not for any reason. It's unconscionable and offensive. Worldtraveller had options for civilly addressing his grievance and refused to use them. No one tried to force him to drop the issue, just to stop being abusive. He wanted to continue harassing InShaneee rather than to resolve the issue through DR. Misplaced Pages's policies don't allow such and I would not tolerate it. Finally, you bring up 'removing warnings' and my sensitivity to the concerns of those who are being 'hassled and threatened' about them... just as I am here sensitive to the fact that InShaneee was being 'hassled and threatened' by Worldtraveller, who I then blocked only when he openly refused to stop. --CBD 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is becoming clear that I have stepped into the area where people wish to change Misplaced Pages, as opposed to making a mistake on my own. The NPA policy, and what I did, are in line. It is the way other people want the NPA policy to read that I violated. Well the correct place to campaign for such change is on the NPA talk page. I consider this matter closed, if I offended anyone by archiving too early I am sorry. InBC 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are incorrect. The policy is clear that personal attacks may result in blocks in extreme cases. Taking away from all of this that you are perfectly correct and all these people (most of the admins for a really long time) want to "change Misplaced Pages" is precisely the wrong lesson and will lead to further trouble. If you get nothing else from the experience, get this: you should not block for insults. Geogre 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • At the same time, I hope we can agree that personal attacks are never an acceptable mode of communication. We've discovered, however, that even asking someone to be civil is itself a breach of civility--that's the lesson I've taken from the last three months. So, is WP:NPA a dead letter? Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My view is that NPA merely said that we don't go around insulting each other. No one disagrees with that, but it also doesn't say much, which is why I regarded it as a non-starter. Of course we shouldn't be insulting and hateful. That's not really a problem. The problem is what happens next. I don't think that asking people to be civil is incivil, but I do think that throwing templates at people is insulting. "What, you can't talk to me, like a person? You have to treat me like an anon getting scolded?" is perfectly reasonable as a reaction to a template. At any rate, I absolutely agree that no one should be going around insulting, nor running to AN/I when insulted. We need to make NPA a real policy by saving it for serious personal attacks (e.g. mentioning real details of a real person's person). Geogre 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, you may be able to build a rationale to block someone for "persistent personal attacks" that is in line with policy, but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. You always have to apply judgment. The same goes for blocks based on "disruption". Blocking long time editors for personal attacks almost always makes matters worse. To clarify what I wrote before, personal insults have never been a part of the blocking policy until last fall when "persistent personal attacks" was added (someone correct me if I'm wrong). There was a clause for "Personal attacks which place users in danger", but this is different and out of the scope of what we are talking about.

So lets look at the last few days of edits by the person who added the "persistent personal attacks" to the block policy: ass clownery, delete nominator, Shut up and quit being a disgrace, Ah, I see you're a different attention-seeking pissant entirely. My mistake. Do you think he should be blocked for "persistent personal attacks"? Do you think you should apply this policy equitably and block this user like you did Dbuckner. Here's the answer - be equitable, don't block either of these editors. --Duk 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would prefer you all to stop referring to my 'personal attacks'. Personal criticisms maybe. I find a rude and impertinent message left on my talk page. This interchange followed (which I have cut and pasted onto my page because the other user has deleted it from his). You can see that I criticised this user's actions, his general lack of manners, and that was all. What followed was hardly proportionate. edward (buckner) 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people should have thick skins, and no one wants to hear constant whinging about how so-and-so called me ignorant last week so please block them. But if someone's cautioned to stop getting personal by an uninvolved admin, and doesn't stop, then a block is hard to argue with. An editor who won't back off personal attacks despite a warning is likely to escalate to more serious disruption and drag in other editors, and aren't blocks supposed to be preventive? By the way, the excuse that "I didn't call you a fuckwit, I just suggested that you were acting in a manner analagous to that in which a fuckwit might be expected to behave" strikes me as wikilawyering. MastCell 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

B2bomber81 (talk · contribs)

• B2bomber81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Abuse of power, intimidation of new user including baseless accusations and harrassment. --Memejojo 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  — Memejojo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs please?--Crossmr 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your message at User talk:B2bomber81 and User talk:Tuxide, please be reminded that only administrators can impose cooling off periods. Aecis 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Memejojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just a strange user in general—I don't mean to personally attack him, but he is new (assuming he's not a sockpuppet) and I don't understand his actions. He undoes WP:MOSHEAD edits on Best Buy claiming it's vandalism , edits others comments on his own talk page claiming that they slow down the server , and then decides to impose a 24 hour cooling off period on me and User:B2bomber81 . His account isn't even 24 hours old, and he can't even spell harassment correctly. Any advice on how B2bomber81 and I should deal with him would be appreciated. I was going to bring this up on WP:WQA but now that he's gone here I'll let it resolve on this board. Regards, Tuxide 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see on his user talk page that he's being suspected of being a Momoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sock. Aecis 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Memejojo for convenience; although it looks like it has already been denied because it is that obvious. Tuxide 22:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All the evidence for harrassment is there for the public to see. The cooling off period is requested in order to allow the new user to participate in peace with the Misplaced Pages community. The above user Tuxide seeks to make inflammatory statements however there is no evidence that the user is "strange." That would be personal opinion however it is not personal opinion that harrassment and vandalism of a user's, that is fact. This is the forum to resolve this not on content pages and we are all grateful that the users in question can be civil about this. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make the suggestion that Tuxide refrain from editing posts from other user by adding the small font mini signature that targets specific users. This is clearly intimidation and harrassment and it is surprising to some degree that it continues here on the administrators page. Besides the user in dispute is B2bomber81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I respect and encourage any users making productive comments regarding this issue. --Memejojo 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the {{spa}} template is common procedure in cases like this, and like Tuxide I feel that it is appropriate here. Aecis 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To state that new users have contributed to 1 article. Well isn't that something to be expected. How can one write more if they are dealing with harassment? Let's have some guidance about that from more admins. It is a healthy conversation to have and I am willing to spend as many months as it takes to resolve these issues as long as all involved also communicate in this forum in good faith. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I referred to Memejojo as a new user based on his creation log, not based on his count log. However, I don't believe that this user is new to wikipedia. I do suspect that he is a sockpuppet of blocked users Momoj and Jomomm (verified sockpuppets). My basis for this suspicion? Firstly, their names are quite similar. Secondly, Memejojo being a "new member" immediately started flaming other editors for editing his contribution to the Best Buy page. He repeated infers ownership of the article by "daring" anyone to make changes to his contributions without permission, or simply reverts the edits. I have already submitted a checkuser request for this user to determine if it is indeed a sockpuppet or not.

His last contribution included a biased comment that I requested be left out. He refused, and so I removed his contribution, asking that he refrain from reintroducing to the article until there was a consensus on the content of his contribution. I suggested he could either agree to leave his opinions out of the article or find a reliable source for his claims. I will note that Tuxide also recommended that an alternate source be used. Memejojo responded with another revert and said there is no lack of consensus.

Lastly, as Tuxide eluded to, this user is just plain strange. He refers to himself in a third person almost as if he is actually representing several people, as well as falsely representing himself as an administrator. At one point he tried to verbally impose a 24-hour cool off period on me until Tuxide reminded him that he was not an admin. He has also taken it upon himself to edit other users talk pages to remove threads that he feels aren't appropriate in his opinion. I appreciate the admins taking the time to look into this matter. B2bomber81 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to correct the course this is going and to clarify what this post is about. It is about the harrassment of a new user. It is not about what certain users wish were true but it is about what is actually true. I do not believe the admins who view this forum are swayed by false accusations. If there is concrete evidence for flamming, daring/taunting, sockpuppetry etc. let them present the evidence here and in the open. You'd think I was the devil or something. There is simply no evidence of this. One thing is for sure since opening this request for mediation B2bomber81 has ceased harrassment. I admit Tuxide used very colorful and passionate language but this forum should be reserved for facts and not rhetoric. --Memejojo 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So you add a new section to Best Buy, only to come to this board when someone else wants your own edits to comply to WP:MOSHEAD, and labeling him as a vandal. Your posts make absolutely no sense to me; it may as well be disputed whether WP:POINT applies here because I have no idea what the heck you're trying to prove. Tuxide 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I added more information under an already existing category which is of course fully compliant with all wikipedia standards. I am a new member and will continue to make contributions. I have found many editors inviting. Tuxide seems to be the only one confused by wikipedia standards but as a community we will help him/her become a more productive member. This forum is a good place to air out differences and I am very very pleased with the results which is a stop to the harrassment. I now feel like this community is worth my time and effort. I hope this shows that through civil discourse people online can come together to form a great product which is Misplaced Pages. --Memejojo 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil, and please do not belittle an established editor like Tuxide by calling him/her "confused by wikipedia standards" and by saying the he/she needs help to "become a more productive member." Aecis 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've applied the duck test and blocked Memejojo for being a sockpuppet of Momoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (as referenced on his talk page) as well as continuing the same tedentious editting practices that also led to an indefinte block on the original account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job guys, thank you for your assistance! B2bomber81 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unicorn144 (talk · contribs)

I'm here on referral from WP:AIV. Not sure how to deal with this particular problem user. Is advocating some type of religious agenda; keeps creating strange nonsense pages with religious rants that get speedily deleted (which is why most of this user's history doesn't appear in their contributions page), and adds odd unsourced information & commentary to religious articles dealing with Christianity and Islam. Also edits the user pages of other editors, but I think that was a newbie mistake that nobody ever explained to this user. Also some linkspamming. Not sure what to do in this particular case...RJASE1 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This user seems confused (even to the point of not knowing why they get negative comments). However, I notice they still edited a user's user page after you left the note about not doing that (and they responded on your user page no less). It almost seems like willful ignorance at that point. Leebo 05:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This message on my talk page explains the motivation. Definitely seems to be good faith, but there are so many problems here I don't know where to begin. RJASE1 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Simmintelkeree

I just found this RfA and it's full of forged signatures supporting Simmintelkeree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I was going to request speedy deletion, but I didn't know if this warranted another block. John Reaves (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef and RfA deleted. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So many support votes forged, and he didn't include me... What have I done wrong? :'( Aecis 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring re Magic: The Gathering cards

Thread retitled from "Running combat".

Last one for the night (going to bed) - but take a look at contributions for these two editors:
Mjrmtg (talk · contribs)
A Man In Black (talk · contribs)
Some kind of war going on over gaming card articles. RJASE1 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the (dozens of) articles for the various expansions of Magic: the Gathering have lists of "notable cards", linking heavily to the offsite database of cards, but lacking entirely in attribution. They're just someone's idea of which cards in a set are notable, with no real definition of "notable." This kind of thing tends to be a POV and OR magnet, so I went through and started cleaning them up.

Mjrmtg commented on my talk page, rather brusquely, and I explained what I was doing and why, as well as the fact that I wouldn't really mind seeing the lists replaced in part or in whole, if they could be attributed. (I'd really rather see them converted to prose, but sources would be a start in doing that.) Further discussion has seen him accuse me of removing referenced material, with no examples, while he reverts my edits wholesale. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain this one, in case anyone is curious. AMiB removed a whole bunch (read: 90% of the article) from the article of Tiberium. I asked him a bit about it, and it got heated. I explained my personal policy on how I edit articles. There was a fairly-large edit war on the article while he deleted and I restored and tried to add some ad-hoc sources before he'd delete it all again. Once I did that, AMiB checked my user history and removed or moved long-lasting articles I've had a part of. Check the histories on the following articles if you're curious. Ravnica, Concerned, All the articles in Magic: The Gathering sets, Cybran Nation, Aeon Illuminate... Bottom line: AMiB's edits aren't really about any violation. They are about removing almost everything I've done on Misplaced Pages, because I'm more concerned with good articles than making sure I follow WP:WAF. Scumbag 06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not following WP:WAF makes the articles worse. They aren't better if you add in-universe info that leaves casual readers scratching their heads on what they were reading. The only group that likes in-universe is the fans, those who have played the game, but teeters on making it inaccessible for everybody else. Hbdragon88 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. If you'll look at the history of Tiberium, the bulk of what I've been doing with it (before the edit war, of course), I was removing stuff to make it more understandable to the kind of person that'll view it. With C&C3 coming out soon, it needed to be culled a bit. Not as much as AMiB wanted to do, however. Scumbag 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Both, FYI, have been reported to 3RR for numerous violations. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As lame as this sounds, I think I need to be reported as well, since I did an edit war on Ravnica and Tiberium. Tiberium seems to have stopped though. Scumbag 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic blocked Mjrmtg for 24h and A Man in Black seems to have blocked himself for 31 hrs (that's taking responsibility for your own actions!) Crisis appears averted. Georgewilliamherbert 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like time for an article RfC to gauge the best way forward. Everybody seems to be acting in good faith, but with widely differing views of what's needed. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy, but I should point out that it's actually a violation of one of those rules to block yourself. <shrug> It's not a big deal, but one is not supposed to block oneself. Geogre 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • • To unblock yourself sure, but to block yourself? What's that violating? Georgewilliamherbert 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor question - would it be okay to revert the edits made by AMiB? He did a lot of damage to a lot of articles that didn't deserve it, and I think it's best if the articles he purged be restored to their original state. Scumbag 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't just blindly revert; it won't hurt to let it settle out, but if you want to start working on cleanup of deletions that worry you, go for it. Georgewilliamherbert 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

AMiB violated 3RR several other times during the past week, claiming that it's because of a guideline that I believed to have proven to not have consensus. And for those articles, on the one that caught my attention, was 8 against him, and he still kept reverting. I would like to see some sort of RfC on AMiB. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For those curious, I set up a thread over at the MTG wikiproject for discussing this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering#Notable cards.2C and set merges.. Seems a better spot than AMiB's talk page. I think that we can all agree that the ideal best outcome would be to have sourced versions of these lists, regardless of whether or not unsourced entries should be removed now or later. SnowFire 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He's back, and already reverting things I've fixed while he blocked himself. Cybran Nation was the first, but I have no doubt he's doing it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scumbag (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Soldier9599 (talk · contribs), Drew Nutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thread retitled from "Possibly compromised account".

• Soldier9599 (talk · contribs) hasn't had a history of vandalism up until he created the page Drew Nutter just now. Nutter appears to be the editor's real name, and the article is rather blatant and heavily racist vandalism. JuJube 08:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the article in question along with another recently created article on a non-notable band. I don't think it's a compromised account as I have run into this editor before as he left a rather odd message on my Talk page. I don't remember running into him before that point, so I'm not sure how he ended up on my Talk page. Anyways, let's AGF since he did blank the article and see how he behaves after the article has been deleted. -- Gogo Dodo 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked back in November for vandalism. You can look through his contributions and see a fair amount of nonsense edits, actually. IrishGuy 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Huge number of redirects

Redirects are cheap but do we need so many of them as in : ? Alex Bakharev 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. —Quarl 2007-03-05 12:05Z

Ha ha ha ha Merbabu 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwern (talk · contribs) seems to be running a bot (User:Gwern/Bot) that's creating redirects with all permutations of case variations with edit summaries saying articles are linking to them, but I don't see those articles. Also it seems to be buggy, creating loops or indirect redirects and creating redirects starting with "!" (was that supposed to be a blacklist thing?). —Quarl 2007-03-05 12:10Z

And many of the redirects are doubles and/or malformatted (so that they aren't detected as redirects). --ais523 12:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I rouged them up a little. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be happening again... --Delirium 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One title has more than 500 different spellings. ww2censor 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

From February's dump, Misplaced Pages has as many articles as redirects. I always wondered how that was possible. Now I know :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chaaaz & Nomen Nescio

I suspect that User:Chaaaz is a sockpuppet of Nomen Nescio. He was created simply to put a comment on this very board in support of Nescio's suggestion to ban me. I think that both User:Chaaaz and Nomen Nescio should be banned.--Dr who1975 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Chaaaz is a sock of someone, don't care who. As for you and Nescio, I suggest you try dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no need for dispute resolution. This user went on a massive editrun on several pages (see his contibution from 1.30-2.00h today), including moving them. Without sufficient discussion to undertake such behaviour I and another user, who also warned him to stop, merely reverted him. He is welcome to the relevant talk pages and propose his suggested moves. Nomen Nescio 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• The dispute resolution, then, takes the form of an RfC on User:Dr who1975. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism and Personal Attacks by user 80.193.169.137

The above user has both vandalised articles and directed personal attacks at the user User:80.192.242.187 (Signs posts as 'JemmyH') consistently. I am posting on here on behalf of said 'JemmyH' due to his unregistered status. The user 80.193.169.137 has also, in the past, posted on User:Jhamez84 talk page where a further personal attack was aimed at User:Jhamez84 . The full catalogue of 80.193.169.137 contributions can be found here]. Examples of vandalism can be seen here ], here] and here]. The personal attack on User:Jhamez84 can be found here]. Thank you.Man2 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

PaxEquilibrium

This user is constatnly rude, abusive and now he accuses me of being a sockpuppet of someone else. Though there is no connection between me and this person he makes the offical accustion here he posted my account and connects it with several anon's and one previously banned user to which I can not be connected in any way. This is nothing but fishing. I actually wouldn't complain since perhaps I would think he made a mistake, and so I would tolerate it, unless I was accused before that by another user Paulcicero here which was supported by the same user PaxEquilibrium and another user (who is often revert-warring) Nikola Smolenski. This accusation was proven false. Then comes in PaxEquilibrium at User talk:Tariqabjotu and alleges I am some User:Afrika paprika person who was banned long before I even came and decided to register, alleging my edits are similar to his for which there is absolutly no proof and is definately not true. The funny thing is that he also points as his evidence how a certain member User:GreaterCroatia referred to me as this AfrikaPaprika person which is very strange moment for him to come in and call me that just as another person has made an accusation of me being this person?! This all started with the discussion on Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich and since then all these people I mentioned have been following me around and making false allegations against me. I demand something to be done so that these people finally leave me alone. Tar-Elenion 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked User:Pogsurf sockpuppetry

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

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

Deletion of Essjay RFC

David Gerard, who obviously has strong concerns for Essjay's well being, deleted the RFC and it's talk page, on the grounds it wasn't "certified". Though I understand the motivation behind this, it strikes me as a very bad idea to appeal to "process" as a way to sweep such issues under the rug just as the New York Times and others are discussing them. Dragons flight 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also see my request to David to undelete the page. —Doug Bell  16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a current event being discussed in both printed and electronic media. It should not have been deleted while people were still discussing the events of the past 36 hours. Munta 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is that way, but this is obviously a valid deletion as there wasn't a single certifier. Without the two-certifier requirement RFC would be a massive troll magnet, and it must be respected. Is there anything that hasn't been said or still needs to be done? Unlikely. --Sam Blanning 16:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really feel a deletion review would be helpful at this time, it would be to debating cencorship. Deleting this page so quickly is merely going to be kerosene on dying flames. Giano

At DRV. Dragons flight 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• God just look at the comments there already. Some people in authority on this encyclopedia need saving from themselves. If D Gerard was intending to help Essjay, then he has gone avery strange way about it. Giano 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have forgotten that it was put on RfC by Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay. I'd think the best action would have been to review that MfD close, not to overturn it by a speedy deletion. GRBerry 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Joques2theFuture

Seems inappropriate, since he states on it that he hates Edgar181. At a minimum, probably worth watching in case of future inappropriate action. -Hit bull, win steak 16:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed for now. -- FayssalF - 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Primetime sock?

I blocked The Kingdom of Hate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this, but is it sincere or a weird joke? Chick Bowen 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? --138.38.32.84 17:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably sincere. Primetime makes an occasional editorial remark. -Will Beback · † · 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but vandalism from this IP

205.247.247.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP has never made a single constructive edit. It has been blocked in the past for vandalism and the talk page is a mess of warnings. More vandalism today at Chicago Theatre. Recent edits seem to indicate that the person is gaming the system by using this IP to vandalize once a month (probably using others as well). Maybe it's an open proxy? Anyway, I think this IP should be indef blocked as whoever is using it is obviously only out to make trouble. TheQuandry 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate place would be WP:AIV. Blocked again this time. However, we never block indef IP addresses. We just extend their blocks anytime they return vandalizing. -- FayssalF - 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism threat

At this AFD, User:512theking says if we delete his brother's page he'll go back to vandalizing just like I did in the good old days. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was said months ago and was indef blocked. What's new about that? -- FayssalF - 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit was made days ago...not months ago. --Onorem 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Onorem. I see. Well, i've just blocked the IP for a week as a sock of banned user 512theking. There's nothing more we can do at this stage i believe. -- FayssalF - 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not again... These socks are a pain-in-the-rear because the user uploads copyrighted images from various accounts. I guess I'll make my rounds on numerous Pennsylvania-highway-related pages to check for copyvios soon.... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, if anyone finds suspicious images uploaded on any Pennsylvania (or New Jersey) routes that are from newer users, please let me know on my talk page. I can run these by several people (respective owners of the copyrights) who can determine if they are copyright vios or not. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DvDknight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalizing User:Chacor

This account probably needs indefinite blocking as a compromised account per the user's comments after vandalizing User:Chacor and User talk:Chacor. Please note that vandalism warnings have been removed from his talk page. (→Netscott) 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by Irishguy for 24h. Let's see what their attitude would be after coming back. -- FayssalF - 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rajsingam (talk · contribs) using profanity in my userpage

This user has used the words Fuck you on my user page, this user has violated many other wikipedia policies in the past and this is not the first time he has been foul mouthed to fellow editors. complete list of violations of policies can be seen at User:Netmonger/RfC, this is a previous Request for comment which was failed because the certifying editors signed in the wrong place, after the deletion of the Rfc, the affected editors collectively decided not to pursue the case any further, assuming the user will not resort to such methods again. But this hasn't been the case. I hope the administrators will take prompt action in this regard. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. -- FayssalF - 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DiamondVoice (talk · contribs)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Awards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Awards

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

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

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

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

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

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

→ WikiProject Council or WP:Mediation guys. -- FayssalF - 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I left a note requesting a mediation at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Council. -- FayssalF - 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. --evrik  21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

You ask one really one relevent question:

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

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

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

82.153.51.122 / Peniel Pentacostal Church

Could admin attention be applied to 82.153.51.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This user, whose IP traces to "Peniel Church", is making non-constructive edits to Peniel Pentecostal Church, despite multiple warnings and being in breach of WP:COI. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Peniel Pentecostal Church. Tearlach 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil

• Moved to WP:CN for community input per the new policy. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Personal attacks on a user talk page

Please see my previous posts. All I'm asking is that the purposeful misspellings of the name be corrected, and the section heading be reverted to what it was originally. I think Curiouscdngeorge just needs to see that other people do not agree with his behavior. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Smeelgova archiving out recent material relevant to BabyDweezil case

Hi. Could someone please talk to Smee and ask him to stop archiving out two-day-old talk page material that may have some bearing on BabyDweezil's case for community ban. He is edit warring over it with me and I would imagine that, if nothing else, you would not archive out material that another editor wants to reamin. That seems like basic good manners irrespective of the BabyDweezil issue which makes the warring even odder appearing still. See . Thanks --Justanother 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• This particular user has a history of violating Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks, and has been warned about it by myself and other third-party editors. As to archiving the talk page, it was an old thread, and there is now an archive for old material. If User:Justanother or any other user wishes to begin a new discussion, they can do so by starting a new subject heading on the talk page. Smee 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee, you are the only one posting phony PA warnings on my page and this is not about me, this is about archiving a talk page prematurely and against the wishes of another editor during discussion of sanctioning an 3rd editor for actions associated with that article. What is the world are you thinking? --Justanother 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Smeelgova is hardly the only one who's concerned about Justanother's personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and persistent disruption. On the contrary, he may be the only person left who thinks that asking you to follow the rules here has any chance of success. Are you trying to prove him wrong? --FOo 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• User:Justanother has also been warned previously for disrupting the ANI process. Please see also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block. Smee 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

It's just common sense that editors are free to unarchive archived talkpage material if they have reasonable cause to want it kept on the live page. It's not an action to revert, let alone edit war over. Please don't revert JA's unarchiving, Smeelgova. WP:NOT a battleground. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

• Sigh, alright. I will revert it. Smee 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Sigh, indeed! Thanks Bishonen. --Justanother 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a WARNING, you will be reported Ragib for Systematically following me and Vandalizing the articles I worked on

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

<extensive copy of content from reporting user's talk page deleted, Sandstein 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)>

Atulsnischal 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a continuation of the harrassment by this user. Already reported above at WP:ANB/I#Atulsnischal_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_reported_by_Ragib. --Ragib 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Atulsnischal, this isn't the Misplaced Pages department of complaints. If you have an issue with Ragib that you feel needs to be resolved, seek dispute resolution. No violations of policy have been committed such that administrator intervention would be required. You need to discuss this. Leebo 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite. And no need to disrupt this forum by copying lengthy sections of your talk page here, either. If you have problems with one another, please see WP:DR. Sandstein 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi, I have reported this user, 65.189.189.23, for repeated disruption of Misplaced Pages because of personal attacks on other users about their inappropriate signature. Could you please block this user? --68.111.92.229 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those edits looks like a personal attack, to me. Corvus cornix 00:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Calton's childish behavior

Calton (talk · contribs) is behaving in a manner that makes User:EssJay look good by comparison. Every time I make an edit to the Net Neutrality article, Calton reverts it for no good reason. Generally he uses a pop-up revert, and at other times he does it manually with a misleading comment as to what he did. See any of his edits to this page over the lat two months and you will see one and only one pattern: he reverts all my edits. This person should be banned from Misplaced Pages. RichardBennett (talk • contribs)

Content dispute - User_talk:RichardBennett#Network_neutrality. Corvus cornix 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Slightly more than a content dispute, actually. Bad behavior is evident -- but not in the way RichardBennett claims. Here's RichardBennett's entire article edit history for March. Note the single subject and note especially the language in the edit summaries:

• 21:20, March 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Definitions of Network Neutrality - Restore Bob Kahn definition removed by Google's minion. restore date order)
• 21:17, March 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Sir Tim Berners-Lee - correct deceptive reference to only one side of Berners-Lee's testimony)
• 11:16, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (revert first sentence)
• 11:13, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - Don't delete Kahn again. The Internet is not a network and that's what Kahn said.)
• 11:05, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (resolve edit confict)
• 11:04, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Removed scurrilous fact that as a citation was already provided.)
• 10:52, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Some vandal tried to make the third paragraph misleading and incoherent.)
• 10:46, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of service versus Network Neutrality - clean up the language and purge some of the blatant falsehoods)
• 10:42, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - Try to make sense out of this turgid spin. There is no "public Internet", there are only transport contracts between networks. The publc Internet was shut down in 1991.)
• 10:31, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - re-word phony subjunctive constructions, remove Google-spin)
• 10:27, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - Remove optional double-talk and tell the truth)
• 10:25, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - explain distinction between public and private networks, and re-write deceptive statements on IP precedence)
• 10:06, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Benefits of non-neutral networks - rv deceptive edit)
• 10:05, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Clarify deceptive and misleading statement of Kahn's views on fragmentation.)
• 03:00, March 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - add citation for obvious fact that the Internet is an internet)

The contribution history is full of language like "flagrant lie", "Meatpuppet Calton is doing mischief again", and "Correct some of the gross errors if syntax, fact, and articulation. Not that I expect this formulation to last, as it's much too clear and honest for Misplaced Pages, but the revert will give me some ammo". --Calton | Talk 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments on the reverts of Calton's edits are honest in nature and mild in tone compared to his: "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt"; "What's this weird obsession with Google?" "Too bad, so sad". I have made substantial contributions to this article, and Calton has done nothing except revert my edits. That's not a content dispute, it's harassment.RichardBennett 01:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the article to include a direct quote of what Kahn actually said in the cited source, if anybody still cares at this point. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced your quote with a fuller quote with more context and clarity. But this is not a content dispute, it's a dispute over one editor who does nothing but revert another editor's contributions, ad hominem. Calton is another EssJay, doing his best to bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute.RichardBennett 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ad hominem WP:KETTLE? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Calton started the abusive language, not me. Find a single instance in which he/she contributed to the aricle except to revert me. And your recent contributions have assigned the wrong references to quoted material. Please try to be more careful, as you've done it twice how and it's getting tedious to correct your errors.RichardBennett 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil during conversations here on AN/I. another editor is trying to help, and your reply is that it's 'tedious to correct errors' is if not outright hostile, dismissive of his efforts. If being helped is tiresome, maybe you should sit back and let others sort this out. ThuranX 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My concept of "being helped" doesn't include people mixing up the citations on two different quotes, repeatedly. Block Calton from Net Neutrality and we're done. RichardBennett 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, you probably mean "ban", rather than "block". -Hit bull, win steak 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the citations, but this belongs on the relevant talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP violation in reference desk question

I have objected several times now to the characterizations made against Howard K. Stern in a Reference Desk question, and have now twice removed libellous attacks against him, but my removals are being reverted - . Could someone please delete the question from the reference desk so that the libel does not continue? Thank you. Corvus cornix 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the contribs of Nocternal (talk · contribs) I cannot help thinking that this is one of our perennial troublemakers. Pitching right in with edits on a Matrixism discussion and other such trollery? Not what you'd expect from a genuinely new user. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

self-identifying sockpuppets, block requested

170.215.40.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) signs as the indef blocked VacuousPoet (talk · contribs · block log) here: . 170.215.40.207 then edits the userpage of StudyAndBeWise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), identifying him as a sock of VacuousPoet: . VacuousPoet was indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · block log). Could someone block the new socks as appropriate? (For more details, see Template:Ssp.) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

New edit war at Giulio Clovio

I'm edit warring at Giulio Clovio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs) and BarryMar (talk · contribs) are inserting unsourced (or very poorly sourced) claims & adding their personal comments to the body of the article.

The issue has been brought up here before (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive184#Slow-pace edit-war at Giulio Clovio).

I don't provide any diffs to the edits because it's basically a constant back-and-forth revert war: choose any recent revert example from the article's history :-)

In the article's talk page, either see Talk:Giulio Clovio#Latest changes (quite long, but pretty focused), or simply concentrate in its "On Clovio's origin" & "On GiorgioOrsini's sentence" sub-sections.

Any help (like fully protecting the article or at least making a few short comments) would be more than welcome :-)

Thanks already. Best regards, Ev 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection requests should be made at WP:RFPP. —ptk✰fgs 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This goes beyong the scope of a mere page protection. GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs) has been edit warring about this article for months in a row. I have suggested in the past for him to try dispute resolution to no avail. I would appreciate if another admin can take a look at this as I would rather not having to use the tools myself in this instance. --Asterion 08:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks by User:Tajik

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

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

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

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

Party to Free Republic RFAr recruiting accounts / meatpuppets on Free Republic

I am currently in an RFAr on Free Republic, as is user DeanHinnen. Several people have documented and concluded that user DeanHinnen and his banned sockpuppet 'brother' BryanFromPalatine are one in the same. This article where his puppetry and legal threats made headlines, Misplaced Pages Sockpuppet Theatre, for instance. Dean/Bryan posted on on Free Republic earlier today soliciting new accounts and puppets. - "Does anyone here need a better reason to open an account at Misplaced Pages?" I request protection for the article, and action on Hinnen's puppet solicitation. Dean/Bryan's FR post - FaAfA (yap) 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an Arbitration matter and should be deferred to injunctions as part of arbitration. Please ask for an injunction or a remedy on the Arbitration workshop page. --Tbeatty 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An injunction is what is called for at this point. --BenBurch 03:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note In that post, Dino reveals himself to be BRYAN, who is Indefblocked already. Apparently he's discarded the fiction the two are brothers. I will ask for an injunction and immediate enforcement of BryanFromPalantine's indefblock I misread his sentences, but please note, Bryan admits that DeanHinnen is acting as his proxy on this matter. SirFozzie 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Corrected statement, SirFozzie 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Tbeatty is correct that a motion may be made or proposed findings suggested on the arbitration workshop page. SirFozzie, please be more specific about where in the article you believe there is an admission that Dean is Bryan. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See my corrected statement, Brad. I have struck through the statement, and apologize for the misstatement. I have posted a request for an injunction on the Arb Workshop page. SirFozzie 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No surprise that Bryan wouold do this; he is already banned. The evidence that Dean=Bryan is on a web site we would not normally consider a reliable source for articles. I will try to make Fred aware of the situation as he is getting ready to write the proposed decision. Thatcher131 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally...the proposed decision. The evidence and workshop pages have become such a mess that it is an eyesore whenever I try to read it. --physicq (c) 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad - I posted there earlier today about what I felt was another legal threat from Dean/Bryan and it didn't get a peep - so I thought it better to post this here. I reposted this to the RFAr workshop and evidence talk pages too. - FaAfA (yap) 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been warning all of the parties for weeks that the evidence and workshop pages would be rendered useless if everyone didn't control the quantity of verbiage. At this point, at Thatcher131 says, a proposed decision will soon appear and the case will be close to finishing up. Newyorkbrad 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It would help if it was completely silent during the voting phase of the case. However, some may just cry "arbitrator abuse" or the like... --physicq (c) 03:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

UH-OH! Too late! I hope Fred has a good sense of humor! LOL! - FaAfA (yap) 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. :) --physicq (c) 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody wanna help me block open proxies?

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

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

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

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

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

75.24.220.143 (talk · contribs)

Thread retitled from "Vandalism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/75.24.220.143 This guy is vandalizing pages. DanDixon 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin. You'll want to report them to WP:AIV after the appropriate warnings. -- Gogo Dodo 05:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, this one's a little different

68.98.50.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to make useful edits but also pretty regular vandalism. That could be a sign of different users at the IP, but I don't think so. The vandalism isn't at the "poop" and "penis" level, it's actually a tiny bit clever; and twice when I've called him on it he's responded on my talk page in a light-hearted manner, essentially saying that his vandalism should be accepted because it's funny. In a way, this makes him a more dangerous vandal than the poop/penis crowd, or the X-is-hooooot crowd, whose vandalisms can easily be spotted. But he doesn't do it often enough to justify a report on AIV. So what should I do about it? Zsero 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the diffs, it seems like an Irish-American knowing Russian well and Japanese lightly, with a fascination for guns and fire, racist, with a weird sense of humor, from Arizona. You realize I'm not gonna sleep at all well tonight?

Seriously, gotta be more than a couple people, at least one of which knows Russian and is helpful. Prove me wrong, however, and I won't sleep well at night. :) Shenme 08:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check requested

Howdy folks, I'm participating in a DRV and would like a quick sanity check on something. An article I speedy deleted on Jan 19 has been brought up for deletion review, and that's fine. We can't get 'em all right, and if it was an error, best it be resolved. But I'm perceiving an odd belligerence from another admin in the discussion, and I'd like to know if it's my imagination or not. The specific discussion is at this deletion review, and the admin in question is Night Gyr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If I need a knock on the head, well, that's good feedback too I suppose. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite as hostile as someone else who was similarly unhappy with a deletion of mine, but yeah, a little unnecessarily belligerent. So what? Grandmasterka 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being overly sensitive. Perhaps you were a little overzealous with this speedy delete, perhaps not. In borderline cases it is a good idea to ask for a second opinion, one way of doing this is to tag the article and let some other administrator delete it. But I don't think you did anything that was clearly out of line - provided this is not something that happens to you on a pretty regular basis, in which case, I would invest some self-reflection, just to make sure you're not growing a bit "trigger happy" with speedy deletes. I also think that by insisting on justifying your actions to the other admin, you were acting defensive and not letting the matter rest, which contributed to the other admin putting his/her guard up. This is really quite a small matter, no harm done on either side, you should probably just let it be. --woggly 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but for the record, I didn't post anything until the admin in question said "Overturn, invalid speedy. The article needed sources, but nothing was atrocious and it wasn't even tagged. Unnecessary unilateral action. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:46,", so he established his tone before I made a peep, but I appreciate the feedback. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The topic and header of this request has been refactored and removed per this Arbitration ruling/request. The content of this thread has been forwarded to the Arbitration Committee per their explicit request in the aforementioned. I respectfully ask that no user continues this discussion here or elsewhere.

The user that was blocked has been unblocked by Zscout370, presumably pending pending a ruling by the Arbitration Committee on the status of their editing abilities. Note that this is neither an endorsement nor a disapproval on my part towards the block or the unblock, but merely procedural per the Arbitration Committee's expressed wishes.

If you wish to contest my actions in this case, again, can it please not be done here, but rather on my talk page. I also respectfully request that, if an oversight/arbitrator deems it necessary, that the revisions prior to my edit that had the information in this thread be removed from the history. I hope I have everyone's understanding in this case. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have withdrawn the respectful request regarding oversight. As a PS, I have sent an email to ArbCom's mailing list with links to appropriate discussions/information, as well as a copy of the discussion prior to my refactoring. I thank everyone for their understanding whilst the Arbitration Committee deals with this, per their expressed request. As I noted in my email, "he refactoring was done on the basis of the comment by Fred above, presumably with the idea that remains private whilst decide to do with it. If such an action by me was inappropriate, please forgive me, as I was acting in good faith". The Arbitration Committe has also been directed to the deleted userpage, which - in my opinion - should probably remain deleted pending the AC's input. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chuck0

This user has been warned before for making personal attacks: His latest attack is particularly vicious. He just said this to another user: "Why are you such a fucking retard?" Please do something about this disruptive and abusive individual. Rapartee 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attacks by replacing them with {{rpa}}, and I've warned the user. Wodup 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually like being a full time nag, but RPA is more controversial than NPA. You don't indicate which of the places you removed attacks. If it's the article talk page, then at least archive the "personal attacks" to the user page. The user's talk page is probably not the best place for any RPA's. Geogre 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray Lopez Sockpuppet

Another sockpuppet from multiply indefinite banned troll :

Continuing his campaign of defamation:

Stirling Newberry 08:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

'scone. 〈REDVEЯS〉 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to reopen Peronal attacks COI discussion,

Allegations of making incivility and personal attacks were made against me in Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_claims_of_COI. I was not informed of this discussion till after the discussion was closed. I suggest we reopen the discussion to give me the opportunity to answer the allegations against me, expalain the nature of the WP:COI and to allow the community to voice its support or opposition to the educational block Jayjg says he will impose on me. I personally see the repeated threats to block me as a misuse of administrative tools to intimidate editors with an opposing POV. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has taken any action against you. What are you concerned about? -- Avi 13:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg stated "I'm going to nip this process in the bud by applying educational blocks to editors who falsely claim WP:COI in the future." I was specifically named in this context. Once the block is in place, I will have no means of raising my questions here. I would also like some clarification about whether an admin is allowed to block a user withwhome he is personally involved in a dispute, and what safeguards exist against admins using their tools to intimidate editors who do not share their point of view. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Once a user has been informed of their misconception/misunderstanding, I believe that improper warnings are considered vandalism, as is gaming the system. So while "educational" may be a poor choice of words, preventing disruptions in the forms of maliciously or conciously misapplying policy for the purposes of, for example, pushing a point of view, whitewashing a target, attacking an editor as opposed to content, would all be valid preventative blocks. Does anyone else disagree? -- Avi 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Administrators are trusted members of the Misplaced Pages community and are expected to show good judgment. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved

. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, as I described above, while the wording may have been somewhat terse, the concept appears valid - in that blocks to prevent editors' disruptions are allowed and in-process. I would appreciate if other admins chime in on this. -- Avi 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This has the appearance of forum shopping. Abu ali has petitioned me for an opinion repeatedly at my user talk page. Three days ago I asked him for substantiating evidence, User_talk:Durova#user_blocked_on_political_grounds. Instead of responding to that he opens a new thread here to renew basically the same claims. As I stated before, two of the grounds Jayjg expressed in the block warning were WP:POINT and WP:AGF. This ANI thread could be reasonably interpreted as violating both policies. While I remain ready to perform an impartial review on any specific evidence that might be forthcoming, I'll also note my empiricial observation that editors who forum shop instead of providing evidence very seldom have a legitimate case to present. I will not issue a block for this incident, but I would have no objection if someone else did. Durova 15:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot