Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:04, 30 June 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Rockpocket block of Giano II/Discussion to address Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts

Moved to subpage; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rockpocket block of Giano II. Horologium (talk)

Link to discussion dealing with Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts Risker (talk)

User Karabinier

• The report I put in copyright violations page: Article Estonia - User Karabinier (talk · contribs) is found to repeatedly reinsert large sections 100% copied from non-free sources, some of copyright violations summarized in this warning. He has been given warnings at least 5-10 times, including warnings in the article talk page and user talk page that repeated reinserting is considered vandalism. The last warning was given in this post after which he immediately reinserted violations. He has made non-violating contributions so I suggest not to give a permanent ban, but some temporary ban recommended by Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems (17 United States Code 512) policy might do good.
• I also point out that he is hardly participating in the talk page and repeatedly goes deleting content. Again, he has received multiple warnings.
• Could someone take appropriate action with temporary ban or inform how to proceed with him?

Turkuun (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Karabinier's talk page is full of warnings about blatant copyright violations and the few sections I checked in Military of Estonia support the concern that too many of his contributions arecopy&paste and non-free images. Another his article, Military of Estonia is a compilation of copy&paste from this page. Could someone remove those violations? Is there some automatic tool to check for copy&paste? Turkuun (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this fairly closely. It seems the copyright issues only concerns a few paragraphs, however facts and figures published by Estonian government websites is public domain under Estonian copyright law. In any case the correct response would be to re-write the paragraph in your own words, rather than deletion. However Turkuun has been massively restructuring the article, removing subsection titles, moving paragraphs around mixing it up. I tried to restore some logical structure but he again merged and mixed many of the sections . Others are not convinced that Turkuun's edits are moving the article in a positive direction and his attitude seems to be excessively combative and confrontational. The end result is that the Estonia article is being excessively churned. The best response here is to fully protect the article for a week so that some concensus on article structure can be arrived at on the talk page before any major changes. Martintg (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the copyright violating section (the source says it's license is free for non-commercial use only, so one can't copypaste text from there) and restored deleted paragraphs you deleted. Estonian copyright law states that court decisions and administrative documents (and transcripts) are public domain, which probably means that websites are not under public license. The burden of proof is on the one who copypasted them into the article. Karabinier reverted his copyrights violations quite many times before I had to become confrontational enough to find some administrator.Turkuun (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Seems Turkuun has also been massively restructuring the Finland article as well Talk:Finland#Article_hijacked_by_non-NPOV_problem_user_.22Turkuun.22, upsetting quite a few people in the process. Given that Turkuun has joined Misplaced Pages in April 2008 with only 500 edits to date, it seems remarkable that he was so quick to know how to use the various boards here and exploit a relatively minor copyvio issue in a way that preserved his version of the article. Could he be a sock puppet of some banned user, someone like User:Petri Krohn for example? Martintg (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The copyright problem does not disappear anywhere by accusing other users. I have always asked contributors for consensus process, and as you can read in the Estonia talk page, Karabinier has hardly responded there, except for accusing me for being "inaccurate". I have considerately provided well-references numbers, such as the fact that oil shale makes only 1% of Estonian GDP, and neither you or Karabinier has contested these in any other way than deleting them. Oh, and please look at articles Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, and Lithuania if you seek to make a personal attack. Otherwise I propose energies are directed on making Estonia better. Cheers. Turkuun (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the next time this user uploads something that violates copyright laws he should be blocked. On June 27th he received a , which states that if he makes another disruptive edit he'll be blocked. Also, in the past he has been warned many times about not uploading images with copyrights. He is clearly well aware that it is against wikipedias rules to upload copyrighted images. Also, he should probably be blocked for a fairly long period of time. He has been blocked in the past, so he's a repeat violator of wikipedias policies, and some of his edits break laws, so what he is doing is serious.--SJP (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no more copyright issues in the out pointed articles provided by Turkuun:

• like this 100% ripoff from riikogu.ee (riikogu.ee content might be public domain, but no such claim is found): The Riigikogu elects and appoints several high officials of the state, including the President of the Republic. In addition to that, the Riigikogu appoints, on the proposal of the President of Estonia, the Chairman of the National Court, the Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Estonia, the Auditor General, the Legal Chancellor and the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces. A member of the Riigikogu has the right to demand explanations from the Government of the Republic and its members. This enables the members of the parliament to observe the activities of the executive power and the abovementioned high officials of the state.
• like this 100% ripoff from mil.ee: The national defence policy aims to guarantee the preservation of the independence and sovereignty of the state, the integrity of its land area, territorial waters and airspace and its constitutional order. Its main goals remain the development and maintenance of a credible capability to defend the nation's vital interests and development of the Defence Forces in a way that ensures their interoperability with the armed forces of NATO and European Union member states and their capability to participate in the full range of Alliance missions.
• like this 100% ripoff from ria.ee: The Military of Estonia is introducing a new 21st century based cyber warfare and defence formation in order to protect the vital infrastructure and e-infrastructure of Estonia. Currently the leading organization in the Estonian cyber defence is the CERT (the Computer Emergency Response Team of Estonia), established in 2006, as an organisation responsible for the management of security incidents in .ee computer networks. Its task is to assist Estonian internet users in the implementation of preventive measures in order to reduce possible damage from security incidents and to help them in responding to security threats. The unit deals with security incidents that occur in Estonian networks, are started there, or have been notified of by citizens or institutions either in Estonia or abroad.

Karabinier (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, it would be a shame to lose so much good material. Do you have a proof that they are public domain? Where can we find it? Also, Military of Estonia and Maavägi are your copypaste from mil.ee websites so this affects on those articles as well.Turkuun (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction to what Martintg claimed above: content of Estonian government websites is not automatically in the public domain according to Estonian copyright law. Similar to many other European states, Estonia exempts only :

1. legislation and administrative documents (acts, decrees, regulations, statutes, instructions, directives) and official translations thereof;
2. court decisions and official translations thereof;
3. official symbols of the state and insignia of organisations (flags, coats of arms, orders, medals, badges, etc.);

A government website is not an "administrative document". This applies both to text copypasted from such site, and to images. They must be removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Estonian Copyright Act exempts also

1. news of the day; and
2. facts and data;

so it is not so clear cut. Government websites publish press releases as well as facts and data. Martintg (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Majority of the text has been already removed. At the moment I am afraid there is some Copyright paranoia going on. There is one section - transportation which needs still a little clean up from the issued text. This i will do in few hours. Karabinier (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I just remind that there are copyright violations also in Military of Estonia, Maavägi (both copypaste from mil.ee), and perhaps other articles.Turkuun (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is www.mil.ee a literary or artistic work, or a publication of government facts and data? The issue becomes one of plagiarism, not copyright, the solution is to rewrite it in ones own words or properly attribute it, not deletion.

For example, the alleged copyright infringement cited by Turkuun: The Military of Estonia is introducing a new 21st century based cyber warfare and defence formation in order to protect the vital infrastructure and e-infrastructure of Estonia. This qualifies as "news of the day" and as a "fact" under Estonian copyright law. Martintg (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Attention to organized disruptive gangs

I was editing the CPI(M) and I observed that there were a number of people who would just blank or delete my well referenced and relevant sections on frivelous reasons. I would just undo the delete but then another user would come and delete it. Within a short time and after three reverts I would become liable to breaking the three revert rule or I just had to wait for another day to restore the ruthless delete. It was frustating because I was a single person fighting against a group. Initially I thought it was edit war and a number of people were just protective of an ideology. I looked into the history of the page which goes over three years, I was shocked and horrified to see what has been happening here. It is not just edit war but a well planned an organized ploy. Many users before me had their well written and relevant sections deleted and in frustation they either stopped contributing or got banned for violating the three revert rules.

This has not just been happening on the CPI(M) site but also on most of the other articles on Indian political parties and groups. As a result if you see most of the articles on Indian political parties look onesided and have lost the NPOV therefore compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages articles.

I am therefore requesting you to investigate and see for your self the disruptive pattern. And since many contributers have been banned I suspect some adminstrators are also involved.

I will not be surprised if i also get banned for raising this issue. So far despite many request for investigation I have been asked to take the matter to Dispute Resolution which cannot provide resolution to the problem I face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment FYI - Concerning Sindhian's edits to CPI (M) please see, Sindhian's edits and 'Accusations and Controversies' chapter. This is a continious discussion on Sindhian's recent edits and their problamatic nature. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaysweet has volunteered to look over the edit history of the article, starting in a couple of days time. In the meantime I am getting tired of seeing Sindhian bringing up this matter on yet another forum. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sindhian, I have briefly looked at the edits in question, and while some of the information is sourced and relevant, the general tone is inappropriate and I have serious questions about some of the sources. Also, I am beginning to agree with Soman (talk · contribs) and others that a separate "allegations" section may not be appropriate for a political party.

At this point, you will either have to:

1. Educate yourself further on WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE, in order to understand why your additions will need to be rephrased/reorganized/scaled back;
2. Find another unbiased editor who is willing to assist your; or
3. Wait until Monday.

Further forum-shopping will reflect very poorly on you and your proposed changes. I trust you'll refrain from that in the future. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was having a feeling that Jaysweet is the leader of this diruptive gang but was not sure so far but now it seems obvious. Another thing I want to get investigated is how many editors who have contributed on CPI(M) website were banned and what was the role of Jaysweet in thatSindhian (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, how to blow your chances of credibility in 53 words of moronic paranoia... I am now officially Not Bothered in helping this pillock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked into the wiki pages of other political parties of US, Europe and realized that contraversies are generally not mentioned. It seems to be a non-written Wiki rule and as a result I will withdraw my section on CPI(M) completly. Based on this reality I also realize that I have gone overboard in my suspicion about Jaysweet. My sincere apologies. I would like to withdraw that comment. unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk Sindhian (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Jaysweet is sufficiently robust enough to continue to assist as he had previously indicated, and especially in lieu of the withdrawal of the comment. I am now officially again bothered enough to assist if required. I also apologise for and withdraw the pillock comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Calling other editors "leaders of a disruptive gang" is far from appropriate and does not facilitate constructive editing. This subject has been reported to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as well. I would ask for his editing history to be reviewed - but I believe that his comments above accusing Jaysweet of leading a disruptive gang is enough information. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect-philic user

User:Mac has been creating a bunch redirects that seem to be unnecessary. (Clean Car Challenge and Strategic Energy Technologies seem not worthy of redirects to U.S. presidential candidates position on plug-in hybrids and Energy policy of the European Union respectively.) Can someone with the tools and knowledge see which redirects need to be deleted and do so? I have also warned the user about not creating links in pages that go to themselves... Brusegadi (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle and PHEV redirect to the same page. Do they give fundamental value to the article. Yes and no. No because it is a redirect to a page with no adittional information. And yes because when I write PHEV I go to he right page to see the information I was looking for. In any case, the Clean Car Challenge can become a major and article in the future when more measures are proposed out of the campaign. On the other hand, more information about the European Union Strategic Energy Technology Plan : http://www.eubusiness.com/Energy/strategic-energy.02, http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/EU-Strategic-Energy-Plan-071122 (this is a criticism), http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/setplan/doc/com_2007/com_2007_0723_en.pdf (this is included in the GHG emission control and elimination and energy policies in the European Union) --Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The clean car challenge was a major announcement by John McCain about specifically plug in hybrid cars, and Strategic Energy Technologies seems to come up whenever European matters are discussed on C-SPAN (yes, i really do watch it, im a nerd). The redirects seem to make sense (at least the 2 you linked). -M 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, both of the redirects mentioned seem to have context within the pages they lead to. This might be more appropriate for WP:RFD. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already warned Mac about this as well: and . Mac creates redirects to articles using POV terms he/she seems to endorse, and then insert links to those redirects in various articles. Half the time, the link redirects to the very page the link is on. Mac's answer the first time was that "Rome was not built in a day." NJGW (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the redirects are now full and independent pages that used the {{Rhere}} template. Other articles begun as stubs. Do you think stubs would disappear from Misplaced Pages ?. This is an encyclopedia killing error.--Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, they seemed unrelated. I feel ignorant now ): Ill try to watch C-span! My apologies. Brusegadi (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why ?. It was only an affair read a little more the article  ;-) --Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems Mac is not going to comment until he/she comes back (hasn't edited since 6/27, so maybe tomorrow). In the meanwhile, any suggestions on how to handle future redirect issues? In the past Mac has ignored the issue (there's a thread from Feb. '08 on Mac's talk page that is about redirect problems as well). NJGW (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a suggestion really established by Misplaced Pages: {{Rhere}} is an old and well established template that one can use to improve the encyclopedia. --Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What?! You created that page, and it makes no sense. What is that template for? What does "This page redirects here" mean? What is the point of redirects that travel to the same page they started on? NJGW (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see how that's used. How pointless. Just make a stub. The use of the template seems very obtrusive, which is probably why you don't even use it anymore. NJGW (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dem1970: Legal Threat

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (on Dem1970 Talk)

The article at issue is Steve Windom.

My most recent edit to the article is Steve Windom(version).

Dem1970 has made a threat of legal action ("If you continue to defame people online, the proper authorities will be notified.") at my Talk page, User Talk: Audemus Defendere.

Dem1970, who has never made an edit other than to the subject article (and my Talk), has made several edits to the page over the last 72 hours, removing material I had added. These culminated in a mass deletion of material at Steve Windom (version).

If you will review the talk page on the article, you can see where I have tried to get Dem1970 to work with me on accurate, balanced NPOV language, without success. I have placed a WP:3R warning on Dem1970's talk page. This is an NLT complaint, not an effort to get an Admin into an edit war (which I am trying to avoid), but the background may be useful.

And FTR, about Dem1970’s invocation of “privacy.” The subject of the article is a former Lt. Governor, who ran for Governor. As the cited news stories indicate, the controversy was the subject of dozens of newspaper and TV reports. “Privacy” is hardly an issue. I also wrestled with the language of my last edit to get NPOV, and was careful not to inhale without a cite to a major Alabama daily newspaper.

Dem1970 also made similar comments, describing my additions as defamatory, after creating my user page, which I had not previously desired to have created, see WP:UP#OWN. The page was deleted at my request by Admin Athaenara at 03:44, 29 June 2008.

Thanks guys, and sorry to have to bother you! Audemus Defendere (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it may be the article's subject; this is a delicate situation, and should be handled with care. At the moment, I've invited Dem1970 to join us in discussion on the article's talk page, and will shortly be cross-posting this to the BLP noticeboard. Will try to keep an eye on things, from here. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope he joins us there; my luck on that has been spotty. And I, too, am wondering if it's the subject. If not, he/she has a copyright issue with the photo from the subject's website. (see Talk). Audemus Defendere (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Luna, all evidence points to Dem1970 being a single purpose account. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

the article nonetheless does have some problems. In particularly the video capture there is probably inappropriate . DGG (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Misplaced Pages and my account is not single purpose. I am not a programmer and am learning the rules still! I did not mean to create a page for Audemus; I was trying to leave a comment on his talk page and put it in the wrong place. I was also not making a legal threat and have clarified that sentence...proper authority = Misplaced Pages Admin. I am a Democrat who is offended by Audemus' original edits (i.e., hacket jobs) on a number of Republican candidates. Many of those have also been fixed by others before I needed to jump in. I have written more on the specific talk page at issue but hope Audemus' overemphasis of certain events and clear bias against the subjects ends here. Best,Dem1970 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was wrong. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to report, Dem1970 is on the Talk page of the subject article. Now that he's there (how sexist of me to presume "he"), I have tried to set out the outstanding issues as I see them, for those with an adequate supply of coffee. Everyone jump in and let's see what happens. We do have some additional editors jumping in rather than talking, including one with a bare IP address and no other contribs.

Ottava, I hope you were wrong. Let's see.

And DGG, the topic may be hard to understate. If you read the pertinent part of my Talk, you'll see the "jug" deal may have cost the subject the 2002 Governor's race. And it's not like the desk wasn't blocking the view in the pic. :-) Audemus Defendere (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent Dem1970 an email, and I am waiting fro a response back. I don't know anything about the page, which side is "correct" or not, or anything similar. Instead, I will try to guide Dem towards the best way to present his argument in a civil and respectful way in order to ensure that others can understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. I thought the "edit war" was over. I did not make any additional changes and did not make any legal threats. Thank you for stepping in to broker peace, but we're good, no? Other, more seasoned, editors are now involved. I have been writing on talk pages, now that I know to. My early edits do nothing more than betray my newcomer status and once I learned some of the basics they got less deep! Dem1970 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Finding those who agree with you is an important first step. However, gaining the respect of those who disagree with you is the ultimate goal. Lets try to build bridges and work with Audemus to both of your satisfactions. How does that sound? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A small proposal: I have issued a request here. Now, if Audemus and Dem1970 are willing to provide information, we can work together to build a longer page that puts together a nice, well-rounded biography that will be informative, honest, and make everyone comfortable. However, I ask permission from both sides to archive the talk page in order to preserve, but remove from immediate sight, the dispute in order to show that both sides are willing to move on and improve the article instead of beating a dead horse. How does that sound? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Brechin High School

User Jansennricardo has recently created the page Brechin High School. He started the page with school teachers included. This was removed by myself as WP:WPSCH suggests that this should not be included. Since then he's continuely re-inserted such lists despite them continuely being removed by myself and another user. Both myself and the other user have tried to contact Jansennricardo through his Talk Page here, the article talk page here and indeed with inline comments on the page source all to no avail. He has been editing with multiple small edits so it's probably best to look at the page's history to see the pattern. I accept there will be differences in opinion about what should be included but his refusal to talk to other editors about it means I feel something needs to be done. At the moment he's not guilty of breaking the three revert rule as recently they've not been in 24 hours. He has been guilty of breaking the three revert rule in the past but as there had been no warning I did not report them for it (warning has now been given). Ideally I'd be after a user block or page protection (without the teacher information) as an administrator feels is most appropiate. Brought this here as not sure where else to take it. Dpmuk (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

According to this, he appears to be a single purpose account. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I left him a final request to collaborate, otherwise I'm tempted to instate a short block just to attract his attention. MaxSem 15:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that he's at it again. List of teachers is back. Dpmuk (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rotary International Talk Page

What a mess, I am getting fed up trying to be constructive.

See 'The Rotarian Affair' at http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bradipus

and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rotary_International/Archive_3#Protected

for some history.

See Talk:Rotary_International and it's history for the mess that has been made in the last 14 hours!

I hope you can see a way to fix it..... thanks. Ariconte (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this on WP:AN last night; at present, the talk page is semiprotected to save the editors being attacked the stress of dealing with it. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistent harassment, false accusations and incivility even after multiple warning received

Rjecina is constantly engaged into incivility, false accusations, and harassment against me for more than two months. He continually reverts all my edits calling me a sockpuppet of some banned user. He requested the checkuser against me - which rejected Rjecina's accusations - see .

Furthermore, administrator Mangojuice responded to Rjecina's accusations here saying

Furthermore, WP:AGF dictates that, given the checkuser results, we assume this is not the same user. Being from the same city is not misbehavior.

About this man harassing behavior - warned another administrator, Barneca here

But I have no special knowledge about what's going on in those articles; all I see, frankly, is you and Rjecina reverting anyone who disagrees with you as a "sockpuppet of JAComment". I'm just not going to take you word for it, especially after only three edits that don't look bad to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.24.245 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That User:Rjecina was indulged into a long range of harassment of others is seen here ,

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies (). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But Rjecina keeps reverting my changes under accusation as if I were a banned user. See , , , , , ,

Rjecina was warned by other user - see Rjecina talk page

Please, take proper administrative actions against Rjecina and his blatant violations of the Misplaced Pages Code of Conduct.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving this from the top of this page where it was posted to the bottom for greater attention. Please be aware that this thread is related to the above Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:72.75.24.245_and_3RR. I have also notified Rjecina about this thread. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Long comment by barneca

Since I've been mentioned by IP 72.75... as someone defending him, I'll chime in here. I'm not very active right now, and in a few days I'll be out of the country for 2.5 weeks and completely unavailable, so I apologize in advance for the disorganized brain dump here. If needed, please ask me for clarification soon, so I can reply before I leave.

• Above, IP 72.75... is taking my comments out of context. I said that to User:Mendaliv in response to his request that I block User:Brzica milos etc as a sock of the at-the-time blocked User:J. A. Comment and the IP. Please see my entire response here: . I declined to block mainly because I was not convinced Brzica milos etc was the same person as J. A. Comment and the IP; since the IP has tacitly acknowledged above that it is the same person, I think this helps prove Mendaliv's point.
• I originally blocked IP 72.75... as a sock of J.A. Comment, used to avoid a block. When User:Mangojuice unblocked J.A. Comment, I then unblocked the IP, as there was no longer a justification for blocking. However I remain convinced (based on editing pattern, reading between the lines of the Checkuser, and actually their comments above) that the same person is behind J. A. Comment, the IP (and many more in the same range), and (now) Brzica milos etc as well.
• There is an accusation that this person is also User:Velebit. I believe this is likely, but haven't seen enough info to be positive, and don't have the time to research it myself. Please, someone familiar with this, supply the links to the multiple WP:SSP and WP:RFCU pages that apply here, which I should do but just can't right now.
• There have been a couple of checkusers done on Velebit and J. A. Comment and the IP range. The IP editor has taken the results as a vidication; however, I'm pretty sure the actual result is "nothing can be proved", not "the IP is vindicated". I apologize, hopefully someone can supply links to the checkuser page in question, I need to wrap this up and go.
• Until there is a decision somewhere that the user behind these accounts is also Velebit, I think the reversion of all their edits by Rjecina and Mendaliv based solely on the assumption that they are a banned editor should stop. For now, argue the merits of the edits, not the presumed identity of the editor.
• Summary: I strongly urge User:Rjecina, User:Mendaliv, and (I think, from seeing a comment somewhere that I can't find now) User:DIREKTOR to get all their ducks in a row, and prepare a fresh WP:SSP report, with all of their evidence and diffs organized, and settle this once and for all. Personally, I believe them, but at this stage all they're doing is reverting people as "sockpuppet of banned user", with no proof, and I don't think the case is obvious enough to keep doing that. Due to conflicting admin actions on this, an unclear CU report, and the fact that this is another one of those nationalist-POV wars that is so convoluted and so damaging, I strongly feel that this needs a fresh review, with all cards laid out on the table, and a definitive discussion and resolution.

--barneca (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I live in a democratic and free country, which I am a citizen (USA), which credo is that anyone is innocent until proven guilty! The comment above is just denial that very basic human right. I am persistently marked as a guilty party with no proof - a way used to excuse the reverts of anything what is not to User:Rjecina and Co liking. I already told it to barneca that I'd like to be judged only by the quality of my contributions to Misplaced Pages. What he proposed above - is a sort of witch hunt. No one (User:Rjecina especially) can be absolved this way as barneca proposed. That User:Rjecina was indulged into a long range of harassment of others is seen here ,

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies (). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• • As to the WP:DUCK I hope that barneca is familiar with the fact that WP:DUCK is not a part of the official Misplaced Pages policy:

• • This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Two problems:

1. Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty, but in order to prove you are guilty, evidence is given. That is what Barneca is doing. He is also clarifying his statements and explaining his actions. Bringing up "innocent until proven guilty" is completely illogical and has utterly no bearing on these proceedings.

   Evidence is not given nor it exists - doubts and accusations are not evidence. J.A.Comment is absolved of any guilt but - here are claims that I am this user puppet! So - the 'evidence' is already rejected and that fact must be respected fully. Repeating accusations that are rejected consists a clear case of abusive behavior.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Yes WP:DUCK is an essay, but stating that also has utterly no bearing on these proceedings. What Barneca is saying there is that since your editing patterns are so similar to the other guy's, there is little reason to believe that you are not the same person. WP:DUCK basically says that if something quacks, there is no logical reason not to believe it is a duck.

   Which 'patterns' you do see - may ask you? Are you User:Rjecina alter ego? I see the same pattern of behavior followed by both of you. Also, bear in mind that some 'patterns' are already rejected as a proof of guilt - see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.24.245 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy_adds 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

72.75.24.245, could you please stop interleaving your comments with other people's comments? It makes the whole thread difficult to follow, and in the previous case it broke the formatting of J.delanoy's comment and I had to go in and reformat it. Please leave new comments at the bottom. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not originally going to get involved with this, I was only pointing out that two of your arguments do not pertain particularly well to this situation. However, I took the liberty of following the link you gave me, and what I saw is very interesting.

I would like you to answer this question, please: Why did you, on this page, (where you are trying to prove that you are not related to J. A. Comment) use almost the exact words and style that J. A. Comment did in his unblock request? J.delanoy_adds

Also, 72.75, above you say "He requested the checkuser against me" (emphasis mine), and link to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment. So, which of the editors in that RFCU are you admitting to being? Never mind, rhetorical question. There is really no doubt you are J. A. Comment; that whole issue is a red herring. The question is, are you also Velebit and all of his numerous sock puppets? I don't know the answer to that (and again encourage others with more experience with Velebit to present their case clearly and completely), but the more I see these types of games being played by J. A. Comment, the more credence I give to the accusation. --barneca (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) @72.74: Maybe piling on is not worth it here, but while I'm at it, can you please explain this? J.delanoy_adds 18:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Against me means that I used 71.252.xxx.xxx addresses earlier when editing. These addresses are listed in that checkuser request. When I say 'patterns' I've meant patters of false identification, of lies, of slander. Seeing J.A.Comment absolved I see myself absolved due to the fact that we in the same case (among others) falsely accused. Clear enough???--72.75.24.245 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note the IP has just gone ahead and blanked some of the above comments. I've reverted on the spot. D.M.N. (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me these are my comments - I simply re-arranged them.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There has been proposition that I start new case against this user and so... You are all invited to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Velebit2--Rjecina (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the end is this is new user and not puppet it will be interesting to hear explanation how 72.75.24.245 knows Future perfect words from 22 April. For me this answer will be very interesting ??--Rjecina (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Blocks

Has anyone tried to upload an image lately? No matter how well you know what you're doing, you have to go to one form, then another, and then fill out this other thing, then hop on one leg, and then spin three times. It's amazing. It is now easier to block a long time and productive user than to upload an image. For example, user:Peter Damian is blocked... indefinitely for "harassment of another user." Is blocking someone also harassment? I've been harassed by loads of users. Should I have been blocking them?

You see, friends, we are supposed to follow procedures when we block. Those procedures include, but are not limited to,

1. Warning the user, if a clueless or nasty one;

Else:

1. Negotiating with the user,
2. Seeking peace with the user,
3. Calling on an outside review of the situation,
4. Posting about the matter on AN/I (here),
5. Moving from shortest possible block to longer by regular intervals.

Ryan has blocked straight out indefinitely without a word here, without a word on the user's talk page, and without a justification offered. I am reporting it here. Since no one knows why he did the block (forever?!), it's hard for me to unblock, but I have to wonder if perhaps we might ought to take the block button away from everyone until people learn to follow process. Geogre (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Background for this issue is partly found at User_talk:FT2. Ryan's comments there imply that Peter Damian has had more than enough warnings (including a previous block) for this same problem. Avruch 18:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Pshaw! You can't "have been plenty warned." That's called a grudge, and we don't block for grudges. I have no opinion of Peter Damian. In fact, I'm not really a fan. However, we don't say, "You irritated me before, and now you've done it again, and so I will ban you from Misplaced Pages." You do get the point, don't you? Blocks have procedures, and it shouldn't be easier to block someone than upload a picture, and it damn sure shouldn't be easier to block a long time contributor. Finally, though, there is a vast difference between escalating blocks at regular intervals and banning someone via the indefinite block. Death penalty for being annoying? Death penalty for not getting along with someone? Really? Not in my book, and not in Misplaced Pages practice. Geogre (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - death penalty? Can do we that now on Misplaced Pages? My point was just that there was history here, and apparently a long term or indefinite block prior to this one (in contrast to your implication that Peter was never warned). Whether the history warrants the indefinite block I don't have any idea - Ryan seems to think so, and he is apparently aware of a history of which you were not apprised. Did you ask Ryan about that history before you reported this issue to AN/I? Avruch 20:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

See related block of User:Hinnibilis and discussion here. Avruch 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the indefinite block. If he harassed another user he should be block for 7 days or maybe a bit longer. But an indefinite block is rather extreme. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a hit-and-run block. No warning, no communication, no explanation, no block notice, no attempt to gauge for the community input and no attempt even to ask for a review after a block. --Irpen 19:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning. Warning. Block notice. Look first, protest second. Avruch 20:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we are looking at different pages. I see no notice. --Irpen 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you... didn't take my advice. Avruch 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second everyone - it seems you're ready to shoot this block down without knowing the full facts. Peter has been blocked previously on a different account for a harassment campaign against FT2 off wiki. See the block log of his previous account. Now he resurrected a new account to evade the block and ended up getting blocked again by Thatcher - after discussion, Thatcher decided to unblock. Now, Peter has continued this off-wiki harassment campaign, turning to soapboxing his ideas about FT2 on WR. It's been going on for a while - check his posts there with just about every single one being about FT2. Today he decided to bring the harassment back on-wiki, claiming FT2 made a CU block to "support the efforts of paedophiles" - the gravity of the harassment is large, coupled with the fact that he has a previous account blocked for exactly the same thing. And to Irpen - I did notify him of the block on his alternate account here. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Ryan, why didn't you explain it here, first, and get some consensus? Also, the indefinite block? That I cannot support without official review and time taken. I think you're far too close to the issue, myself, and the most important thing is that no one should be throwing indefinite blocks of content contributors without more behind it than personal discretion. Geogre (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block/ban - Thanks for clearing it up, Ryan. D.M.N. (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks Ryan, I was waiting for your comment. No unblock at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this, it does look like there's a problem with harassment, though the warnings being placed on FT2's talk page instead of that of the editor involved makes it a bit iffy. If there's enough concern about the block that results in an overturning of it, might I suggest that Peter Damian be placed under an editing restriction to stay away from FT2? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ryan, stating what the effect of an action will be is different to stating what the intent of an action was. Peter was stating the former, not that latter. His comments on WR are irrelevant; I don't like them but they are not actionable onwiki. Naerii 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, they really are actionable here, given the level of harassment Peter has been pushing on that site - off wiki harassment is extremely serious, especially when you've already been indef blocked before for it on another account. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Naerii, for what it is worth, please see Misplaced Pages:Harass#Off-wiki_harassment -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bah, some of our policies are so full of shit.. are we going to start blocking people for what they've said on IRC now? Or in any other forum for that matter? Criticising people (whether the criticism is justified or not) off Misplaced Pages should be completely irrelevant to whether you get blocked or not on Misplaced Pages - it is rather ridiculous to suggest that we can control what people say on other areas of the internet. Naerii 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• You obviously aren't aware of what Peter's real beef is will FT2, and the problems that got him blocked first time round so I'll elaborate here. Since December, Peter has been promoting his ideas that FT2 has been having sex with animals (zoophilia) simply because of his editing habits. His original block was because he was going to take his case to animal welfare authorities. Instead of doing this, he's turned his attention to making these baseless accusations on WR - that's serious harassment and when you look at the scope of all his posts, they just about always revolve around FT2 somewhat. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea that you can dodge the prohibition on harrassing other uses simply by doing it outside Misplaced Pages is similarly full of shit; the negative impact of harrassment, the driving of users off the 'pedia, the discouragement from cordial discussion...these exist regardless of where the harrassment takes place. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• While the policy does allow blocking solely for off-wiki harrasment, in this case I beleive it was used to take into consideration the presence or absence (in this case) of AGF and the severity of the harrassment, which appears to be rather old and span multiple ID's. YMMV. -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would support unblocking after say 24 hours and an edit restriction to keep away from FT2, indef blocking is not going to be helpful to anybody, let alone dealing with any issues re editing of pedophilia/pederastry articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would support this too. PD really needs to leave FT2 alone, regardless of the merit or lack thereof. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For all this interested, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#User:Dbuckner here is the discussion on the original account block. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is support for leniency on this block, based on the fact that the user in question makes constructive edits outside this area, I'd propose a 6 month block and two community restrictions: restriction to a single account, and a permanent ban on edits directed towards or about FT2. Avruch 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure 6 months is exactly "lenient" is it? The community restrictions make a lot of sense though. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, its lenient compared to a permanent ban. An indefinite block has already been applied to one account, so a 24 hour block seems unlikely to make much of an impact. If he returns after 6 months (without having used a sockpuppet in the mean time, or continued with his pattern of harassment elsewhere) then it would amply demonstrate his serious commitment to appropriate behavior. Avruch 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

By ban on edits directed on FT2, I would also hope that if he wished to have his editing rights back, he would be banned from discussing him off site. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be an absolute freedom of speech. Harrassment on the internet is only a problem for oversensitive people. Words don't hurt, that's one of the first things you learn in kindergarten. So, I really don't see why someone would be banned for something like this. The only reason why you would ban/block someone if he/she is continuing to cause damage to wikipedia after repeated warnings (e.g. in case of POV edits, edit warring, vandalism). Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. There is no freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages - site owners are not obliged to publish everything someone wants to say. Editing Misplaced Pages is a privilege, not right, and those who destroy our collaborative environment by harassing our contributors should expect to lose that right immediately. Such attacks have no place on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether they hurt their target or not. We are an encyclopedia, not discussion club. MaxSem 21:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you read about cyberstalking, its a serious problem. Words certainly can hurt. Have you forgotton where Misplaced Pages's content comes from? If we allow a toxic atmosphere, we lose established contributors and scare away new ones, that's far worse than vandalism. Mr.Z-man 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Block - Due to the increasing disruptive nature and loutish behavior of these anti-pedophile activists, including running off very respectable editors who have never edited in a controversial area (except perhaps removing incorrect child abuse categories from classic works of literature), it is my opinion that they are a net negative to the project. They think Misplaced Pages is a battleground to fight sexual predators when, in fact, it is not. We don't need their kind of help, quite frankly. They should be shown the door and allowed to come back only after a 6 month to one year block and only if they are serious. They should be topic banned from all sexuality related topics. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur, pretty much per User:MaxSem; we don't need a poisonous atmosphere here and we still more do not need vendettas being pursued off-wiki. I might say differently if this had been the first such occasion. But it isn't, and lessons have apparently not been learned. Good editing elsewhere does not atone, in my view, for gross breaches of collegiality. Enough of these troublemakers, we've lost too many constructive editors at their hands in recent months already, and I think it's time attitudes were hardened. --Rodhullandemu 00:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I support at least a short block. Misplaced Pages is for informing, not cybervigilantism. Geogre's analogy with image uploading is obviously false, since only admins can block, but any registered user can upload (and also because blocks do not involve legal issues). Dcoetzee 00:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support 24h to 1 week block with community restrictions on discussing FT2 both ON and OFF site. Do not support permaban per discussion above. Obviously, I agree with MaxSem that Offwiki attacks are punishable offwiki, still there user seems to have misunderstanding about this part of the policy and was not sufficiently warned before Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not warned sufficiently? He's been blocked indef for exactly the same thing on a previous account - I can't think of much more of a previous warning.... Ryan Postlethwaite 00:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, a shot across the bows is one thing; being holed below the waterline is entirely different. --Rodhullandemu 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Was he blocked for the offsite attacks before? I have not found references to this in his block log or talk pages. Indeed a few minutes spent by the blocker on linking the current block with the previous warnings and blocks of other accounts would save a dozen of busy people quite a time Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, blocked for off wiki harassment of FT2, as seen (and documented above) in his block log on his previous account. Last time, he accused FT2 of having sex with animals, now he's accusing him of supporting pedophilia, both here and on WR. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to Support indefblock per additional information provided by Ryan. Labeled the account accordingly. Still wonder what have prevented the blocker from putting the information there on the first place. Would support unblocking if the user promises to behave Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the block on the previous account of Damian was lifted by a secret decision of Arbcom (see User_talk:Thatcher#Damian). The user could see this decision as a vindication of his behavior. Restored my original support for a medium-length block. IMHO Arbcom should not make secret decisions but this is beyond the point Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second, this doesn't look like a secret arbcom decision - it just looks like he's talked to a couple of members about it. I don't for the life of me understand with why the block log says "after discussion with arbcom" - it's certainly clear that it wasn't after collective discussion and a vote to check the consensus - I doubt anyone else other than Flo and FT2 even knew about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I really think we need to find a different kind of solution to such problems. Note that this is only a serious problem because some people have not immunized themselves against personal attacks. If we simply ignore such attacks then most attackers will stop, the few who continue will simply waste their time. But if you start to cry if some nutcase insults you, then that nutcase has succeeded. Also, you invite more attacks. So, I propose the following measure:

Instead of banning an editor who engages in personal attacks/harassments, we should punish that editor by putting a notice on his talk page and user page with the statement: "this editor frequently behaves in an uncivil way". More specific details about the nature of the personal attacks can be given, of course. So, when someone is insulted and sees that notice, he knows what kind of person he is dealing with. If the editor in question wants to get rid of this notice, he'll have to prove that he can edit without insulting people. If he can behave himself for, say, a few months, then that notice can be removed.

This is exactly how we can deal with creatures who are unable to behave in a for humans normal way. Cats, dogs, many wild animals can be handeled by humans. This is not a problem because we know a priori what type of behavior we can expect. It is only a problem if we don't know this, i.e. if we are dealing with a person who behaves like an animal. So, by tagging the person to let everyone know that the person in question is not normal, the problem can be solved. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gone to WR to see if Ryan's description of the situation there is correct, but assuming it is: I support an indef block for repeated harrassment of FT2, ignoring the very big "final warning" of an indef block on his previous account, and contining the attacks on and off-wiki. See some meta page somewhere called "Protect each other" (can't find it right now, I'm sure someone can supply the link); I don't get why this is even a question, and why some are blaming the target of the harrassment for not having thick enough skin. If for some reason this block doesn't stick, then I grudgingly support a 1 week block, followed by a complete moratorium on commenting on FT2 anywhere, on- or off-wiki, forever. And if for some reason that doesn't stick either, then I give up; we'll have gone completely down the rabbit hole and thru the looking glass then. So-called "anti-pedophile" editing is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, allowing you to do anything else you want to everywhere else on-wiki. --barneca (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support eminently sensible block. Being indef-blocked on a previous account for a similar pattern of harrassment is more than sufficient warning. Why on earth have we been getting lynch mobs going after our good admins this weekend? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that someone above linked to Hinnibilis's user and talk pages ... I thought, however, I should add a note that Hinnibilis has added a "Statement on block" and repudiated some statements made on this page. Additionally, they alluded to conversations with the Arbitration Committee ... perhaps a couple of Arbitration members could comment? --Iamunknown 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support block Enough, is enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• No bans by any administrator without 1) community consensus (that's community) or 2) RfAr that concludes with one. Secondly, no blocks for off-wiki discussion. I completely agree that Peter Damian's statements were odious, and, as I said above, I'm absolutely no fan, but once we crack the door to "off-wiki" being justification for on-wiki actions, then we will get not only a person at WR, but a person's blog, a person's comments at Slashdot, and who knows what else. This is not new. When Kelly Martin's blog had some really vicious stuff, I argued that it couldn't be considered, pro- or con-, at arbitration. If we are going to say that IRC can't be handled on-wiki, then we damn sure can't say that someone's comments at another website are. If we say that comments elsewhere are fair game, then all comments elsewhere are. Therefore: support regular increment of a block, and, most of all, gaining consensus for it. No vigilantes, please. If it's just a single admin throwing the block button, then another single admin could do the unblock: let's get social consent, and then we have force. Geogre (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering: To upload an image, click this, browse for the image name, put in a short summary/justification, click on the appropriate lisence, and then you are ready. Depending on my internet connection, I can upload images in 10-15 seconds. That should save any time or hassle. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tocino

Tocino (talk · contribs)

He often calls Prime Minister Thaci of Kosovo "the snake" despite earlier warnings. I think he should be blocked.84.134.113.43 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Having checked the article for Hashim Thaci I note that "The Snake" is the Anglicization of his nom de guerre, as mentioned in the article, and is thus not innately pejorative. I only saw a reference to this name in one talkpage in the most recent contrib history anyway, so I don't think this is a matter that requires admin action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just In Case (Anye Elite song)

User:Chocolatecbj (article author) and User:Aleader are repeatedly removing the AfD nomination header from this article. Although undoing vandalism I'm loathe to fix this again as I'm at 3RR. Can someone else take over? Thx. Ros0709 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnaca seems to have resolved it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was LossHeard vonU who solved it, but if he's open to sharing credit, I'll take it. --barneca (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page squabble

A little gentle intervention by an uninvolved admin might be in order on Talk:Intelligent design, where there appears to be a bit of a talk page edit war. --Jenny (recently changed username) 22:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I'd appreciate that. I was just coming here to file a report myself... I'm trying to make what I think is a perfectly valid point on the talk page - one that's getting some support from other editors - and I find that my discussions keep getting getting marked as archived without further comment. now I wouldn't mind the conversation getting archived if it was actually finished, but archiving it in the middle of a discussion is really just bad manners

and yes, I do understand that the editors there are tired of debating things; but no, that's not an excuse to simply archive a discussion out of existence. I'd like it if they would actually address my points rather than removing them. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with an attack page

I consider some of the comment here as attacks on my character - if an editor has a specific problems with my a) edits or my conduct, I invite them to file a RFUC or to come here and provide diffs. The elements I have problems with, are as follows:

• What if a cabal developed a strategy to distract the closure of abusive renominations by tendentious debate in AN/I, and other devices. They might use a "returned editor" to spearhead an effort, to be the fall guy if needed. Complete fantasy and I resent the accusation. If he has evidence this Cabal exists (which it doesn't), I suggests he presents it or he pulls those comments.

• And, indeed, withdrew the AfD, supposedly. However, he continued to argue tendentiously for Delete, so, in the end, it becomes difficult not to see this as a tactical move, to head off action against him. I was asked if I'd redraw the nom so I did, others objected, so the AFD continues to run. There was no tactical move on my part and if he has anything but inference to present I suggest he produces it.

• Thus the concern that he might be a returning blocked editor, which can be very difficult to prove, is nevertheless quite reasonable on the face of it. Abd is constantly repeating this accusation up and down the board with no proof at all. I was asked about having a previous account and I answered as soon as asked, so I'm really not impressed with him repeating this slander all over the place.

He can present factual accounts of difference and that AFD however he likes, but he should not be allowed to use it to make his slurs and unsourced accusations on other editors. If he has issues with my conduct or behaviour that he has both AN/I and/or RFCU open to him. If he wants to take a pop at me (and he clearly does), he needs to do it via the right channels. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The page is not an accusation, it is, as it states, a speculation, a worry. And most of the material on the page is pure evidence, the history of an AN/I report, and then a section about what it might all mean. In that, I do comment on some odd things I've noticed in examining the history of this event. I'll stand with the comments above, but, note, I did not make them in a public place and the only reason that Allemandtando would have seen them is that he would be following my contributions. Ah, yes, and I dropped a note on the Talk page for User:Majorly to ask for his comment. That's it. Quite obviously, from what I wrote, there is no proof of any of the things that Allemandtando claims are attacks. If I were recommending action, I'd need proof. If I were accusing, I'd need proof. The second item, though, is a plain description of his behavior in the AfD involved. What I'm describing are causes for concern and watchfulness, not causes for action, at least not without further investigation.

The third item is particularly interesting. He is a returning editor, blatantly so; he did not state it, though, until he was challenged, and he was defiant about that, as I think I note on that page. He is highly contentious and has been warned for incivility. He was the subject of two AN/I reports in two days: I had nothing to do with starting those. Many editors expressed suspicion that he might be this or that blocked editor. It is an obvious suspicion. For me to say that is not an attack. For me to say, "He is a blocked editor," would be. If I wanted to "pop" him, he'd be dead. But I don't, and I won't unless things become much plainer to me than they are. I did not compile that user page to get him. If I were compiling a page to RfC or AN/I him, it would be totally different. He's relevant to what I'm doing on that page because we had this huge flap of an AfD rapid renom because he (1) edit warred with an administrator over closure of it, and (2) successfully, with the cooperation of others, diverted the AN/I report over edit warring into a discussion of a content issue, the notability of an article. Which is not an AN/I issue. Somebody let me know if I need to look further here, if I keep AN/I on my Watchlist, I can't see anything else. That is part of the problem, indeed. So perhaps I'll thank Allemandtando for bringing the attention of that beginning of an essay to everyone's attention. It's not really about him. Watch it if you want to see where it goes.--Abd (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Every minute you spend on this kind of thing is a minute you're not spending on finding evidence that the article in question has any business being in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point it might dawn on Baseball Bugs and a few others that I care more about Misplaced Pages than about saving a marginally notable article. I've already spent many hours, maybe too many, working on recovering difficult-to-track down sources from the Wayback Machine, and similar activities involved with that article, such as trying to figure out what the bloody hell it is about. (It's actually interesting, eventually. Takes some work to get over the hump). But the work isn't done, yet, at least not for sure. As to wasting time, I didn't bring this report here. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting and notable are not the same thing. I've seen easily verifiable national news stories shot down in a New York minute due to lack of "notability". In contrast, you've had lots of time to try to demonstrate the worthiness of this article, and if you can't find any verifiable info about this obscure computer language, then maybe there isn't any; which indicates that the original AFD was skated through in the hope no one would notice. Well, someone did, and he's to be commended for not allowing the spammers to get away with it. This is an encyclopedia (as you keep saying) and the value and appropriateness of the content is more important than anything else. Also, you didn't bring the report here, you were building it elsewhere, and that same alert user brought it here. Baseball Bugs 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how much useless argument there is here. I mention that mKR is "interesting," with no claim that it was therefore "notable." Just a comment, it was. And, once again, we are arguing a content issue here. Stop it. Sorry I mentioned "interesting."

This is an AN/I report, allegedly I'm building something nefarious in my user space. So why did BB jump in? There was a point where Killerofcruft started editing what was obviously intended to be an RfC or AN/I report on me, and I saw it. Did I bring it here? No, haven't mentioned it here before now, and this is not a complaint about that file, he had a perfect right to work on it. Instead, I found a friend of his and suggested that he help his friend to stop, because it was going to be practically wiki-suicidal. He did ask, and it stopped, and Killerofcruft behaved himself, at least around me, for a couple of days (And changed his name to Allemantando.) What's in my user space wasn't about him, it was about the breakdown of AN/I, and he's simply a character in that drama, not the center of it. It isn't being written to be an AN/I report or an RfC. It isn't like that at all. However, it is possible that there will be some kind of process come out of it. Not here, though, unless Allemandtando or others insist on bringing it here. AN/I is for emergencies, actually. Not for community discussion, preferably, other than issues of specific editor conduct that might require administrative action. Baseball Bugs, as to conduct, is the proximate cause for the derailment of the ANI report that is documented on my user page.

Take a look. Al_tally files an AN/I report on edit warring by Killerofcruft (now Allemandtando), and Baseball Bugs asks him to respond about the notability of an article, an actually irrelevant question, derailing the process, and then tendentiously argues about it. Disruptive, I'd call it. (But it was only disruptive because the community took the bait, or, an alternate interpretation, nobody with admin buttons was paying attention at that time. The real problem is an increase in scale causing AN/I to become seriously dysfunctional.) So, indeed, it may be time for some further process. Not here, though. Probably ArbComm, because it involves not just one or two administrators and overall policy issues. It's not really about misbehavior, but about some serious and deeply divisive disagreements over what's important, and that's why it might be necessary to go to ArbComm. But I'm trying to figure out some way to handle this short of that. There may be a way. ArbComm is not fun. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is far from irrelevant - it's a requirement for any entry in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 04:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, notability is a content issue, and AN/I is not for content issues. It's for behavioral issues. What isn't clear about that? This page isn't a "entry in wikipedia." It's a process page and it is focused on the behavior of editors, specifically where response might require admin tools. This is not a place to discuss content issues, period. That an article isn't notable, supposedly, is utterly no excuse to edit war over an AfD closure. None. Being "right" isn't an excuse for violating policy about edit warring. Multiple reverts without discussion and attempts to find agreement is edit warring. Once was bad enough. Twice was inexcusable. This was not a new editor, a clueless newbie. He knows. And he simply defied the policy and the closing admin and got away with it, largely because you helped him to, by continually turning the matter into a notability question, which it wasn't. Al_tally didn't close the AfD because he considered the article notable (though he may have thought that), he closed it because it was an abusive renomination. And he deserved support from AN/I, not irrelevant questions and arguments. And you are just digging your hole deeper, I'd say. --Abd (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me where I've "edit warred" on anything in connection with this article. And show me where notability and verifiability are somehow irrelevant to an article. Baseball Bugs 05:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't edit war. You supported someone who did. N and V are crucial for articles, never said they were irrelevant to it. They are irrelevant to edit warring. Used to amaze me, been writing on-line since the 1980s. This is written communication. One would think it would be clear. But quite a few people can only see what they think. --Abd (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

When you start writing something that appears to be "building a case", where everyone can see it, you set yourself up for complaints such as this one. You're better off doing something like that on your own PC, until or if you're actually ready to file it. Baseball Bugs 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record I too have concerns about Allemandtando's behaviour with regard to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination), which I have noted on that AfD page. I believe Allemandtando initiated an invalid AfD and then edit warred to prevent it being early closed. And I too have concerns about his refusal to be open about the identity of his previous account(s), claiming the "right to vanish" when he has obviously not vanished. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a separate issue you could raise here or at the sockpuppet page, if you care to. He explained the reason why didn't want his previous ID known, i.e. that it was his actual name. I don't know what the rules are in such a case. Baseball Bugs 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to write commentary on Misplaced Pages in their user space. Sometimes, solutions to problems or other good ideas come from it. That said, if you feel it's inaccurate, tell him why. Looks like you've already been doing this, on the talk page. I don't see that the mere existence of this page is any kind of problem. Friday (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The second AFD has been closed with "no consensus", so the self-promoter gets to keep his article awhile longer. But how much longer? There are no wikipedia-valid sources for it, so a properly-done AFD should kill it. The claim has been made that the second AFD was opened "too soon", although there is no such rule. So the question is, how soon can another AFD be opened on this article and satisfy the ones who claimed the second one was "too soon"? Baseball Bugs 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OOPs, I spoke too soon. The second closure was again done by a non-admin, which is part of the trouble with the first one, and an admin has stepped in and reverted the closure. So the soap opera continues! Baseball Bugs 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually started to reply to this here more extensively. However, this is all moot here. There is, true, minor misbehavior by an admin, referred to above, but it's minor and certainly not any kind of an emergency. (The reverting admin had voted in the AfD. Naughty, naughty! Kids, don't edit war! Let a neutral editor or admin sort it out!)--Abd (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Posting of my personal information

In an earlier thread, I commented about the anon-IP / throwaway single-purpose account based image blanking at Keshub Chunder Sen. Now, it appears that Ronosen (talk · contribs) and/or his numerous IPs (some open proxies, some single purpose sock accounts such as Worklikeadog (talk · contribs) are digging up my personal information and posting in the talk page. For example, here they dig up my personal flickr account (of my family photos) as part of their rant. I request immediate action against this violation of my privacy. (The sockmaster actually deserves a block anyway for his 3RR violation via the sock/proxy/ips (195.178.107.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (open proxy), 69.197.132.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , Worklikeadog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ronosen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).

Please handle this immediately. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the revisions with the link to flickr from the generally accessible history. I will contact WP:RFO for you; they may or may not delete it, but now, no one other than sysops have access to that link. -- Avi (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also warned user:Ronosen. -- Avi (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also requested a RCU for user:Ronosen, et al., here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ronosen. ~ priyanath talk 00:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been informed that oversight has been completed. -- Avi (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Hiram111

User:Hiram111 has been repeatedly removing sourced paragraphs in Druze, including here, in which he lied in the edit summary that he added the same thing in another section, and here. This isn't edit warring. The user is involved in a series of bad faith edits, for example here, where he removed two large paragraphs (one of which is extensively referenced), calling it "absurd unreferenced info" in the edit summary, and doing the same thing here. I warned him the first time here. He deleted the warning shortly after. I warned him again for the final time here, to which he replied with his own warning. The nature of his edit to Walid Jumblatt alone is enough to get him blocked. Please disregard the fact that I am anonymous so as to take my complaint seriously. Thank you. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2008 (UT== Reply to anonymous user 63.216.113.124 ==

The anonymous user 63.216.113.124 had insisted to place in the introduction of the Druze(which is a religious group) this section :

The Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, an eccentric who prohibited the popular dish Mulukhiyya and grape eating, is the central figure in the Druze faith, as he is considered by the Druze to be the reincarnation and manifestation of God. He was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintain that he disappeared and went into occultation.

And other poorly referenced out of context info in the History section aimed to defame the Druze religious community.

When he was alarmed by several users on the Talk page that inserting the “banning the popular dish Mulukhiyya and grape eating” in the introduction is inadequate and that he added unreferenced information like “He was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintain that he disappeared and went into occultation”, and that it was out of context like here and here his reply was by calling us liars and that he owns the right to delete (like deleting and ridiculing cited facts like that the Shihab family was noblehere) and to add whatever information he wants(like that in the history section) after his edits where reverted he started engaging into editing wars and placing vandalism warnings on my talk page and that of Emilyzilch without realistic reasons while abusing Misplaced Pages’s anti-vandal policy to intimidate other users and to bully his way around.

About the Bad faith edits I guess its clear who was vandalizing the Druze page and who was abusing wikipedia’s mechanism in banning editors of his type.

About Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri page it’s clear that I was removing biased information completely contradicting with wikipedia’s NPOV policy and that of living people’s biographies.

I believe by seeing the users contributions it will be clear who is abusing wikipedia's policies and who is disrupting the job of building a better encyclopedia Hiram111 (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC) C)

I don't understand why you insist to keep on lying. Five books, including one by Mordechai Nisan and another by John Esposito, is not "poorly referenced" nor out of context. Then you say that I added "unreferenced" (in bold) information about him being killed by his servants and the Druze believing he went into hiding while you intentionally disregard that it is written in some of the sources. You lie again and point out, in bold, that the Shihab family being "one of the noblest families in Lebanon" is "cited" when it is clearly not. As for Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri, I don't think people are stupid enough to interpret removing large heavily sourced paragraphs as enforcing the NPOV policy. I don't have time for this. This user should be dealt with for his disruptive edits, and I'm surprised and disappointed that no administrator has given this issue any attention. Someone who has done this kind of edits despite warnings shouldn't be allowed to edit and should have been blocked long ago. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

Can an administrator let this user know that rollbacking good faith edits, such as here and here, are not permitted? I'd talk to him/her, but I think someone with higher authority would be taken more seriously. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's his own user page. --B (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't permit him to use rollback. He shoudl explain why he's reverting A Link to the Past's edits, because they are in good faith and are not obvious vandalism. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think this guy is clearly abusing rollback. A LOT of stuff deserves an explanation. If he's reverting beacuse it's a copyvio , then say so. Tiffany (Child's Play) is arguably a main character in addition to being a villain, but even if it wasn't, that's still a content dispute . Changing a nickname/adding a middle name isn't really clear vandalism, it's not complete gibberish. He's also rollbacking OrphanBot's edits and then claimed that the image was GFDL when the user made no such proclimation. This rollback on Girls with guns is clearly a content dispute, as is this edit. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the image since it's been more than a week, so only administrators can see the Dunross.svg image eidt. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about those reverts of OrphanBot at all - Rollback is for obvious vandalism only, and bots don't vandalize unless they're malfunctioning, which OB certainly wasn't then. Several of the others are arguably vandalism, but since they are arguable, some other method should be used - good-faith Twinkle revert or the undo button to leave a reason, for example. I don't see any evidence that the user is using it to edit war, however, so I'd suggest allowing the user to retain it provided they explain their recent actions and promise to use it more responsibly in the future. Rollback really isn't that important a tool, and it hasn't been severely abused here. Kintetsubuffalo has been notified of this discussion and been requested to comment. (diff) Hersfold non-admin 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've been asked to speak regarding my use of rollback, presumably because I cleaned up the whinings of a tendentious user or my own page last night. I have recently moved to Japan and most days get less than an hour of Internet time. I don't have time to answer every wikilawyer and troll on here. When they show up on my userpage, I have clearly stated rules at the top, and feel no compunction in reverting them.

As to my rollbacks on Girls with guns, the user has been repeatedly told that some things are not germane to the article.

Same goes for Colorado_Springs_Christian_Schools. The edits are not about people of note and border on slander or libel or other fun things to get Misplaced Pages sued, further they are not encyclopedic. Close enough to vandalism to warrant rollback.

If you want to take back rollback from me, be my guest. I did without it for over two years just fine. But I'm not a problem editor, so consider the source, whatever choices you make. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ps-oh, and Tiffany was overmuch information for a disambig page with a link right to the topic. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

pps-The now deleted image was labeled "self" by the creator, so yes, there was a proclamation, Hbdragon88. All I did was tag it with the missing licensing. It sounds like you're assuming bad faith about me. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ppps-Japanese don't have middle names, the system doesn't work that way, so yes, it's clear vandalism. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really curious how making sure that an edit war doesn't start at Yamcha qualifies as wikilawyering or trolling. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what the image description looked like: {{Information |Description= |Source=I created this work entirely by myself. |Date= |Author=] (]) |other_versions= }} In that descritpion I see nothing about him licensing it as GFDL. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated incivility by Revan ltrl

This user has repeatedly made uncivil comments on Talk:System of a Down (diffs: 1, 2, 3, and 4.) I have warned Revan Itrl several times, both on the talk page and on his talk page, to no avail. I'm getting nowhere with him, and felt it would be inappropriate to take further action myself, given that I have been the target of his incivility. Thanks for any assistance. Parsecboy (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given Revan ltrl (talk · contribs) a final warning for personal attacks and incivility. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Thekohser?

Subjected to harassment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statements on the userpage are consistent with Thekohser's editing history, and his statement on the ArbCom RFC page that Jimbo violated conflict-of-interest norms by appointing Essjay to ArbCom is a classic meme of Thekohser. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Druze

I don't understand how you people allow such edits to go unpunished. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you can allege citation and then post only that material which suits you from those sources. Your citations are suspect - I have examined them and they are biased, out of date (cf. taqiyya), and usually do not say what you claim they say! Not only that, but you refuse to discuss this issue on the talk page and you left a 1-warning ban threat on my talk page without signing or discussion. em zilch (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I made it clear on the talk page when I added direct quotations from the book. If you think they are biased, then it is your problem. Amusingly, the same sources are used throughout the article. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes, and I'd like to remind you that administrators don't "punish"--we prevent. If you would like some outside help, may I suggest either the NPOV noticeboard or getting a third opinion? In the meantime, I'm marking this resolved, as there doesn't seem to be a need for immediate administrative action (and since the page is already protected. --jonny-mt 08:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated incivility by User:WorkerBee74 (also a SPA)

At Talk:Barack Obama (where I am attempting to mediate resolution of a disputed paragraph that was previously the target of an edit war), WorkerBee74 has repeatedly made personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against multiple editors. Examples include , , , , , , , , , , and . That's just going back through 25 June; let me know if you need me to go back further.

User was warned for his behavior multiple times, including , , , , , ,

It's also worth noting that user is "predicting" problems when two blocked users return from their blocks. This user was suspected of being a sock of one of those users (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth) and the result turned up inconclusive. There is also an open report against this user for IP-socking (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74) which as of this writing is still open but with what I consider to be WP:SNOW-worthy evidence.

I request that an administrator review Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 and determine if any action is needed. I know that one administrator with Checkuser access, User:Lar, has looked into this. He hinted that if we suspect an existing user is sockpuppeting, we should look at behavior to make the links. It may be worthwhile for whatever administrator reviews this to see if he suspects anything. I further request that an administrator review the above WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL violations, in light of the massive number of attempts to guide the user's actions in the right direction, and to take whatever action is considered appropriate. While I am loathe to file this report as I do not wish to create the appearance of censoring a minority viewpoint, it is User:WorkerBee74's method of engagement, not his views, that threaten a finding of consensus. --Clubjuggle /C 04:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For context, also see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74 (which references Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages). Those in turn link to earlier incidents and other sockpuppet reports. Wikidemo (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 is being censored for his viewpoint, which will be a minority until more editors who are interested in a balanced NPOV article (as opposed to a Barack Obama hagiography) participate in the process. He has called them "Obama campaign volunteers" and certainly their obstinate refusal to consider including anything resembling criticism in the biography, no matter how prevalent and widely published in reliable, notable sources, makes that a possibility. Every trick in the book is being used in a campaign to rationalize this whitewash. I'm sure it is very frustrating for WorkerBee. It is clearly very frustrating for User:Noroton, User:Utahredrock and User:Justmeherenow, a trio of exprienced, non-SPA editors who have been beating their heads against the wall trying to introduce NPOV into the article.

I took a 30-day voluntary topic ban from the article; one of the reasons was the obstinate refusal of the obvious Obama fanboys to consider making it anything approaching NPOV. I am a workaholic, but people like that make me need a break. Review the page Talk:Barack Obama and its recent archives, consider the circumstances and the extremely mild nature of the expressions of frustration which are being reported as personal attacks, and consider also that the same accuser has made false accusations against me. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

see his complaints on my talkpage. He ran me off all the Obama articles with his tenditious editing. i would support a tpoic ban for the reporting user as there has been enough gaming the system by him to censure disagreement .Die4Dixie (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

I've had a Checkuser run on me twice so far and the reports were "unrelated" both times. There is a very real problem with that article. Don't let its Featured Article status fool you. Just within the last four months, some very real and well-grounded criticism has arisen against Obama throughout the mainstream news media. WP:WEIGHT and WP:WELLKNOWN are more than satisfied by, and WP:NPOV demands, inclusion of this criticism. But it is being systematically excluded by a small, determined group of editors. User:WorkerBee74 is clearly frustrated. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll skip the content dispute. After an ongoing level of background incivility (the last part of which is reported in the diffs above), WorkerBee74 made a dig involving another editor's wife, and when called on it said "get over it" and taunted that people would be laughing at the target of the insult if he complained. In normal circumstances this would be what it is. However, all editors on the Barack Obama article are on notice from the earlier AN/I reports and administrative intervention (linked here) that further incivility will not be tolerated. WB74 was one singled out for warning, and almost topic banned, so he surely knows better.

I also suggest examining Kossack4Truth's behavior. He too was warned and nearly topic banned. The self-imposed break is laudable, but a bizarre groundless report filed here a few days ago to accuse an editor on the page of lying, and renewal above of the "Obama fanboys" and "campaign volunteers" taunts that were in part the subject of the proposed topic ban, show that he may not be ready to edit constructively. There are, alas, some serious unresolved concerns about sock puppets too. Wikidemo (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"returned from a short period of inactivity from this particular account" in the above users comment under the section he started below on me would seem to be a veiled allusion to my having more than one account. That, coupled with the compulsive behavior to report every editor with whom he disagrees as a sock puppet or uncivil has become for me , an all too troubling pattern. I took a break , kossack took one. I think it might be time for you to take one too, Demo. Please believe that this comes from a sincere place. The complaints are becoming less based in the real activity, and are beginning to affect good faith editors abilities to contribute with out the constant misguided policy complaintsDie4Dixie (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop making personal attacks? My editing and behavior is not in question - please don't disrupt this report to complain about me. Wikidemo (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Wikdemo, but your behavior is in question. See below. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the above claims by User:Wikidemo and User:Clubjuggle are a tempest in a teapot compared to the constant obstruction, distortion and (yes) misrepresentation of Misplaced Pages policy, and general POV-pushing by the pro-Obama editors who have taken up residence on that page. User:Scjessey, after being "warned and nearly topic banned," promised to take a two-week voluntary topic ban which lasted only four days. The difference between Scjessey and me is that I keep my word. I am currently in the 16th day of my 30-day voluntary topic ban.

Please review the diffs provided by Clubjuggle. Scjessey and other pro-Obama editors have repeatedly (yes) misrepresented the facts and Misplaced Pages policy, WorkerBee74 has repeatedly called them on it, and for that he's being singled out for revenge. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not productive to turn this into a story of revenge, going back on words, POV pushing, etc. Again, that kind of contentiousness demonstrates lack of readiness to constructively contribute. As was explained the last 3 or 4 times K4T attempted to accuse ScJessey of prevaricating over his decision to return early from a self-declared wikibreak, it was not a deal or a promise, and there was no obligation that ScJessey stay away. He changed his mind and returned, after announcing he would do so upon learning that other editors proposed for topic bans were not in fact going to be banned. Wikidemo (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. It is productive for the Misplaced Pages project to expose the tactics that are being used here by the pro-Obama faction: (A) obstruct, distort, deny, misrepresent both Misplaced Pages policy and the facts, (B) hold a reasonable discussion hostage to your demand for both finality and immediate resolution before two of your opponents can return to the page, and (C) whenever you're called on it, or someone responds to you out of frustration at your tactics, come whining to WP:ANI and WP:SSP with exaggerated reports. I've had a Checkuser run on me twice. Both results were "unrelated." WB74's ISP has now been exposed to the world by a Checkuser, so I can see how a Checkuser could destroy my privacy, and it's been done to me twice. So I don't like it. I submitted without complaint the first time. But I'm getting sick and tired of it, Wikidemo. I do not appreciate these whining exaggerated reports. You and the rest of the pro-Obama cadre, with few exceptions, tell half-truths. And I will be vigilant to ensure that the other half of the truth follows quickly wherever and whenever your half-truths are told. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"...come whining to WP:ANI with exaggerated reports."

You mean like this? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wisely, Wikidemo immediately admitted that you, SCJ, had "been participating on the main and/or talk pages more aggressively than one might hope for given attempts to diffuse tensions." He's a master of the understatement, SCJ. The two of you have been tendentious. You mention talking about the article with your wife on multiple occasions. But the moment I suggest that you "talk it over with your wife," without anything at all more that that, you claim that it's a personal attack, or perilously close to one. Yet in the past, you have repeatedly made snide comments about those who disagree with you.

You are substituting false accusations for a reasoned and calm discussion of the proposed content changes on their merits. I have consistently sought a discussion on the merits and there has been excuse after excuse from you for dodging or delaying a discussion on the merits. Wikidemo openly holds the discussion hostage to his unreasonable preconditions. I have repeatedly exposed your false claims (and Shem's) concerning Misplaced Pages policies and well established practices here it Misplaced Pages. Both of you need a break from the article and we need a break from both of you, your many false statements, your false accusations and your obstructive tactics. I suggest a two-week topic ban for both of you.

The version of the Tony Blair biography, on the day it achieved Featured Article status, proves that harsh criticism is not incompatible with FA status. Your distorted argument about policy was thoroughly refuted by simply citing and quoting WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:WEIGHT, at which point you resorted to yet another false accusation because you've run out of policy to distort. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned my wife just twice:

1. Crediting her with helping write a new proposal text
2. Follow-up humor related to the first edit

Your comment was at best facetious, but given the tone it came across as sneering jibe designed to provoke a reaction. And referring to my edits as tendentious is a remarkable piece of fiction by a master of disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that diff, SCJ. It shows all interested admins the typical sequence of events: (A) you claim that policy or well-established WP practice (in this example WP:WEIGHT) compels all editors to accept your version; (B) I quote the policy or examine the practice you cited and demonstrates that it actually means the opposite of what you claim, and (C) without even stopping to catch a breath or admit that you were mistaken, you move right along to your next false statement.

Everybody here can see what you're doing. If they care about NPOV, what you're doing isn't going to work. We can't show favoritism to Obama. Like Tony Blair, there's a loud chorus of criticism from notable, reliable sources and we have to give it proportionate space. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ongoing incivility

(heading inserted to make clear this is not response to K4T, above)

Yet more attacks after this report was filed: - says I'm lying and makes generalized insults about other editors on the page of "hypersensitive, quivering, fragile little egos". We really ought to deal with this - please don't let these editors muddy things by making counter-accusations. Wikidemo (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (struck part of complaint because editor has now retracted part of insult)

Admins are invited to notice also that WB74 immediately thought better of it, without any prompting from anyone, and retracted the very language Wikidemo has put into quotation marks: Wikiemo omitted this evidence for some reason. You keep leaving out evidence like that, Wikidemo. Why do you keep leaving out all the evidence that undermines your exaggerated accusations? Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidemo made his post at 12:14 UTC . User:WorkerBee74 did not make his edit until 12:47 UTC . --Clubjuggle /C 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that WB74 has retracted part of the insult (stricken, above, and greatly appreciated), but as of now the text still accuses me of lying. I've asked him to reconsider and revert that, and if he does I would be more than happy to strike or remove this subsection. I don't really want to get into any more drama and arguments here, just reporting what happened. Wikidemo (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that "immediately," in this case, means "an hour and 16 minutes after the original edit. --Clubjuggle /C 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: I have no opinion on how awful or mild WorkerBee74's behavior has been because I haven't been paying attention to all the arrows flying on that page except for the ones I've been pulling out of me and a few I've launched myself and later retracted with apologies. Admins and editors looking into this should discount anything just mildly impolite and should recognize that everyone experiences some rudeness on that page, making it more difficult not to be rude in return, even if it's a little later and even if the new target may not have been the original instigator. I've noticed that WorkerBee74 has tried on a number of occasions to be more polite than the editors responding to him and has made constructive comments. So has Wikidemo. Clubjuggle has been extremely helpful and we've slowly gotten to the point where we're close to consensus on one difficult topic. My sense is that the page is not as bad as it once was. Noroton (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Noroton, that I've "tried to be more polite than the editors responding to " and that when they're rude to me, it's "difficult not to be rude in return." I have done my very best not to respond in anger to their supremely frustrating tactics, their avoidance of discussion on the merits, and their false accusations.

But when they make false statements and misrepresent Misplaced Pages policy to rationalize the whitewashing campaign, I can't just silently tolerate it. I have to speak out. What is an appropriate way to describe what they're doing? "Lying" is fair and accurate, but too harsh. They object here at ANI, carefully gathering diffs and even deleting my comments, when I use a term as mild as "misrepresentation."

Should I use a code phrase when referring to their false statements and their many distortions of policy? Do you think they'd be offended if I use a code phrase like "gilding the lily" or something? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about simply not accusing other editors of lying? You've said three or four times that I lied, and alluded to it again above. Did I? You also say I've been tendentious, and that I'm holding the page hostage. Am I really? Refraining from such accusations would go a long way to returning the talk page to civility. Wikidemo (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Create a committee of admins with their own AN/I page just for this circus

Admins, I think this is something like the sixth report in the past six weeks. You can either have a new report every week on the ongoing Obama Talk Page Soap Opera or gather a group of volunteer admins to form a loose committee who will pledge to watch the Flying Wallendas, the dancing donkeys and elephants and even the clowns, and within about seven days, when the next editor decides to post a complaint, direct that editor to the AN/I-Obama page where the committee members will be familiar with the storyline and don't have to reinvent the wheel. Just my opinion, thought it would save you all some time; and it would be a lot easier to identify real troublemaking vs. heated comments that typically come up in long, heated debates. There was a temporary AN/I page about two weeks ago that discussed special remedies and the behavior of certain editors, and that worked pretty well (if I can find a link to it, I'll add it; found it). Even though few restrictions, ultimately, were applied to the page and editors, it was useful in sending a message, and behavior calmed down for a bit. But that page was ultimately archived and the problems are ongoing, so make that kind of page permanent up to Election Day and save yourselves some time and effort. Noroton (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (((added the link -- Noroton (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC))))

Urgent: Repeated disclosure of personal information

Ronosen (talk · contribs) has already been blocked for using open proxies for sockpuppetry, and also for disclosing my personal information. Now, in his talk page, he is again revealing links to my personal pages off wiki. As a quick measure, I have reverted the info, but it needs to be oversighted immediately. He is apparently stalking me and exposing my personal information on a repeated basis. --Ragib (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, would someone oversight the edits and also permanently block User:Ronosen from editing his talk page. He already knew it was a blockable offense and yet did it again. ~ priyanath talk 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I request another admin to handle the disruptive user's talk page immediately. He is repeatedly posting personal info there (he's permablocked for this very reason, but using his unblock request in the user talk page to reveal my info). I would have protected the page already, but I don't want to use my admin rights here, so please, an uninvolved admin needs to protect the page after removing the personal info asap. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisions with link deleted. Oversight contacted. Will warn that return of link will result in talk page protection. -- Avi (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Belay the last point, MastCell has already protected the page. -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... are you sure this is resolved? I am still seeing the offending url in the history and diffs. Maybe re-delete? Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CarolSpears redux

There are still 50 articles that need either stubbified, deleted, or completely rewritten. All the articles not crossed out on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/CarolSpears are about 95% likely to contain copyvio or at least severe plagiarism. We need help - it takes at least three minutes per article to do the minimum (stubbifying), if we're expected to rewrite them completely, to avoid the copyvio, then that's at least 15-30 minutes.

There's also the problem that a sizable percentage of the information in them is wrong - CarolSpears did not copypaste very carefully, so, a description of a leaf might be a description of the stem misplaced, or a description of a plant's habitat in one country might be treated as its habitat in general - notably in the (now deleted and redone from scratch) Agrostis gigantea, the description treated it as if the situation in America - where it is not a native plant, but an invasive one - was the typical situation of that plant. She's also treated Isreal as the world, the Alps as a different mountain range, and a description of one species as if it applied to another. (This is from memory, there's been a lot of articles to go through.

I cannot do this alone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend turning them into stubs instead of full rewrites. Full rewrites can be done later. Right now, we should just focus on getting rid of the copyright violations while still maintaining an article (however stripped down the article may be). If you wish, you can assign me a group of them and I'll work on them this week. I don't mind helping. Enigma 05:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side issue ... unless I missed something, Carol hasn't participated in the RfC. I find this a bit troubling, considering the magnitude of the problem and the fact she was nearly banned. Blueboy96 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, that bit might be my fault. :-) I'd advised her to take time to chillax before responding on it so that she was calm when doing so. I didn't specify how long though! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky vandal

Special:Contributions/Bigntall18 - I get the feeling most RC patrollers aren't checking edits with edit summaries. Block please. —Giggy 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fast enough for you ^_^?¤~Persian Poet Gal 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3 minutes? No way! :-) —Giggy 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the latest offer is tempting... Enigma 07:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now! You aren't corrupt enough to accept bribe money? And its such a crummy offer...only fifty bucks! Why not slip a Benjamin or two? Whoops - did I say that out loud?¤~Persian Poet Gal 07:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey it is a pretty good offer :D --Namsos (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Collectonian

Seems to have massive problems with edit warring ]. Has a habit of reverting people's edits and accusing them of vandalism with Twinkle in content disputes ]. Loves to spray templates all over people's pages ] ], and is incivil ]. Can someone please deal with her? Jtrainor (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, it was not a content dispute. The article was validly tagged for multiple issues, and removed by a new user who created an account to undo some project clean up on the article, including putting back removed excessive WP:NONFREE images (violating policy). This was FIRST reverted by another editor. Said editor then accused me of bias in my tagging for no apparent reason nor evidence. I'm a project member and on our clean up task force. Tagging our articles for issues is WHAT we do as part of our work. This person then began removing the tags with no edit summary and without addressing the issues. JTrainor popped in nearly a day later for no apparent reason, apparently as an annoyed member of the Gundam project, and removed the tags under the claim that they were an abuse of Twinkle (which is also false, since tagging is done by Friendly) . He also falsely claimed it was 3RR (more than 24 hours had passed and that new editor had stopped, it was now JTrainor starting an edit war for no valid reason). Within minutes of his first revert, he proceeded to go behind some of my edits to leave accusations of "bad faith noms" on some of my AfDs.. He seems to have some personal beef with me, and I have no idea over what, as I can't think of anytime I have crossed hairs with him. Either way, I don't appreciate the false accusations in the AfDs, nor this ANI (which, BTW, he did not leave the appropriate notice on). His own edits are no more "civil" than mine, if that one message is supposed to be horribly incivil, as he called a an appropriate template on a new user "frivilous" when I was following the proper assention of warnings. Maybe an admin can go back and figure out what JTrainor's real beef is, but meanwhile, to repeat his own words, can someone "please deal with him". -- ] (] · ]) 08:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian please don't mark good faith edits as vandalism. Leaving template messages for established users is considered rude, so I would advise you didn't do it. With that said, WP:DTTR is an essay, nothing more. Jtrainor if you have a problem with a user please follow the Dispute resolution process, ANI is not the place for this. BJ 08:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't marked as vandalism until he repeated it after being reverted. -- ] (] · ]) 08:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't fall under vandalism. It is only considered vandalism when the user is making a bad faith attempt to harm the project. Using rollback or twinkle in other circumstances is bad form. BJ 08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, though I do think tag removal without valid reason is harmful, as the tags help the project know the article needs attention. I do understand you point though. -- ] (] · ]) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With the way you responded at User_talk:Jtrainor#June_2008, the initial impression would be that you're basing this ANI on that, and that alone, Jtrainor. Personally writing a message instead of a template for a "regular" is only a courteous act in my mind. It's usually shrugged off, as there are editors out there that do alot of edits and don't take time to think things more deeply or just don't want to waste time on personally writing messages. Those editors are probably either newbies, or working way overtime. Which means a wikibreak is a good idea. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the editors who don't always stop to take time to check contribs to see if an editor is a "regular" or not. And experienced editors who have never read WP:DTTR and do not find template messages insulting so don't see why other editors would. -- ] (] · ]) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most experienced editors would be irritated by being templated, that's why WP:DTTR was written - not the other way around.

That being said, Collectonian is a very prolific editor, and we should assume she was just being efficient and did not intend to offend anyone. And there certainly is no policy that prevents such use of templates. — Satori Son 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone comment on JTrainor's continuing to remove very valid tags on the article pointing out issues, without any actual reason given and his not fixing the issues? He has once again reverted the article tagging, along with valid copyediting done by another editor. -- ] (] · ]) 16:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:96.238.40.131 block review

Ok, block review for User:96.238.40.131. Per my last ANI notice, this IP address has been messing with Sportsbook.com and my user page. A few days ago, I warn him again about messing with the page. While it's been a few days (and an anonymous user), the IP address then responded uncivilly to say the least and with more crap on my user page. I blocked him a week but after this much time with the same user, does anyone object to a much longer (I'd say 6 months) block if he returns and acts the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the same user. I'd say 2 or 3 months, but same thing, really. Longer than the standard one week to two week escalator, for sure. Combative and disruptive editor. Enigma 08:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It gets a little more complicated. This is a sensitive IP address belonging to the US Department of Defence! Long-term blocks must be avoided, so please keep it to one week for now. It can be reviewed next week if it starts again. Papa November (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think there's a bug in the block page as every IP address is being flagged as belonging to the department of defence. Ignore my last post! Papa November (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie

Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a tremendious editor with a block and a stunning history of warnings and incivility. Was warned of an escalating series of blocks for any further personal attacks (see ), returned from a short period of inactivity from this particular account to accuse me of "douchebaggery", lying, and harassment - after making two bogus retaliatory complaints over my username for having cautioned the editor over incivility. I'm already at 3RR so could I please get someone's help in removing these nasty comments? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

THe comments carefully attack the behavior of this user who is acting like a wikistalker on my talk page.Douchebaggery, while not friendly, has been determined not to meet the threshold of incivil. I will get page diffential on it, and return. i wish this user would just go on and find some other ox to goreDie4Dixie (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page this user claims to have made this edit. Therein the problem "lies". Claiming to have removed a report when you did not, well I'll accept a push poll on what it is.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Again the personal attacks about lying, wikistalking, and douchebaggery. I guess it comes with the territory of being on troll patrol. This editor has been nothing but trouble since their account creation. Yuck. Wikidemo (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor continues to accuse me of lying even after report filed. Wikidemo (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC

"Removal of text

Policy shortcut: WP:RPA

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Misplaced Pages editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate." Ever since this editor has made this report he continues to attack me personally. I recommend that he disengage, and leave me alone. Or at the very least dust off his wiki law books and figure out what constitutes a valid civil or personal attack complaintDie4Dixie (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking by User:Wikidemo on my talk page

Wikidemo continues to remove my comments from my talkpage. He has a peculiar individual definition for civility and attacks. iWANT HIM TO DISENGAGE, AND GO AWAY AND LEAVE MY TALK PAGE:Die4Dixie (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(consolidating this preemptive report here - I warned the user to stop making personal attacks or I would file a report. - Wikidemo (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Can you both calm down and leave each other alone?

There's no need to revert a user removing a message from their own talk page — it indicates that the user has read it, and there's no value in keeping it there as a public humiliation. We also shouldn't be continually reminding people about blocks they had several months ago. Comment on the content, not on the contributor.

With that said, I can see a lot of rudeness on the other side, too. Surely you can make your point without calling comments 'douchebaggery', and so on.

Please try to resolve your disputes through discussion, not with reversions and threats of reporting, because, since this behaviour goes two ways, if there were to be any blocks made, I would make the same blocks to both users. However, I think that you two can resolve this dispute without resorting to 'policy', and threats. We do have guidelines on dispute resolution, and I suggest that you both consider using those instead of this page, which is not a part of the process. — Werdna talk 09:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Amen. I vote he remove my page from his watched list and just go away :)I promise to stay off his page--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due repect (to Werdna), you seem to be jumping to conclusions. Your comment indicates you have not reviewed the situation carefully. There is no "both ways" and there is no "dispute" to resolve. There is a misbehaving tendentious editor who and has been threatened with an escalating series of blocks and is engaging in the same problem behavior again, and there is me, an editor trying to keep the peace on the project. AN/I is the right place to report a user who should be blocked. Equating trolling, with being the victim of trolling, is not useful, nor is threatening a long-term productive editor like me with a block. Can you seriously allow the ridiculous accusations against me of lying, wikistalking, and "douchebaggery" to remain on the talk page? Wikidemo (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

your personal attacks only serve to further discredit your misunderstanding of wiki policy. Please review the policies, and leave me and my talk page. Your continued presence on my talkpage and shrill accusations do nothing to further peaceful editing here.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to carry on a dialog with this editor. Yet there is no legitimate reason why I should avoid dealing with their disruptive editing when I encounter it just because they're being vicious and personal about it. Yet again the editor accuses me of lying, with some new invectives thrown in - something about dog vomit, persecution complex, and bad faith. Editing the encyclopedia, and even dealing with troublemakers, should not mean having to put up with this kind of abuse. The editor has been blocked and warned of escalating blocks for doing it again. I hope someone will actually enforce the behavior policies instead of letting this editor continue the disruption. Wikidemo (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

disengage, have a cuppa, leave me alone. your continued badgering to provoke me into a truly bannable offense is tiresome.Two admins have suggested thatt you do this. This forum shopping for someone who will reinforce your perceptions of me as a "bad"or "problem" editor while vindicating you as a peacemaker after your continued junking up of my talkpage and refactoring my comments on my own pages is over the top. Please, you are the only one attacking here.just stop.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see two users disagreeing. That's a dispute. Have you considered requesting a third opinion? — Werdna talk 10:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you and enigmaman are right. your third and his fourth one seem judicious and wise. Hopefully this is now resolved and he has ceased lurking around my talkpage.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

would tend to show that I might need a third opinion about his behavior and my own. I'm happy to let him own the obama articles, which he appears to be happy to do as well, so no conflict there.I suppose I could open up my own report with all kinds of fancy links to his personal attacks, but frankly it would take to much time and it's really not worth it.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that third opinions are to offer nonadministrative perspective over content disputes, not for immediate, blockable conduct problems. There's no active content dispute and no underlying disagreement - it's only over whether the editor should be repeatedly accusing me of bad faith and lying, name calling, etc., over dealing with their problem behavior. Setting aside the editor's attempt to cloud the issue by trying to portray me as the problem, that would seem to be an administrative matter. I have no grudge or beef here. Only, if they continue the tendentiousness and disruption they need to take a break from the project. If you look at this editor's edit and talk page history, all of this is very obvious - it hardly warrants any hand wringing. Wikidemo (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating word, tendentiousness. If we have no content disagreement, how can you attack me as tendentious? I have been very careful to attack your misguided behavior, while you have stooped to name calling. Because you shriek for bans and blocks and dichotomize the editors into good and bad( you angelic, of course) doesnt mean the behavior of which you complain is what you say it is. Disagreeing with you is not tantamount to uncivil , nor is it a personal attack.--Die4Dixie (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated, unrepentant accusations of lying, "douchebaggery", bad faith, and wikistalking, and multiple retaliatory administrative reports - hence, WP:TEND and WP:NPA. If this editor thinks it's okay per WP:NPA to call another editor a douchebag and a liar, could someone please correct them because they show no sign of ameliorating this - they repeated and amplified the attacks a few times after filing the complaint. Wikidemo (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WOW! I never called you a douchebag, nor have i called you a liar. I only attacked the deviant behavior, not you as a person or an editor. You seem to have some difficulty appreciating the not so subtle difference. I welcome you to read the policies in question and not twist my innocuous comments into something that they were not. Please stop trying to game the system. You seem to have racked up an impressive record of reporting almost every editor who disagrees with you. That is an abuse of the system. I hope the errant behavior will be dealt with , and not you as a person nor as an editor.--Die4Dixie (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are provided above for these repeated, ongoing insults. Your new ad hominem notwithstanding I have indeed dealt with a number of trolls, sock puppets, and COI editors here, and asked for the patient help of our hardworking administrators. My track record is pretty good - you will find that many are blocked or banned now. Wikidemo (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

READ the policies, Please. GIve a diff where i called you a douchebag or a liar.you try to make my confrontation of you behavior into a personal attack. If you have read it, the please do so again, paying careful attention to what it says. then point out where I have attacked you personally.Disagreeing about what behaviour you exibit it is not an attack. This is getting tedious. Yawn.--Die4Dixie (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't continue this discussion here. If you can't resolve the dispute amongst yourselves, or at least ignore it, we may need to ban you from interacting with each other. You are wasting the space of this noticeboard with a frivolous, useless dispute that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, and everything to do with inflating your respective egos. — Werdna talk 12:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User Mark Barnes

In an attempt to help the community, I recently added some factual information, with references, on the Crop Circle page. The next day, I noticed Mark had reverted all my information and blocked me from posting again. I am really confused on how my information netted a blocking. As i started reading the discussion, I noticed how abusive this Mark guy is at not allowing any information except the skeptical approach on this page. I can understand if more than him believe that the infomation i added added nothing to the page, though i believe it added ALOT to the singular viewpoint currently on it, but how did it deserve me a blocking. I believe this user likes swinging his stick around a bit too much, narrowminded approach to public information aside. If it isnt too much trouble, i would like someone to take a look at my changes before they were reverted and some of the messages on the discussion. I would just let all this drop if I didnt think this kind of an attitude can be really harmful to a public domain wiki such as this. Thank you so much in advanced.Rich1051414 09:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not blocked, so far as I can see. Mark reverted one of your edits, is all I can see. Try Talk:Crop circle to resolve the content issues. I don;t see any admin action required here. Kevin (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious message on block page

Has anyone else noticed a misplaced message when attempting to block IP addresses? It states "You are blocking a sensitive IP address belonging to the U.S. Department of Defense. Please be sure to notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee immediately."

It appears at the top of every IP block page I've looked at in the last few minutes, for example, this fictional user. Any ideas where it's coming from? Papa November (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this. I only see the little block on the side of "sensitive IP addresses".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently seeing it for IP adresses. It's not the normal sidebox. Kevin (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be due to this change to MediaWiki:Sysop.js. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the change - it looks like that was causing the problems. Everyone needs to purge their cache and hopefully all will be sorted for now. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that solved the issue. Perhaps someone needs a good troutslapping! Spellcast (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it, and learned a lesson about testing in a live environment. Thanks especially to Ryan for the quick revert and Boulevardier for the notification; trouts are welcome on my talkpage. :) east.718 at 10:49, June 30, 2008

POV Warrior

I'm very concerned about the attack statements made on the userpage of PokeHomsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From "hating liberals" to defamation of several public figures, I just don't think Misplaced Pages should be a soapbox for such tirades... of course, an editor with such a publicly stated agenda is most likely going to be attempting to inject his personal POV whenever possible (quick glance at his edit history would confirm such). No idea what to do or whom to tell, so I'm dropping the note here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

While the user page really pisses me off on a personal level, I am not sure we can really call it an attack page. "I hate liberals" is kind of pushing things a bit, but the comments about public figures I think aren't really "defamatory" (unless I missed something big), they are just extremist and annoying.

I am more concerned about his politics-related edits, as you pointed out. Since he is being pretty consistently reverted, at this point I'd be inclined to just monitor the situation and see what happens. You have already given him what appears to be a level 3 npov warning, which I think is about right given the circumstances. Hopefully when he realizes that his politics-related edits are consistently being reverted, he will wake up and question their neutrality (rather than writing it off as a liberal conspiracy, heh). Let's see what happens next.

(If you want to force the issue on the user page, I can ask him to try and rephrase the "I hate liberals" comment, but I would be inclined to leave it be. It's not like anyone is going to read his page and be like, "Gee, I used to think that people should be treated with respect regardless of their sexual orientation, but now that I see that Nintendo-lover PokeHomsar opposes gay rights and hates liberals, I'm going to sign up with the Westboro Baptist Church!") --Jaysweet (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Arsenalboi18

This user seems to have decided to go on a spree of leaving profanity-laden and offensive comments on various user and article talk pages: see e.g. , , . Presumably some kind of admin intervention is required, but I'm not sure whether I should be reporting this here or at WP:AIV. Scog (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

...and talk page protected. Some people should learn to quit while they're behind. --Rodhullandemu 13:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk pages of Sockpuppets

The user talk pages of a number of sockpuppets of User:Dan d dog20 (CU confirmed socks) have been deleted by User:PhilKnight as G6 (housekeeping) speedies.

I've asked him to restore them as out of process deletions, on the grounds that;

1. We do not routinely delete user talk pages (although we may courtesy blank them)
2. These pages contain an important history related to the shenanigans of the puppetmaster

He has declined, stating that we routinely delete the user talk of socks. Would appreciate a second opinion from another admin.

Mayalld (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't worth wasting more time over. I'll restore, however user talk pages of indefinitely blocked users are routinely deleted, and there is nothing worthwhile in any of the histories. PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's a sockpuppeting issue, leaving the old information around in a visible way ought to help people recognize them when they return. I'd say there's some value in keeping them. Friday (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would also help others if a SSP case comes along concern the indef-blocked user. If a talkpage is deleted then evidence is hidden. I could understand if it was deleted for personal issues/BLP/legal etc, but not in this case. D.M.N. (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The user pages weren't deleted, just the user talk pages, which have now been restored. PhilKnight (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes

This user has returned to posting {{vandalism}} templates to various user's talk pages and reverting edits as part of various content disputes, where the edits in question are not vandalism.

A couple of cases currently active: in one, he is reverting valid edits by 71.103.160.53 in order to re-insert invalid PSIP channel numbers which had been removed from Los Angeles TV stations KABC/KCBS/KNBC. The US TV system (according to ATSC spec A/65 on psip.org) numbers channels based on the last analog channel used (so KCBS is 2.1, KABC is 7.1) so "2.1 / 60.1 || main KCBS-TV/CBS programming" is incorrect - yet he reverts to repost this nonsense and accuses the user who attempted to fix the problem of vandalism here.

In another current incident, he is removing information which he considers to be "trivia", accusing the original editor of vandalism here in what is not vandalism, merely a content dispute, and threatening to have the users blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. When confronted, he responds with "it's a personal attack on an editor that is not content-related, so you'd better think twice before contacting me again on any subject."

The problems are ongoing and have been raised here on WP:ANI a few times before for other incidents involving this editor or accounts used in apparent collusion. There have been issues in the past with this editor abusing WP:AIV to pursue content disputes and even an edit war on WP:RFPP at one point. I'd hoped that this had stopped, but it seems problems are indeed ongoing. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

IP range block needed

• 189.192.xxx.xxx

Not sure of the scope needed here, a portion of this IP was blocked several months back but this person is relentlessly coming back every day or so with a slightly different IP address and making tons of vandalism edits before s/he is noticed. I've been catching as many as I can, but a partial list is here. Don't know how many would be affected by a range block (I suspect a lot) but this person really needs to be stopped. - eo (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• 189.192.0.0/16, up to 65536 users. Shouldn't be blocked for long. Let's try soft for 24 hours. --Rodhullandemu 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship by User:Cryptic; requesting recall of his adminship

I politely requested he userfy an article and he responded by calling me a "spoiled child," which if not a personal attack is at least downright incivil as a response to a polite request which is why I gave him a warning. He responded by blocking me for "trolling" without any warning, without acknowledging that maybe his reply to a polite request was a bit unfriendly, and without even explaining on my talk page. Obviously, since I am commenting here, this block has been overturned after disapproval by multiple others (see , , and ). Again, blocking without warning, let alone responding to a polite request in such a disrespectful fashion, is totally unacceptable for an admin. Moreover, claiming he did it to prove a "point" seems a violation of WP:POINT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the block was punitive and ill-advised. Still, no wheel warring after it's release. though I am not an administrator, I'm not sure as to what can be done about it now. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe User:Cryptic is a member of the group of administrators open to recall. I would suggest a RfC/Admin Conduct, and provide further information. The block was bad, and response not much better, I agree, but you'll need more then 1 bad incident to be taken seriously if you're going to put in a request to recall/desysop him. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of trolling probably stemmed from the fact that you gave an tenured admnistrator a "welcome to Misplaced Pages" warning, which probably was viewed as a deliberate slight. Although, I presume it was just an oversight. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We have tenure? Awesome! ⇒SWATJester 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not in that sense. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When someone is tenured, they're hard to get rid of. Some folks resort to assassination, but that gets messy and can cause legal trouble. My usual approach is to ring their doorbell and run away. Baseball Bugs 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really warn editors that much and so when I went to the warning template page looking for an appropriate warning, I wanted to go with the lowest level one I could find and so just went with that template. In any event, AfDs and DRVs, as far as I am aware, are supposed to be discussions, not votes, i.e. discussions in which we engage and interact with each other. How does he respond to a discussion? Well, instead of say commenting on the topic under discussion, he comments on me instead. Now, it's not just with me. Notice this edit summary, which seems to be something of an assumption of bad faith. See also: confrontional comment, losing cool, unconstructive edit summary, etc., and from a quick look, it seems with ease I can find more if necessary, i.e. a rather unhelpful and unfriendly manner of dealing with others, which is totally unbecoming of an admin. Plus, looking at his own block log, the self blocks of thinking "MSK's unblock shows the system's still broke" and "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet" are also somewhat wikidramatic and seem a bit of a concern for an admin. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't Arbcom already set precedent in this sort of matter? --Cube lurker (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While an Arbcom decision is indicative of what Arbcom may do in the next similar situation, their decisions are non-binding, and do not set precedents. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If we start approaching this as tenure, then really RfA is just an opportunity for a tenure-track position, with, say, quarterly or bi-annual reviews. At the end of six-twelve months the review board (bureaucrats) can decide whether you become tenured; if so, you are no longer open to recall. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This bock and subsequent discussion here seems to go along with this one. Just pointing it out. Wizardman 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that regardless of what happens here, I now have a block on my log that I should not have, which is why for preventative purposes so that he does not abuse the tools again, I suggest one or more of the following as possible solutions: 1) some kind of similar length short block of his account; 2) loss of adminship; and/or 3) an apology. Now as far as how I approach AfDs and DRVS, I set up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Insults like this are not going to convince anybody of anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(keeping this short to avoid an EC, although I'm not an admin and have little standing to comment) The last time LGRdC was creating massive drama in this forum was Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive424#Months of harassment from RobJ1981, where he claimed that he was so ill (kaff … kaff) that he would have to take a wikibreak, and all he wanted before he left was for another user to be blocked. Well, the other user was blocked, and, mirabile dictu, LGRdC came back a couple of days later as well as could be. Is there no one who can see this person for the lawyering, passive-aggressive, disruptive user that he is? Deor (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You really are going to mock someone for when they were sick?! Seriously?! As far as disruptive, maybe you should re-look at your own incivil personal attacks: and . Which is odd, given my multiple attempts to be nice and cooperative with you: , , etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'Waah, an admin has reminded me that I'm being a dick; quick, kick him out!' HalfShadow 02:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

HalfShadow, retract that personal attack, please. Deor, this is rather bizarre behavior from the two of you.. what gives? SirFozzie (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but arbcom has clearly stated that blocks are not to be used in disputes, much less to "remind someone they're a 'dick'"--Cube lurker (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, too, but I'm not going to retract anything. Giving an admin a welcome template as a response to a failure to userfy an article is just not in the cards. Block me too, if you want; the spectacle of sysops falling all over themselves to accommodate the Pumpkin's every wish is just more than I can stand. Deor (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, I deny that either of the diffs that Pumpkin linked to above constitute "incivil personal attacks". This is my last contribution to this thread. Deor (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I gave him a warning for making a personal attack. I am not asking admins to "fall all over themselves to accomodate me", but to prevent future bad blocks. I'm not looking for revenge or something, just reassurance that such things won't happen in the future. Jumping into this discussion just like you did at the one you linked to previously does not help. And as I've said, it is really disappointing that you continue to be mean to my even though I have tried to be nice to you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, how is this being a "dick"? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record: he told you 'no', then, when he expanded on that because you didn't like the terminology he used, you first templated him and now you're suggesting he be de-sysopped. Admins do all the work around here and I'm tired of seeing them be dumped on because your feelings have been hurt. HalfShadow 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

After he said, "no," I politely explained my request. Did it really justify this response? As for the allegation against me, I respectfully asked the deleting admin about the closure and he suggested I go to DVR, which I did. Trying to talk to admins politely should not receive such a harsh response. And it's not about my "feelings," but a concern of this kind of thing happening again to anyone, not just me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's to me that's why I added the single 'quotes'--Cube lurker (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of LGRdC's present and past behavior, Cryptic should not have blocked him himself simply for templating him, even if that's not exactly the friendliest thing to be doing. If LGRdC is behaving unacceptably, I'd suggest a user RFC or other steps in dispute resolution. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Morven here (shock). Y'all got into a spat and Cryptic made a bad block. It's not a blockable offense to template the regulars but it's an act of shocking tactlessness that leaves me feeling rather unsympathetic. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be the nicest thing to "template a regular" but that's one of the worst blocks I've seen in quite some time. Cryptic needs to offer a full explanation. - auburnpilot talk 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty self-evident, doesn't it? By explanation, do you actually mean apology? Because you're can't compel one of those. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't really warn people and just went with what seemed the tamest one on the warnings page after he made this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's no kind of an answer--you've been here a few years and appear to have a grasp of the language. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, with regards to warnings for comments like that would you suggest I do? Is it appropriate to give some kind of warning and if so what? Yes, I have been here for a while, but there is a good deal I haven't worked on or really think I know a lot about. Warnings are one area that I haven't really worked on; plus, I did not check his contrib history to see how long he's been around. So, I know for the future, what would be the way to go when someone calls you a "spoiled child"? Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You say, "Hey, please don't engage in personal attacks." or "That was uncalled for, I'll ask a different admin." I think that is what is meant by not using templates and you having command of the language ;-) Avruch 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it ever okay to warn admins? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't really play into it - its generally considered impolite to template anyone but a newbie, there is a page about it at WP:DTTR. Avruch 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that's kind of funny. Try to ues an essay in an afd and you get berated for it because it has no weight. Violate another in user space you get blocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While the block was uncalled for and definitely not appropriate, LGRdC's actions aren't exactly perfect either. I think emotions were high on both sides, and frankly, LGRdC, despite the civility he conducts his discussions with, often irritates or aggravates users with his rationales. In this light, I could see Cryptic taking a templated message (to an administrator, really? That's really tactless) as trolling. This naturally does not excuse his conduct, and he should have been cool-headed despite the situation, but this is probably the situation he felt he was getting into. That said, going back to the original intent of the thread, you're not going to get him dysopped for this. Nowadays, the requirement for revoking adminship is more or less massive OMG drama that ends up at ArbCom, which this definitely is not. Sephiroth BCR 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth, as I said above, I saw a personal attack or incivil comment and thought the correct response was to post some kind of warning message. While I do welcome a lot of editors, I really don't warn them unless it's the anon vandal warning template when I revert first time vandalism. If you look at the discussion that brought us here, I made a really polite request and responded to his initial response in a still respecftul manner. If admins look at the contribution history of the article in question, you'll see that it was one that I was indeed in the process of make serious revisions to. As for revoking adminship, it was just one of a few ideas presented above as a possible preventitive measure. In any event, the weather sirens are going off here as we have a tornado warning. So, with that, I guess good bye for now. And again, anyone is invited to my deletion talk page indicated above to offer constructive criticisms and advice. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, your response to an uncivil comment was a templated message, which again, is really tactless, and users can take it the wrong way. If someone gives an actual response (regardless of the civility), and you respond with a template, then it's basically like a slap in the face. You're implying (not that I'm saying you were implying this, which you weren't; however, this is how it's taken most of the time) that you don't want to waste time to write an actual message and you're simply falling back to templated messages to end the conversation. Again, I'm not saying your intent was wrong or that the block was justified (quite the contrary); however, you have to admit that it was a rather tactless act, especially for a user such as yourself that has been here for so long and should be familiar with such things. Sephiroth BCR 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I appreciate your comments, but I really have not done much in the way of warning users other than with the anon-vandal welcome (in my over 20,000 edits, there's maybe a handful and none that I can easily find at present) and I was honestly stunned by his reaction as usually when I ask someone if they would userfy something, they respond in a friendly and helpful manner. As another example of a positive such discussion, please see User talk:Sandstein#Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such where I accepted a compromise. So, you can imagine why I for one might be taken aback by Cryptic's reaction to my request, but again, I did not add the warning template into the discussion until after he called me a "spoiled child," which I believed merited some kind of civility warning and I thought I was going with the lowest level and tamest one on the page. Also, before giving him the warning, I did not check his edit history to see how long he's been around. In any event, it really is not that hard to interact in these kinds of discussions in a civil and respectful fashion and as you can see in these examples, I asked, I did not demand and in the latter, I accepted a compromise. Plus, it is frustrating that someone would react in such a manner, because as you know, sure I may disagree quite strongly with editors in discussions, but even though say you and I have had some strong disagreements in AfDs and DRVs, I still occasionally look for somewhere where I might be able to help you or get along a la User talk:Sephiroth BCR#Vandalism to your userpage so that it is clear any discussion disagreements are not personal or anything. I have done such things for a number of editors I have disagreed with. I guess it would be nice if some of those with whom I disagree would also take these kinds of proactive steps. I appreciate that you responded nicely in the aforementioned case: User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Re:Vandalism. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, dropping a few words as someone who's worked with Roi a long time (both antagonistically and cooperatively--check his block log). As far as I can tell, Roi rarely does the template thing and probably wasn't aware that templating an established editor is considered rude. A word to the wise is sufficient: sysop or not, when someone's been around a while the custom is to open a dialog. Would someone consider doing a one second block to notate his block log, if he's amenable? It wasn't a blockable action, and one bad block almost never leads to recall (almost--check my ops history). The bottom line here for those who don't know him is that Roi is an inclusionist; a scrupulously polite editor who didn't used to play by the rules but learned his lesson and who expects those who have different wikiphilosophies from his to play by the rules too. Durova 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• As an admin, given the community's trust, doesn't cryptic need to address this, he knows this thread is here. --Cube lurker (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • It is my hope that for anyone who has any advice for me to make use of the chart I made at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and to offer constructive ideas on that pages talk page. In any event, regarding that user, please note that an admin has already said as much. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Cryptic should accept an appropriate punishment and in future try not to perform privileged tasks which might be perceived as emotive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing that really had me here is that usually when I ask someone if they would userfy something, they respond in a friendly and helpful manner. As another example of a positive such discussion, please see User talk:Sandstein#Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such where I accepted a compromise. So, you can imagine why I for one might be taken aback by Cryptic's reaction to my request, but again, I didn't add the warning template into the discussion until after he called me a "spoiled child." In other words, it really isn't that hard to interact in these kinds of discussions in a civil and respectful fashion and as you can see in these examples, I asked, I didn't demand and in the latter, I accepted a compromise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic responded very rudely to a very reasonable request (and I think someone else should see to it that the deleted article gets userfied for him); templating him for that was a misstep, but a minor one. For Cryptic to then block Roi was a huge misstep, however, and calls into question his suitability for adminship. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman has userfied it for me. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated rudeness and a retaliatory block is troubling, I agree. Let's hope it was just a one-off by someone who was having a bad day. If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC. Durova 06:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we can condemn his action all we want, but this is really too far. We all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that. If it does it again, file an RfC on his conduct. If it continues past that, go to ArbCom. Trying stuff like that isn't constructive and really, is just plain rude. Sephiroth BCR 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bstone hectoring Cryptic like that does not help anyone, particularly Bstone. Neıl 龱 10:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be something wrong with asking someone to resign their adminship? Everyking (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not what he said, it's how he said it. Neıl 龱 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If Cryptic was open to recall, that would be reasonable. Cryptic isn't in the category, so probably doesn't consider himself open to recall. It is a poorly worded request; it starts from the invalid assumption that Bstone has a right to make the request. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy saying that editors cannot ask an admin to resign. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I politely, formally and civilly asked Cryptic to resign his admin position. I did not attack him, make over the top accusations or use any manner of hyperbole. It was a simple, formal request. He is free to ignore it. However, GRBerry, I am looking for a policy which might be titled "Non-admins are forbidden from asking admins to return their position", but I cannot find it. Can you point me to it? If it exist I shall offer a full retraction and formal apology to Cryptic. Bstone (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, going around politely, formally, and civilly asking admins to resign their bit, (or asking editors to leave the project, for another example) is neither constructive nor helpful, policy or no policy. Where I agree with you is that it's allowed. Policy doesn't prohibit you from being civilly rude. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "every admin gets one free" attitude so prevalent around here. I'm all for forgiveness and understand that we all make mistakes every once in awhile, but Cryptic has not yet been an acknowledged that what he did was out of line. Of course, we can never force someone to apologize, but we sure can take away his admin tools if he doesn't address this issue before when he starts blocking again. HiDrNick! 12:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Contributors are humans with lives; Cryptic has not contributed for several hours now. 2) One of the early steps in dispute resolution is disengaging; before heading off (to bed?) he acknowledged the thread, and appears to be intentionally choosing not to participate in it. This is reasonable. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with point 1 totally, and did not intend to give the impression that I'm advocating swift action. I just think that this issue should be considered unresolved until it is addressed by Cryptic in due course. Editors above are saying, for example, "we all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that." It should not end at that. As a community, we should be unwilling to "agree to disagree" with Cryptic's implicit position that block was justified. I think most reasonable people would be content to let it drop if and only if Cryptic acknowledges that it was in fact a bad block, but this feeling that "it was a bad block, he's unblocked now, get over it" is unsatisfactory. If Cryptic refuses to acknowledge that the block was flawed and should not have been made, it should be addressed by the Arbitration Committee, and ultimately a steward. HiDrNick! 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any admin goes around with a smile and a get-out-of-one-bad-block-free card wondering when to play it. Sysops get pulled in six different directions at once. Administrators get headaches, catch the flu, stay up until the wee hours trying to get stuff accomplished on Misplaced Pages. On the right side a chorus yells don't you edit articles anymore? while each time the sysop starts a GA drive other people tug at the left sleeve. Admins are expected to have the wisdom of Solomon when dinner is about to burn in the kitchen. Slicing the Gordian knot isn't enough; admins are expected to remove it surgically. And in return for this unpaid labor, they sometimes get compensated in curses or worse. After a while--being human--chances are an admin will flub something once. If it becomes a pattern, yes, the community addresses it. But flubbing something once is called being human. Durova 10:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really wish that Badlydrawnjeff was still active. He'd be a good advisor to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. They share a philosophy, but jeff was a lot better at communicating and working with those who disagreed with him. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up a completely separate issue involving Cryptic that I feel is quite similar to the one being presented here, but shows pattern. I've been trying to get an explanation from Cryptic for almost two months now as to why they had placed a block on my account for a couple of days without any discussion, notice, or warning. Since then, I've asked several times for them to bring clarity to the issue, but have received little to no feedback from Cryptic. I've hunted for quotes to policies and have even brought up examples of other users with the same "violation" Cryptic very briefly claimed I made, but have gotten absolutely no response. To me, this, along with the new incident, shows a solid history of poor communication and abuse of admin tools by Cryptic. I would like to see these issues with Cryptic escalated as well. What can be done? Roguegeek (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See what Durova said: "If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC." Carcharoth (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The block wasn't a particularly defensible thing in this instance, although it could be argued that the templated warning, while understandable, wouldn't likely win friends. I think the trout might be the best option here for this single instance, but, if it were found to continue in the future, an RfC would be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What you're addressing here, John, is a report of a second instance (unrelated to Le Grand Roi's template warning and block). Avruch 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I stand corrected. The comment by Roguegeek could stand a lot of better information as to what the specifics of the matter being discussed are. However, even taking that second instance into account, we still have only two instances. For the step being requested here, that might be a bit extreme. Although ArbCom would definitely be an option here, and I don't want to speak for them, I would think two could still be marginally acceptable, although some sort of formal notification of his conduct being specifically called into question would be reasonable as well. If a third instance were to arise, particularly after specific warnings regarding such conduct are made, then there would be much less question or defense of such action. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the Roguegeek block is related to several pages like this being deleted numerous times and Roguegeek re-creating them each time. But Roguegeek's talk page history shows a distinct lack of activity around the date of the block, May 3, 2008. Some discussion is here but I see no hint of pre-block warning. Roguegeek's deleted contribs (admin only) show re-creation edit summaries of "why are my own templates being deleted?" which are a little sad. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not real fond of how that went down. User templates deleted, the user not understanding why and re-creating, twice, three times, four times, still no discussion - and then block. No deletion explanation (until after the fact), no block warning, not even a note to say that the user was blocked! Peculiar at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, all I'm looking for is understanding and have gotten zero help from the user in question. And yes, I was upset about the block with no discussion what so ever. I just happen to stumble upon this conversation and thought to myself, "hey I have a similar experience." I'm still actually needing some advice that I'll take to a different discussion page. I just thought it'd be helpful in this specific discussion to show a little more history from a complete separate instance. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins are here to serve our editors and readers, not vice versa. One inappropriate block (Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles) is bad, two (Roguegeek) is unacceptable and then stonewalling Roguegeek's requests for an explanation takes it all over the top; I'm losing confidence in Cryptic's suitability to be an administrator. --A. B. 20:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see now that Cryptic did respond to Roguegeek although I still consider the block to be very out of line. --A. B. 21:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that there was some central discussion about deleting such "voting" templates, but I may be wrong there. That's beside the point, though. Cryptic absolutely should have communicated with Roguegeek about all this. Unless Cryptic can point out where this was discussed, why he blocked, and why there was no follow up, then there is a problem here. Admins have to be approachable, otherwise the whole system breaks down. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My concerns here do extend beyond the incivil reaction to a polite request and the subsequent block when I warned him for his comment to me, which again I got from Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace and I went with the Level 1 for "Personal attack directed at a specific editor," as I thought apparently incorrectly it would be the tamest reaction to go with for what I thought was a first time thing. In actuality there seems to be some kind of longer-term frustration he has regarding Deletion Review discussions. For the larger context, please note that Cryptic blocked himself for a month on 2 April 2008 under the rationale of "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet". Several comments in Deletion Reviews this year seem to confirm that. See for example "Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore?," (seven editors arguing to keep in an AfD is not "near complete consensus" and the crux of the comment focuses on an editor rather than the article under discussion), mildly sarcastic tone, says "Utter disgust" as part of his comment, note edit summary, says that "It physically pains me to complete this mangled review request," claimed clear consensus in DRV that ultmately closed as relist for an AfD that ultimately did not result in the article being deleted, "Like, y'know..." seems confrontational, use of "lazy" seems unnecessary, and calls the AfDs "nauseating" when again the article ultimately was not outright deleted. You'll note that I did not participate in a number of those DRVs, so it is not just a him and me thing by any means, but rather what seems to be increased frustration with DRVs in general. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where immediate admin action is called for. However I see reasonable evidence that Cryptic's conduct as an admin has been questionable in at least a couple cases. Taking this to a user conduct RFC might be a better venue than here. Friday (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've raised my primary concern at User talk:Cryptic#Your block of Roguegeek (3rd May 2008). The previous discussion can still be seen at User talk:Cryptic#Vote templates. From what I can tell the sequence was that Cryptic deleted a series of user templates, and when they were recreated he blocked instead of trying to explain why they were deleted. After the block had expired, the user (who seems not to have realised they were blocked until after the block expired) came back and asked again, and Cryptic then explained and pointed to some deletion discussions. The problem is that this was all in the wrong order. From what I can see, the block was a heavy-handed way to get a message across. If Cryptic can explain his actions, we may be able to avoid a user conduct RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, let's not rehash any of this any more until Cryptic is active and can respond. Like everybody else, I too have some concerns about the two incidents in question -- but without Cryptic being here to respond, this is just a pointless pile-on. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

one of the requirements for being an admin is not to have excessive sensitivity to personal criticism. anyone who would block after a relatively innocuous template, with a background of incivility otherwise to confirm its not an isolated incident, should be desysopped. the Tango arb case cited is very much to the point here. Further, this admin is one of the few remaining ones without email enabled, and it's deliberate. I don't accept his excuse of privacy--the same reason applies to everyone, & the rest of us tolerate it. If he doesn't trust gmail, there are alternatives. (

As for the matter giving rise to the block, personally, I've been templated several times, sometimes in good faith, sometimes not, and I can;t figure out why it should bother me very much. If our templates are too rude, it is a matter that affects everyone. After all, why shouldn't established editors follow the same rules as everyone else and get the same warnings if they do something that an editor thinks wrong? If we want to prohibit it, we should try to adopt a policy decision to that effect, WT:DTTR is just an essay, and I hope and expect it wouldn't pass. If someone wants to take it as policy, it even says: "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. They may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not consider it rude themselves. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." so its not just a block in a personal dispute, its a block without any support in policy either.

Sure, let's wait for a response, but the only response I think likely to improve the situation is a long wikibreak or surrendering the mop. DGG (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

His refusal to respond to any of this stuff is quite telling, I think. Wizardman 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely disgusted by the actions of Cryptic. Lately this user has broken a handful of policies. By being very uncivil to someone, unjustly blocking someone, and failing to communicate this user has not only broken the administrator code of conduct, but also WP:CIVIL. Clearly some action needs to be taken for these violations of policies, but I don't think taking the tools away for him is justified. Beside recently, he seemingly doesn't have a history of abuse.

I think he should be banned from using the tools for a while. Due to the seriousness of abusing the tools, only blocking him for a few days seems to be not enough. 1 or 2 weeks would send a strong message to him. If this behavior continues, then he should have the tools removed. I don't know if the community can give partial blocks. I know they can give full blocks, but I'm not sure about partial ones.--SJP (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm troubled by this contributor's apparent lack of activity (Nothing since June 25) and everyone's interpretation of it. It is entirely possible that he's on wikibreak (a bit convenient, but WP:AGF works both ways) and forgot to template it. He may feel really bad about his actions and be afraid/ashamed of editing. I don't know him, so I can't really judge that. In any case, I think he should be given an opportunity to defend himself/apologize before anything happens to him. If he resumes editing, we can assume he has read or will read his talk page, which has multiple links here. If not, the issue becomes moot. Until then, I think this discussion should be put on hold as unresolved. If he doesn't come back in a reasonable amount of time, he can be provisionally/temporarily desysopped since dormant accounts don't keep their bits. --Thinboy00 @261, i.e. 05:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this worries me. Some one brought it up on Cyptic's talk page here. I find it troublesome that the blocked individual had no idea he had been blocked. When users are blocked we hope they learn from their mistake; how good is the block if the blocked user comes back asking (in good faith, as is evident by her edit) why she was blocked? This block seems like a punishment. Perhaps the admin is stressed at the moment? It happens to all of us, but he should at least leave a note here about all this? Brusegadi (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Brought this ongoing and unresolved discussion back from archive. Roguegeek (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User Wikihw / Georgetown, Washington, D.C.

Like a low-grade fever, this issue has persisted long enough to require some additional attention. The problem is with user Wikihw, who for several months has been re-inserting the same block of text into Georgetown, Washington, D.C. without comment, while ignoring repeated entreaties on his and the article’s Talk pages to discuss it. Here is a diff showing the text at issue.

The background is this: In March I removed the foregoing addition to Georgetown, Washington, D.C., explaining my thinking in the edit summary. (The gist was, too much attention to a single person out of all the famous or important people who've ever lived in Georgetown. The original contribution came from an IP and I have no idea whether Wikihw is the same person.) A week later Wikihw restored the text without comment. I re-removed it, with a request to take the disagreement to Talk, where I amplified on my reasoning. (See here.) Two days later Wikihw again restored the text, again without comment. I removed it again (3d reversion), added a request on Wikihw’s talk page to discuss the addition, here. After yet another uncommented re-insertion, I was reluctant to perform what would be a fourth reversion, and sought Editor Assistance. In response to my request for assistance, a couple of other editors visited the article, seemed to agree with my assessment that the disputed text was not appropriate as written, and we all made some tweaks to weave in the bits of it that did add value. User:Aude added a further request on Wikiwh's talk page to discuss the matter. We hoped that would be the end of it, but Wikihw persisted. In all, he has re-inserted the disputed text seventeen more times (by my eyeball count). For a while these edits were fairly infrequent and it seemed that simple reversions might finally get the point across (I performed most of them), but his activity has stepped up lately and so, with no end in sight, I’m seeking comment and possible intervention.

It’s perplexing. Wikihw is not a vandal, he’s not pushing POV, or doing anything else in Misplaced Pages that could fairly be described as disruptive. By and large his edits are sensible and useful, and he appears to be a responsible, if intermittent, editor. But he has made the same reversion more than twenty times since mid-March, without comment, while steadfastly ignoring the requests of three editors to discuss the issue. As I said in my original request for editor assistance, I don’t want to engage in a silly edit war; but at the same time it’s not right simply to acquiesce in an edit because the editor indefatigably reinserts it while refusing any attempt at discussion. Thanks in advance for any comments or help. JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording of that section reads like an essay someone else wrote. Consider this item from 2001 in which the quote about "cherishing three things" appears. It's clear they're taking it from someplace else. I wonder if the user is copying-and-pasting the longer version of the article from which this reference quoted - or whether it's an amalgam of different quotes? In any case, the wording of it looks fishy. Baseball Bugs 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs about the paragraph being added, but in any case, that's a content dispute and not really to be decided here (although, FWIW if the user engages in dialog and still insists on re-adding the content, I would back you up in removing it, as per Bugs' reasoning).

The real issue here, though, is that an otherwise good faith editor is edit warring (it may be slow motion edit warring, but it's still edit warring) and is unwilling to engage in dialog either on his talk page or on the article talk page. I have issued the user a very stern final warning.

I fear the problem is here that maybe the user just doesn't understand talk pages and user talk pages (I have not seen a single edit outside of article space). It would really suck if it came to this, but if the user continues to ignore your pleas for dialog, a very short block may be the only way to get him/her to start responding to these messages. I really hope it doesn't come to that. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if someone won't talk to you, you can't stop him. A block might make him "open up". Baseball Bugs 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Even if it’s not a copyvio, this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. I have come across this type of editor numerous times over the years. They know that by persistent but sporadic reverting of an edit, they keep from technically violating WP:3RR and are likely to eventually wear down the majority who disagrees with them. And since their edits are not vandalism or harrassment, they are rarely, if ever, blocked. Reports to ANI such as this are often dismissed as content disputes.

This behavior is especially troublesome when accompanied by a failure to engage in dialogue, even when solicited by others. Wikihw has made zero article talk comments and zero user talk edits, even though they have been specifically asked to discuss this issue on several occasions.

I think JohnInDC did the absolutely right thing by bringing this here, and I respectfully disagree with his charitable observation that Wikihw’s edits are not disruptive. These edits are quite disruptive to a collaborative project such as this, and are directly violative of the official policy WP:CON. Assuming Wikihw once again refuses to discuss this issue, I submit a short block would be warranted to prevent further disruption. — Satori Son 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah, perhaps I am being too charitable. I imagine it's a form of self-conscious restraint against my general tendency toward impatience. In any event I'm glad that the consensus is that this is a problem. I would add though that if the decision is made to effect a block, some consideration should be given to its length. While a relatively long block may not be warranted in substance, Wikihw doesn't seem to edit very often, and a shorter block might simply escape his notice. JohnInDC (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, only JohnInDC said the edits weren't disruptive :)

I think we are unanimous here: Despite the slow burn of this edit war, if he reinserts the text even one more time without first engaging in dialog, he gets a block -- even if he doesn't reinsert the text until 2011.  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway. added my disclaimer here because, you know, I can't do the block myself should it come to that...\

Nothing wrong at all with JohnInDC going a tad overboard on the WP:AGF. I’ve just seen this way too many times, though I’m trying mightily to not be cynical.

As far as the infrequent editing goes, based on recent contributions it looks like a week block would be about right. Personally, I think there’s enough to block right now, but I won’t do anything until others have time to comment here – and I would really like to hear Wikihw’s side of things. — Satori Son 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, perhaps there should be a corollary to the 3RR rule -- call it the 10RR rule -- that says if you make 10 reverts of the same content without another editor backing you up, you get blocked regardless of the duration in which the 10Rs were made. In theory the 3RR rule already covers this, but in practice what do you think the chances are of a WP:ANI/3RR report on Wikihw succeeding right now? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

non-free article discussion and 3RR

Hello, There has been a running discussion about using non-free images in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. This discussion has occurred mainly here, here, here, and here, in addition to various user talk pages. In good faith, User:Black Kite has violated 3RR in an attempt to deal with what he sees as enforcing image policy.

The problem is that in these discussions, he is the only one who seems to have an issue with having a single image in the article, and that is what he has revised three times. My concern is that this seems to be a user who is taking his own interpretation of policy as policy. For example, he's claimed that the Spock article should not have a picture of Spock (though acknowledges that there is "some consensus" about having a single image about the subject of an article) I'd like some kind of guidance here. Thanks Hobit (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1) To violate 3RR you actually have to revert four times
• 2) Although this is irrelevant, because image policy enforcement is immune from 3RR, not that you'd want to have to test this out too often
• 3) Where did I claim the Spock article shouldn't have a picture of him?
• 4) I really cannot help it if I am the only one enforcing long-standing Foundation policy against a number of people who wish to use their interpretations of it. The long-running saga of non-free images in lists and how they violate WP:NFCC has been rehashed in long and tiresome detail many times before. Non-free image galleries where the image exists purely for the sake of decoration just don't fly, I'm afraid, and I'll continue to remove them where I find them, except where they can be justified by policy. The 💕 is already nearly dead, but if someone wants to block me for 3RR and put the final nail in the coffin, then so be it. Black Kite 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The 3RR explicitly provides that the spirit, not the letter, of the rule is the important thing, and people intentionally edit warring may be blocked at LESS than 4 reverts. It says you are not ENTITLED to 4 reverts per day. Reverting 3 times is bad enough as it is. As for nails in coffins, I'm sure Misplaced Pages will do just fine without you. If you find yourself the only one enforcing long-standing policy, then either you are misinterpreting the policy (highly likely), or it is no longer valid policy (far less likely). ⇒SWATJester 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is little wonder that our copyright policies are generally ignored, is it? Far more likely than your scenario, of course, is that lots of editors object to the removal per policy of their decorative pictures in their articles, and try to wikilawyer round image policy. I would point out that on every article I am clearly laying out policy on the talkpages, in many cases putting tags on to warn editors before removing the images. Rarely do I find a reasonable policy-based reply when my edits are reverted. Black Kite 19:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Walled Garden being protected by 4chan organised IPs

Hello - over the last few days, I (and others) have been trying to clean up the Warhammer 40,000 articles. There are numerous massive massive problems in this area - articles can be over 100k and yet have no content that is permissible by our policies and guidelines - it is exceptionally rare that any have references or content that match our policies. In addition, many seems to have huge sections that appear to be copyvios. I have been trying to rationalise content - where possible merging, otherwise where there is duplication, redirect to a umbrella article. At some stage yesterday (and while I'm in bed), members of the 4chan website become aware of this and decide that no clean-up will be permitted by us "faggots". The idea is that they will just watch, revert clean-up and report any of us attempt it as vandalism. No removal of the lavish (and I'm convinced in many cases copyvios) fictional histories will be permitted. Take Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) as an example of the current state of arts in this area - it is so in-universe and over detailed that it is concerned with the construction of fictional bullets - including as many diagrams as you'd need to construct your own. I'm baffled where to go from here - do we just write off some areas as untouchable? oh - the 4chan thread was here but isn't anymore, I don't know if it's been moved or deleted - but this google provides some proof of it's existance --Allemandtando (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Check77 and NY road articles

User:Check77 continues to post incorrect information to NY Road articles for several months and he has yet to be blocked for it. He also removes stuff from his talk (not archiving, but just outright deletion), including on several warnings. Is this enough grounds for a block?Mitch32 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards