Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive371

Hi, I started discussion on Talk:Muhammad/images and User:Jmlk17 removed that discussion, claiming it was general which most of muslims would not agree on, when I reverted his edit and placed {{Uw-tpv1}} on my talk page, he issued me a warning that I will be blocked. If I get blocked, It will most definately be misusage of his priveledges. Are my actions eligible to get blocked? Thank you XubayrMA ^Talk 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• It would probably have been a good idea to read the huge pink box at the top of that page, before starting a new thread which has been said hundreds of times already. Black Kite 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah sure, you complain about censorship on the article page, but are censoring the talk page yourself. There is no reason to stop the discussion. Those huge pink box is illegitimate as it hinders consensus building and violates WP:NBD. --Raphael1 10:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Dozens of people turning up and starting the same thread over and over again is not furthering the discussion - it just clogs up the page and obscures the useful material. That's why the warning box is at the top of the page. Black Kite 11:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure. And big censors like you decide what is useful material, aren't you? If you are not interested in improving the article go somewhere else, but let those who want to improve that mess discuss their issues.--Raphael1 17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I admit that the thead was repeat of older discussions. I must have missed the pink box. XubayrMA ^Talk 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a subpage there recently for newcomers to the article to talk about their opinions on that issue. Don't know if it's still there. The thing is the debate was taking up all the space on the talk page so it was hard for it to be used for article changes to be worked out. Merkinsmum 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked in for a couple of days but all mo stuff about the images was being moved to the sub-page intended for that purpose, all general chat that wasn't about the improvement of the article was being removed on sight in accordance with policy (a bit more quickly than on a normal page because of the need to stop it being swamped with crap). --Fredrick day (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is still there. It's still swamped with crap (demands for image removal, censorship, threats, etc.), and I've been trying (often in vain) to keep it organized, as well as trying to avoid a forum from erupting. Jmlk17 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Edits by Betacommand to MickMacNee talkpage. 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary of issue: Betacommand used Betacommandbot to make 46 edits to an editor's page in six minutes, following that user's making of a page questioning BCBot's handling of NFCC 10 c. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this incident report is only a few hours old, and there is disagreement over whether it should have been moved to the subpage. Also, for some reason, the other report below, also about Betacommand and his bot, was not moved. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just about reached the end of my rope. Bleek25 (talk · contribs) has gone to other users talk pages and made personal attacks after the filing of a (dismissed) sockpuppet case against me failed and has also filed false 3RR reports against me. I don't mind the 3RR and the sock, they were both disproven, but the repeated personal attacks which I tried to simply remove but he puts back three times, is over the line. This [2] and this [3] where he returned it and called my removal vandalism, and then again [4]. I asked for help from an administrator who helped with a 3RR issue but he continues to do this and it's gotten out of hand. I just ask he leave me alone and now he's bringing other editors in to this grudge he seems to have because he violated policy and I reported him. Could someone just warn him to stop?KellyAna (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note, I asked him to stop before bringing this here, but he removed the request as "vandalism." He has a gross misconception of vandalism. Apparently even removing a personal attack is vandalism according to him. KellyAna (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kellyana must think that she is an adminstrator.she has gotten in to it with me and User:Randy Jaiyan.randy even tried to make a truce and she just slapped him in the face see here.Bleek25 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a gal, but I think his comments to you would be very offensive to women and they are offensive to me. I also agree you removing a personal attack is not vandalism, see [5]. He posted at least three of these. Someone just final warned him. If he makes personal attacks again, please report here. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously offensive to a woman [6] and this is harassment [7].-- Ѕandahl 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For about a month now, an IP user who posts from addresses in the range 156.61.xx.xx has been attempting to impose his views on the nature of Roman leap days and leap years in articles related to the Roman calendar: Julian calendar, Roman calendar, Mercedonius and as of today Leap year.

This user absolutely refuses to debate on Talk pages, he just edits the articles. He only communicates his "justifications" via the Edit Summary line. The reason I have listed so many articles is that semi-protecting an article only causes him to find another one, even when the semi-protection notice clearly states that it is being applied to force discussion to the Talk page.

His POV represents outdated scholarship. He does not respond to attempts to point out contrary data or contrary argument, he just reasserts his own views. He also does not respond to proposals to change the text to say "the ancient sources aren't explicit. The current consensus is...", which would change the text to an accurate statement of fact that does not conflict with his views.

He used to insert long rants inside the articles, mostly against me, but final warnings for disruptive editing caused him to stop doing that. He now mostly confines his edits to statements that should keep him below the radar on that. I had hoped that his toning down the edits might mean we were getting somewhere, but this is not the case. His behaviour, though low key, is very persistent and is still disruptive. It's also the kind of activity that seriously undermines any reputation WP might hope for as an authoritative source.

Please follow through on the final warnings and block this user.

Thanks. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked a couple of IPs (the only two, as far as I know, he's used more than once). Unfortunately, blocking can only achieve so much here since he changes IP frequently, and a /16 range (156.61.xx.xx) is a bit too large to give a block of significant duration too. Assuming those four pages are the only ones he's interested in, semi-protection should work fine. – Steel 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on past behaviour, I wouldn't assume that. I'm sure he'll find another page to carry on with. Also, a week's semi-protection has already been tried on Julian calendar and Roman calendar, and has proven useless. He just waits for it to expire and then circles back. Perhaps a semi-protect duration of 2 months on all of these pages might have an effect.

I understand that asking for a range of addresses to be blocked is a serious step. I think I've been very patient with this guy, and I didn't make the request lightly. I honestly can't see any other way to get him to behave. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Thepokeratlas has created a user account and was blocked, presumably for having a corporate name and a user name that was similar.

I led a WP:AN discussion here. [8] which said this (see below).

I notified the blocking administrator. He did not object or say anything. About 3 days have passed and still no objection.

The user has been advised on what not to edit. They have complied and not caused trouble. Should we be bitey and block the person again like Bellwether BC and Friday seem to suggest? Archtransit (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll thank you to stop opening threads about me without proper notification, and to quit misrepresenting my positions. I think you shouldn't be using your tools at ALL during your mentorship, per the RfC. This also appears to be Friday's position. It's not about this case, it's about your use of tools, AT. Please stop obfuscating. Bellwether ^B_C 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usernames#Company.2Fgroup_names

"Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended..."

The policy states that use of a company name as a user name is not recommended but it is not prohibited. I used to think that all corporate names are prohibited and are to be blocked but I see this is not the case.

Should we stop blocking people for this reason? Or should we just ask that users certify that they are not a group account. Archtransit (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal rule on this is I block only if the user is using Wikipedia for advertising their group, business, what have you. If a user like "KevinsShoeWarehouse" created the article Kevin's Shoe Warehouse or adds the business to an article like List of shoe stores, that deserves a block. And really, unless they're using WP to advertise, it's pretty tough to tell if a username is a business, group, etc. Of course, if a user chooses the name of a very well known business or group, it is my opinion that they should be blocked, as this invites potential lawsuits, e.g. if a user named "Microsoft" vandalizes Steve Jobs. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I come by most company usernames is as faithless says above, they post ana d for their company. More generally, I think we assume that if its a group name, then its a shared account. Also, for major corps, there is of course the trademark issue. Even if User:Miramax didn't edit movie articles, there would still be the concern of trademark dilution. MBisanz ^talk 17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This came up recently. We assume it's a role account unless we get confirmation (somehow, OTRS I guess) that it's used by only one user. I'm not sure what the relevant policy page is. Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is that of people believing the account represents the company in some official capacity, either to push a certain view point or to vandalise. The question aside from advertising, is the username likely to be confusing or misleading? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think this unblock, after discussion, along with counseling to the new user is the correct thing to do. I think that trying to create controversy about this non-controversial action is being disruptive and trolling. Others have been indefinitely blocked for trolling before.Archtransit (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Where was your discussion about the specific name with the blocking admin or on AN/I? The post you made was a general statement about company usernames, it was far from a specific block review. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are unhappy, continue the discussion here about why this user should be blocked. Is it to prevent disruption? If so, what disruption has the user done in the past 3 days since unblock (None). What disruption has the user ever done? (None). What punishment should this user get for using a user name similar to his corporate name? (Severe punishment? If so, isn't blocking not supposed to be used as punishment?) Discussion on proposed re-blocking welcomed; that's why I put the topic up for ANI discussion. Archtransit (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The implied suggestion to always list the user name in question will be followed in the future. If someone is unhappy, how would the discussion have changed if a specific user name was listed? Is it that someone has an anti-gambling agenda or anti-American agenda so they would act harshly in that case but not harshly in other cases? I hope this is not the case. Archtransit (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Archtransit, on your talk page, Ryan has said that unless you stop using the unblock button, he's going to take the matter to arbcom. Other than agreeing with Ryan, my only comment is that you don't appear to understand that nobody prevented the person behind the account from editing - the block merely required him /her to create a new user name. Addhoc (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Addhoc! Blocks should follow policy. It would not be following policy if you were blocked on the reason "Addhoc's name is mis-spelt, this is disruptive, he can edit under 'Ad hoc' but the Addhoc name is blocked". Archtransit (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to leave mentoring you to Ryan and Riana, however I'm concerned about your lack of understanding. Addhoc (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You say above, Archtransit, that Three days have passed and still no objection, yet you unblocked only one hour after your talkpage message to the blocking admin and your ambiguous post to ANI that was not even close to a consensus to unblock (or block, or anything else since you didn't name the user). Curious. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are mad, block the user and see what happens (I don't advise this but you seem to be mad that this user was unblocked.Archtransit (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Not mad. You've misread my post. I don't get mad at Wikipedia, but instead I rather like the place. It's not about the blocking or unblocking. You have to know that Arch. I've been an ardent supporter of you in the past, but everytime I read a post here, or at your RfC, or on your user talk, I continue to be baffled by your responses. Simply baffled. It's not about the tools. It's about your communication style, your wikilawyering.. this isn't the place for this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm being quoted. I took that conversation as a broad, hypothetical, "what if"/"why" scenario. It certainly was not a block review/unblock check to me. MBisanz ^talk 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I reported User:Prester John at Wikiquette alerts (take a look). For his removal of legitimate warnings, his discreetly racist edits and other things. He has since edited my report on several occasions to misrepresent my comments http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=192345406&oldid=192197739 - He then threatens a Checkuser request against me without suggesting which user he believes I am and why. I believe that PJ is attacking me in order to divert attention from the report I have filed against him and am now of the opinion that PJ's threats warrant harder action than a mere discussion at Wikiquette. It is grossly innapropriate for a user to threaten another just because they have asked for comment on the user's conduct! Help me out here! (Also per WP:RFCU "checkuser is not for fishing") --Capitana (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping; so far, it's made its rounds at WQA and at two user talk pages. You made one complaint which contains a lot of 2006 and 2007 vios. which Prester John was blocked for in 2007. You were unsatisfied with the reply I gave at WQA, which you removed and I have restored, given that it is material of your current possible bad faith nominations and possible wikistalking. As a side note, Capitana user also has a current CheckUser request open. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You were correct to take this to WP:ANI. I'm sure an admin can intervene somehow as an objective party and warn the user. My advice would be to warn the user about WP:NPA first, and if it continues, report him/her to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked into it, and it appears that the WP:RCU was done in bad faith (none of the requirements or criteria for it have been met) after the filed report to wikiquiette alerts. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. Where are the admins to help here! PJ is going to get away with this corrupt request! --Capitana (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the WP:RCU is legitimate, No bad faith at all. Prester John (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it will be closed (if not already) because many of the users you claim are Capitana are just so old. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note is this diff here. which seemed to confirm that Capitana is Lancastria. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:Capitana appears to have been indef blocked. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

By a checkuser, no less. I think we can mark this one resolved. Black Kite 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

caveat - This is a copy and paste from WP:AN. Thought this might have been more appropriate: Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the AN thread an pasted a couple of add'l comments that were there to this thread. --barneca (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A dumb, quick question: It seems templates Template:X1 thru Template:X9 are for people to experiment with. However, some editors (including me, and embarrassingly, including a block) are reverting edits to these templates, and warning the users doing so. The template itself says these templates are for experiementation. So,

• Am I correct in my newfound understanding that people can do whatever they want to these templates?
• Is there a way to make this fact more clear to clueless individuals like myself?
• Wouldn't it make sense for a bot to periodically restore them to their original state, as is done with the sandbox itself?
• An editor with multiple IP's has recently gone thru and blanked all 9 templates and their respective talk pages (my talk page too, but that's probably because I mistakenly blocked him). In spite of the templates' experimental nature, this seems vaguely disruptive to me. But semiprotecting would kind of defeat the purpose. Any ideas (beyond the bot I suggest above)?

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wisdom89 has set me straight on some of this, but question about a bot, and question about whether to consider this disruption or not (i.e. blanking all of them), and blockable for repeated occurances, still open. --barneca (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I became involved in this, I myself reverted the continuous blanking of these templates X1 - X9. It seems user's with a similar string of IPs (e.g [11] have a propensity for blanking the entire template purposefully, and then turning on the users who warn or undo their blanking. [12] What is the appropriate action here? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My talk page contains two conversations about the disruption of these templates [13] Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) {{x1}} is like Wikipedia:Sandbox, but designed for testing templates. The templates used to have headers that were reset automatically by bots, but the bots seem to have gone missing. The standard practice would have been to revert the template to the version with the headers, but I can't even find it in the history so the bots must have been missing for a while. --ais523 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the bot that is supposed to reset those templates every 12 hours? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Update This is kind of getting out of hand, several editors are now involved in reverting almost continuous blanking vandalism from multiple IP's on these templates and their talk pages. Does anyone think a rangeblock is needed, and if so, does anyone know how to do one? --barneca (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 151.49.0.0/16 for 3 hours. Let me know if IPs from that range continue vandalizing the templates after the rangeblock expires. Nakon 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have done the trick, thanks Nakon. --barneca (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Nakon - Every IP involved has had that string. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The user in question is engaged largely in trolling or baiting. [14] His contributions to the NIU incident consist mostly of comments designed to confront, and not to further the article. Also, when he's warned about that, he deletes the warning, and goes to the user page to further his baiting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your initial characterization of the seige at Waco could possibly have been better worded, true - but I agree, the IP is not justified in editing anyone's remarks as he/she has. I've warned the editor, and further reverting should result in a block of 31 hours or more. I am leaving shortly, and won't have a chance to monitor. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, blocked for 31 hours due to disruption and personal attacks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to point out that I balanced the media-based flippant comment by characterizing the siege as a disaster. It was bad news all around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He's got either a buddy or a sockpuppet removing the warnings on his page. This one (71.229.80.58) has a similar attitude to the blocked one, in his very short list of edits. [15] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted a note on 71.229.80.58's talk page advising him that deleting stuff from "other peoples" user pages was against the rules. As expected, he deleted it without comment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

talk User:Taulant23 saying "It's on his blood" referring to meMegistias (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

NOw we know who wrote these on my page and many more [16],

[17], [18] [19] [20] Megistias (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what is wrong with my blood and why i am an inferior race person or whatever.Should i kill myself now? jump of the window?Megistias (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask |Future Perfect to speak to Taulant about lack of civility in that post on FP's talkpage. Note however that all the anonymous edits you quote are from an ISP in Sweden, whereas Taulant23 claims to be in LA, California. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye.Megistias (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Um ... take a look at the (Main page featured) article, the penises aren't going away, I have no idea what to do, or where else to get the problem fixed. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still there... AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also on Ronald Koeman, Jan Wouters, Guus Hiddink, Eric Gerets, George Hardwick, Franz Binder, Sef Vergoossen, Aad de Mos, Bram Appel, Hans Kraay, Kees Rijvers, Thijs Libregts, and it shows up in old versions of the pages. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what happened? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Something about the PSV Eindhoven manager's template I think ... Neıl ☎ 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the only way so many articles were hit so quickly. Luckily, the template's been fixed and the user who did it has been blocked. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - see [21]. Fixed and the miscreant blocked by KurtShapedBox. I've protected the template. I thought someone was supposed to protect all the templates on main page articles. This was there for almost 30 minutes. Neıl ☎ 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have figured something like that. Thanks. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the text of the article to my userspace and have protected with cascading enabled. This should stop any more vandalism to the article today. Also, you may want to check out the MediaWiki:Bad image list. Nakon 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war in the main article of Religion in China between pro-Buddhist and anti non-Christian religions/pro-Christian and pro-Secularist Saimdusan. If you don't mind, block this article for a week at least! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt I protected the wrong version, but it is at least secured. For future reference, please see WP:RFPP for these sorts of requests. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Omg... I'm not pro Christian! Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of questionable images located at Cemal Gürsel. However, there is a particularly mean and nasty user (different IP addresses but it's one guy) who refuses to discuss in any sensible manner what exactly they are doing. We just need more eyes there. I pointed out some images to User:Rettetast, which may have issues. He listed some at WP:PUI. So far, we'd had 81.131.50.14, 213.122.42.250, and 71.184.9.231 go after them (and then the user pages in response). Attempts to communicate have been less than fruitful, to be nice. More eyes would be helpful, as the last one decided to respond by tagging legitimate images for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A recent AfD discussion on Christopher Knight has gotten out of hand, with one editor repeating wild accusations about myself and another editor not even involved with this discussion - said allegations were originally posted by a WP:SPA. These accusations are provided without any kind of proof, although the editor in question claims that they come from the subject of the article in question. Regardless of the basis of the argument between the subject of the article and the editor in question (a Google search provides no verifiable evidence), this posting clearly violates the rules on no personal attacks, and I ask that the offending material be removed by an administrator and SChadwell84 be warned about posting similar material in the future. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AN#Archtransit desysopped.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed link--Jac16888 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IP 70.185.238.178's sole contributions are slow motion vandalism. The IP has targeted Josh Cobb 2nd and 3rd over the last two days. ClueBot got his Legacy Five vandalism and then he moved to my own user page as I'd been the one to create the original re-directs. Have had no contact with this IP but am trying to avoid 3R and don't want to spent a week reverting clear nonsense. Apparently AIV is not the place as it's slow-mo vandalism. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped now but have left a warning & will monitor this IP's activity. Reverting clear vandalism does not invoke WP:3RR, so you're OK on that one.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP is at it again. My personal favorite, Jossi and ClueBot have been busy reverting it this evening. Just another heads up. Travellingcari (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New IP, same fascination with Josh Cobb. I requested semi-protection since there's nothing constructive. Thanks all for your help so far. Travellingcari (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is reverting material at Yi Ching claiming it is sourced.[22]. I have tried to explain on the talkpage[23] but he keeps reverting. He claims the source is at the end of the paragraph. When this is checked it does not support his inclusions. Grateful for help. Mccready (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a 3RR warning. Its a content dispute. Use WP:DR or if he continues file a report at the 3RR noticeboard.--Crossmr (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Crossmr, I cannot see why you have given me a 3RR warning and not Mccready. He has reverted exactly the same number of times as I have. Actually, though, neither of us has violated 3RR. However, if you read the talk page carefully, you will see that he has been acting alone and I have been working with other editors on the talk page.

Some background: I re-wrote the text in that paragraph [24] in accordance with long-standing concerns raised on the talk page here and here. The text I added contains the quotation from Needham that he likes but provides an online source and gives it context (per discussion on the talk page referenced above). My addition is a paraphrase of an article, which I cited. Mccready reverted me here, [25], but kept my citation, calling my addition "original research" (it is not, as I and another editor have explained to him on the talk page [26]. He reverted a second time [27], as did I [28]. I make that two reverts.

In addition, I reverted his insertion of a neutrality tag [29]. I did that because Mccready failed to give policy-based reasons for placement of the tag. I make that three reverts. However, following further discussion, I restored the tag [30]. Thus, no 3RR violation by my count. [But maybe I've lost my mind.] Sunray (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply because you performed 3 reverts in a 24 hour period on the same article. [31], [32], [33]. As for McCready I didn't notice that his first edit was to restore a tag that had been removed a few days prior so I didn't realize it was a revert.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said: three reverts. And, since in five years of editing, I've never broken the WP:3RR and Mccready has many times, I am still unsure why you gave only me a warning. Sunray (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't realize at the time that his first edit was a revert. Nor did I delve in to both of your extensive editing histories. For completenesses sake I've gone and left one on his talk page as well.--Crossmr (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Sunray (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[34]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I seldom edit en.wiki just to add interwiki to my local wiki .
Starting from some weeks ago, in most cases, I'm unable to edit en.wiki because my IP is blocked. The page says User:Ryulong blocked the entire range 79.6.0.0/16 for a very long time (a month or even more). I don't know if this is the standard procedure in en.wiki, but seems to me that blocking thousands people just to stop a single vandal it's not the best choice... the vandal probably changed his IP the same day you blocked him, and instead I'm a good (blocked) guy ;) Regards. --87.13.52.49 (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(relevant block log) Thanks for your message. I can understand the frustration. User:Ryulong is probably more able than I am to answer you, but apparently the vandal is especially annoying since the range has been blocked twice because of him. The good news is that if you register an account, you will be able to edit even when your IP falls within this range. I know this is not optimal, but there are other benefits from creating an account! ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer Lucasbfr. Well, I've seen the log, so the range is blocked since January 4! 65000 IPs for two month to stop a vandal who can change IP, and probably he can get also an unblocked IP (like I can). ::You're right, I should create an account, but it's not just my problem... in 2 months, how many people gets one of those 65000 IPs? --62.211.134.26 (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The range described is of an abusive user who I had been attempting to reconcile with until he continually exhausted my patience and the patience of other administrators from which I sought assistance. The user in question is Tenkasei Ryo (talk · contribs). I am terribly sorry for the inconvenience, but I have not been able to narrow down that block (a semi-full list of his activities is here), and as soon as the first range block expired, the user in question came back. As I stated in the block log, you can seek assistance from the Unblock Mailing list. And if you would like to prevent this from happening on March 4 (which may very well happen as this user is persistent, despite my attempts), any assistance you could provide me in stemming this abuse and helping me file an abuse report with your ISP concerning this individual's actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Over the past few minutes, myself and others have been reverting similar and somewhat disgusting vandalism from a variety of IPs to User talk:Jack Merridew and User:Doctorfluffy Here are the diffs:

• 00:58, 19 February 2008
• 01:04, 19 February 2008
• 01:51, 19 February 2008
• 01:53, 19 February 2008
• 01:58, 19 February 2008
• 02:09, 19 February 2008
• 02:11, 19 February 2008
• 02:13, 19 February 2008
• 02:13, 19 February 2008

Some of these contain threats. I think protections of the pages and blocks of the IPs may be helpful.

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like others took care of it. What is it with these new mean and nasty vandals? I remember when the worst a vandal would do is write like "poop" on your page. Ah, for the good old days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you've been here since October 2004 you must remember Mr. Treason (that's one of the few surviving archives). Always good for a chuckle, if you're easily amused. See you in Trenton.  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another 4chan sweep. Seriously guys: suicide. Consider it. HalfShadow (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is more on this at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/8x Ranges. I expect that it is Grawp related. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some facts about this user.

1. He/she is continuously removing non English sources from from the article International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence despite opposition from other editors.
2. He/she is blanking his/her talk page after anyone posts a message with a edit summary "welcomes". When he/she was told not to blank non-English sources in his/her talk page, he/she blankes talk page[35], then I undid his/her edit[36], he/she again blanked the page[37]. I again reverted[38], this time he used the edit summary "Kun üstünlüğü ile evrensel insan haklar"[39]. At present he/she is blocked by User:Nick for edit-warring. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's absolutely nothing wrong with blanking warning messages off a talk page - it is assumed that the user has therefore read them. It is how they act upon the warnings that is important. No admin action is required here. Black Kite 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

71.254.249.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) removed what appears to be sourced negative information about Kosovo's prime minister here. The edit summary included a legal threat that implied that the IP is associated with Thaçi's office. I checked the sources, reverted, and left a talk page warning. Thought I should report it here since this is a contentious topic. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. The IP has not re-asserted the legal threat since the warning, so a block MAY not be necessary at this point, but please keep an eye on it. If the problematic behavior continues after the warning has been given, let us know and we will escalate to the next step. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Payne2thamaxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Payne2thamax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This whole thing is one big mess. Tasc0 was a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor. My only two encounters with him ever were at recent AN3 reports. He was indefinitely blocked by Ronnotel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) following this death threat against Ronnotel's family. A quick glance at this evening's history of User talk:Tasc0 will show you what blew up, but basically, Payne2thamaxx made a trolling comment [40], Tasc0 responded in kind [41], Ronnotel blocked Tasc0 for the personal attack [42], the unblock was declined, and Tasc0 left the aforementioned parting shot prompting the indefblock.

Tasc0 has been in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx going back at least to October 2007 [43].

It seems at least possible that Payne2thamaxx and Same As It Ever Was are one in the same. Payne2thamaxx admits at [44] that he follows the edits of SAIEW. At [45], 12 days after registering, SAIEW is familiar with a dispute between Kemor (talk · contribs) and Payne2thamax from some time before.

Payne2thamax (of whom Payne2thamaxx is an admitted reincarnation) was indefblocked for making a death threat. Payne2thamaxx was indefblocked for harassment, then later (September 2007) unblocked after he promised to reform. I see no evidence whatsoever of reform and have therefore reinstated that block.

I have filed a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Payne2thamaxx to confirm whether Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs) is related.

For now, pending the results of that check, I would like to ask for a review my block of Payne2thamaxx. Thank you. --B (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx, he just wanted to make false accusations of me attacking another user, which I clearly did not do it. It was a NY IP address, that can be seen here.

I also would like to ask my e-mail feature back, I can't e-mail nobody. I don't think that's very fare.

I sent an e-mail to my blocking admin apologizing for the threats and seconds after, he blocked my e-mail feature. I did not harass him over the message and I didn't get any response.

I have to admint that I don't even knew who Payne2thamaxx was before this situation. Now that I see, it's clear he's a sock of Same As It Ever Was. B's proves this with the diffs.

Note, yes: this is my IP address. It's the only way I have to comunicate. Tasc0 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just check my edits and you people will see how vandal am I. I enjoy vandalazing Wikipedia so much. Tasc0 07:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.186.126 (talk)

Tasc0, I've responded to your remark at my talk page, too, but I'm going to make a couple of the same points here:

• I don't think anybody's saying that you were a vandal. In fact, User:B says the opposite, calling you "a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor". I would agree that I never saw any evidence of bad faith or vandalism from you; in fact, you did some good work fighting vandals.
• That said, if any editor - you, me, B, Jimbo, anybody - posts the kind of thing you did directed at User:Ronnotel, that user should expect to be blocked. That sort of comment is - and this shouldn't even need to be said - totally unacceptable, no matter what the circumstance.
• You should be aware that what you're doing here is technically abusive sock-puppetry, since you're evading your block. That said, I do agree that if you haven't abused the e-mail function, that should be restored. I won't do so unless I hear from Ronnotel, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results are now in - Alison ^❤ 10:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember thinking there was something fishy with Payne2thamaxx. His most recent contribs against Tasc0 came after long inactivity. I think 166.109.97.107, 166.109.0.247, and 166.109.97.168 (IPs which pretended to be Tasc0 on User talk:Real Compton G) could've been used by Payne2thamaxx. The IPs lead to New York, where he says he lives. And Tasc0, it's unfortunate this happened considering you're a productive editor. No matter what personal attacks you get, you have to keep your cool. I'd support an unblock, but first you really owe an apology to User:Ronnotel. SAIEW was also productive, but it's unfortunate he used abusive socks. I guess personal vendettas bring out the worst in people. Spellcast (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose an unblock. Maybe a lift on the e-mail block, so he can plead his case, but death / rape threats (directed at children!) do not warrant a drop of consideration from me, and they shouldn't from anyone else either. - Revolving Bugbear 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm willing to apologize, but how I'm supposed to do it when my talk page is salted and the e-mail feature it's disabled? I'm not asking for an immediately unblock. 190.172.139.246 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be an unblock if there's consensus for it. Considering most admins who've commented endorse the block, there's no consensus to unblock yet. Although you were productive for a year, those attacks put a permanent stain on your image. I mean, who would want to continue editing and be known as "the guy who made threats to a family" (even if it wasn't a literal threat)? If the comments were less severe, you'd probably be unblocked. Like B suggested on your talk page, you could appeal to arbcom. Spellcast (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can also email the unblock mailing list - email blocks only affect the on-wiki email feature. They do not prevent you from emailing addresses directly. Natalie (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point; his talk page has been unprotected, though, so this shouldn't be an issue in this case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a problem with the Khazars article. Although reliably sourced material, I believed a section to be irrelevant to the article as it had almost nothing to do with Khazars which I explained in Talk. I had agreement from several editors with one of them (User:Slrubinstein) deleting the section. It then became a very minor edit war reverting the sections deletion without comments. Instead of continuing the revert war I added a cited qualifier sentence to the section which started another revert war to get rid of that. I again gave up and took it to Talk which was suddenly flooded by editors supporting the revert, however none of these editors would explain relevance instead arguing the section had to stay for NPOV without any explanation of why despite my asking.

User:Jayjg, who had not taken part in this discussion then posted and in effect accused me of anti-Semitism despite the “debate” being up to this point relatively civil and gave "examples" of my edits that proved it. This accusation was extremely upsetting to me. The edits he gave as examples actually not only did not support his claim but several were even favourable to Israel so I asked for an apology, instead Jayjg replied and told me to accept the consensus that it was relevant (without any reason required for relevance).

I started a WP:ANI here to get an apology for the accusation but it was archived without resolution. I resubmitted the ANI but was told that as an Israel/Palestine article dispute was already being worked out in Arbcom the admins had put my case on hold pending a resolution to that Arbcom so that the result could give a guideline on how to handle my case. That Arbcom was resolved I believe but I let the apology go and hoped to get on with editing.

Then this edit was made (diff) on the Khazar page. Distortion of history is a particular pet peeve of mine so I admit it annoyed me so I reverted (diff) the edit and was in turn reverted by User:Briangotts (diff) with the comment that the sources given backed the new version. This started a minor edit war with myself, User: Schlcoh who also backed the old version and Briangotts. After Schlcoh also checked the sources (which were not online) he also found they actually supported the original version not the new one. The talk history for this is here and here.In the interests of peace (Briangotts would not accept his own sources wording) we let his version stand and I added a note to the sentence (diff) to qualify it which was apparently accepted by all involved.

Now Jayjg came along and deleted the note (diff) claiming in the summary it was OR and my own personal commentary. In fact the note was copy/pasted complete with cites from a section in another Wikipedia article History of the Jews in Turkey which I explained in my summary when adding the note. This has led to another edit war with Briangotts now trying to modify the note so it confirms more with his view. Obviously I’m not getting any respect as an editor and along with Jayjg’s previous accusation not being withdrawn and now with another vieled personal attack on my credibility in a summary he made, I fear I could end up permanently labelled as an anti semite.

I request this issue be resolved and Jayjg be made to apologise for his original accusation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLRoss (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a misuse of this board. How many times are you going to demand an apology (longwindedly)? El_C 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he demand an apology? Relata refero (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with requesting an apology, so long as he does so civilly - which he has. However, I have to concur that this is not the proper forum. If discussion with the editor directly has been unfruitful, then a user conduct Request for Comment would be in order. There is no relevant admin action to be requested here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, if you've seen RFC/U recently, you'll see why I think its broken. And why is there no relevant admin action? Are blocks for incivility no longer handed out? (Not that I'm saying I support one in this case, but why is discussing incivility considered irrelevant?) Relata refero (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I note, there is nothing wrong with requesting an apology, particularly when it is done as clearly and civilly as WLRoss has done here. However, I'm looking at the diff that generated this report, (here). Jayjg looks to have made what amounts to a good faith removal of material that he thought constituted personal commentary (which is, by definition, OR). Sure, he probably could have noted "Source doesn't support assertion" or "Synthesis" or some similar term, but he did not. The proper course would be for WLRoss to leave a note on Jayjg's talk saying "Hey, you reverted this, it isn't actually OR, I cite this source that says this, this source that says that, etc." If the edit summary was indeed a personal attack, then a note saying "Please refrain from personal attacks, as that is how I interpreted your edit summary at this diff" would be sufficient to convey WLRoss's displeasure. My concern was that the first impulse in this event was to run to ANI, which is unresonable. Jayjg was also not notified about this thread to defend himself, so I'm posting a note to his talk so informing him. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but see below. I am growing impatient with a growing culture that marks stuff like this "resolved" on sight and says things "nobody cares". Relata refero (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can just basically say "nobody cares". Seriously, ANI has had so many troll complaints about him it isn't funny any more. Will ^(talk) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it clear: this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving. That being said, if you look up and down this board and think about what tends to happen, there are usually dozens of complaints about civility, most of them against long-term, established users. Half of them are against the same small set of people - and we all know that Guy, Mikka and Betacommand top the list and Jay and a couple of others usually aren't too far behind. This system is broken, people, until somebody has the good sense and/or courage to stand up and say "Listen, I don't care if X deals with trolls on a regular basis, these last questions weren't trolling/insensitive/necessarily bad faith, and I'm blocking this established user for being grossly uncivil just as I would if he had 250 edits." Until that happens, the complaints will continue, and if you, Will, don't like it, try and fix the problem instead of complaining that it isn't funny. Relata refero (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The way to fix the problem is for more people to help damping down the trolls and fewer to spend time enabling them. In case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia is now the number one most important place to get your conspiracy theory or fringe view promoted. Look at the vitriol Judd Bagley unleashed when he was prevented from promoting his holy jihad against naked shorting. Look at freepers like Bryan from Palatine. Look at the level of disruption from JB196 because we wouldn't let him promote his book. And these people set up shop off-wiki and recruit allies, and undermine the people who protected Wikipedia against their flagrant and unambiguous abuse, because it is really really really important to them to get their POV on Wikipedia. Morgellons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Troubles. Israel-Palestine. This is not the good-natured laughter at the silly and inept wars over Gdanzig any more, there are genuine concerted campaigns to make Wikipedia not neutral on important subjects. So please OPEN YOUR EYES, people. We need to find a much much better and quicker way of dealing with obvious POV-pushers, because the old way does not work with the aggressive high-stakes POV-pushing we now get. Frankly I don't care who deals with it, but if nobody else is going to then it falls to the same burned-out surly old bastards every time. All hands to the pumps, lads, the ship's taking on water fast. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And you have no idea how strongly I agree with that. But the problem is that when rudeness becomes a weapon being used all round, it becomes very hard to figure out who's doing the right thing, and it becomes totally bloody impossible to get anyone else to weigh in. I disagree with you completely about Bagley/Weiss, though the problem was that if it hadn't been such a cesspool of incivility, other people might have waded in there and fixed it by now. I don't want to touch half the things Jay or IZak or Humus or Nishidani edit because they can be a little free with the insinuations. Somewhere on this page right now is part of an interminable war about issues which nobody outside certain parts of India would understand at the first go and nobody's touching that either because of the snappiness on display. Do you see the connection?

So yes, ArbCom needs to take a tougher line, no more blasted lets-all-get-along amnesties, and someone had better start handing out blocks to POV-pushers. And as for the rest of us who plug along in low-attention high-intensity warzones, it tends to undermine requests for civilized editing when the defenders of the blasted pedia are misbehaving in their own way.

Which is why I'll back Guy in particular, because at least he's an equal opportunity offender. What's Jay's excuse? Or Mikka's? Relata refero (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a weapon, not in any sense. It's a natural human response to frustration. I have the ability to assume good faith of the most unlikely candidate given the slightest glimmer of light; a lot of people right now seem intent on a Blitz-grade blackout in that respect. I suggest that every single question be brought back to the same question: what will improve the encyclopaedia. In many case,s the encyclopaedia will be best served by someone with patience and tact explaining to the problem editor what they need to do to satisfy the community that they can be a net positive - and not arguing for an unblock until the user has demonstrated that they understand the problem. I know I am out of step here, but I don't see blocking as that big a deal, it's just one of many ways we protect the project. Maybe the block messages need to be more explanatory. Sorry, we had to block you this is not a big deal, we just need to get your attention and be sure you're here for the right reasons. And, you know, a lot of people aren't. That's not to say they are evil, but they are in the wrong place. We'd do better if people from specific wikis - alt medicine, paranormal and so on - picked up these folks who are here to spread the word and helped them to learn their craft on another site where advocacy is OK, and in the mean time teach them that on WP it isn't. Hell, I think people know what I mean, and if they don't them I'm likely wasting my time explaining. Bottom line: if Mantanmoreland is Weiss, I want him gone (but I don't see it being proven right now). We don't need crusaders. Experts, yes, but not crusaders after WP:TRUTH. And we get far too bloody many of them. Oh, plus there's an inevitable tension between teenagers, and people who are parents of teenagers. I guess everyone knows which group I'm in.

Incidentally, Mikka's excuse is probably User:Bonaparte, or at least in part. Mikka is a surly old bastard like me, but fundamentally sound and a decent fellow. Try talking to him some time. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think that's fair enough, though I maintain you'd get a lot more done if you could keep your temper in check about 25% more. And to refocus this thread ever so slightly, I will make excuses for you or for Dab or even for Squeakbox, because all of you are indeed trying to keep the cruft out. Unfortunately, however, when they ask us all to make a list of those whose agenda is keeping WP clean of that stuff, Jay, inspite of the laurels with which this community in its wisdom has covered him, will not be on most people's top 100 list. (To put it as mildly and unexcitingly as possible.) So he doesn't get cut the same slack, even if some deserve it. Relata refero (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know User:WLRoss's work, but I do know Jay's, and there are reasons beyond troll vendettas that his name comes up so often on AN/I boards, dispute resolution fora, RfArbs, and so on, and why so many intelligent, erudite, good-faith editors simply despair of trying to collaborate meaningfully with him. He does not approach core content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR (the apparent locus of the present dispute) as goods in themselves, as higher principles, as guides to editorial self-discipline – the way, say, an ideal Supreme Court judge would approach constitutional law. Rather he approaches them the way a lawyer approaches legal precedent, as a means to a frankly partisan end, as rhetorical tools useful for retaining content he agrees with and expunging content he disagrees with, and if need be, as sharp weapons to be used against rival editors. He would no more submit his own work to the principles he cites against the work of others than he would grab hold of a scimitar by the blade end instead of the handle. Take for example his two back-to-back interventions today, on Benny Morris and Israel Shahak, the latter being a vociferous critic of Israeli policies, the former an equally vociferous advocate of same. The policy issue in both cases is identical – WP:BLP, and how it specifically requires especially good sources for negative material about living persons. Look at the Benny Morris edit and its corresponding talk-page justification: Jay removes the following paragraph –

According to Ilan Pappé, Morris is biased in his use of sources (he uses mainly Israeli sources), and is contemptuous of Arabs and Arabic sources, which Morris, furthermore, cannot read. Pappé accused Morris of having racist views about the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular[11]. He also attributes Morris's work, critical and historical, to a wish to be popular in mainstream Zionist circles.

– on the grounds that the source, Electronicintifada, does not meet the BLP clause for sources of negative commentary. Jay goes on to delete a better-written (and more temperate) version of the same material from Ilan Pappé, where its context was clearer: it's a response to Morris's own vociferous attack on Pappé, which begins, '"Unfortunately much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication."' Jay leaves the Morris attack and deletes the Pappé attack, citing BLP. Now look at Jay's edit over on Israel Shahak, where he restores the following paragraph, which had been removed citing the same BLP clause:

According to Paul Bogdanor, Shahak "regaled his audience with a stream of outrageous libels, ludicrous fabrications, and transparent hoaxes. As each successive allegation was exposed and discredited, he would simply proceed to a new invention."

– which is cited to FrontPageMagazine (!). On the talk page, Jay explains that this attack on Shahak – which is unprovoked (i.e. not a rebuttal to a Shahak attack on Bogdanor) and considerably more incendiary and potentially libelous – "seems well and reliably enough sourced." Front Page F'ing Magazine, are you kidding me? Jay's edit also restores the following sentence – "Shahak's works also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers, and his articles and the full texts of his works can be found on websites such as Radio Islam, Bible Believers, Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press" – which is sourced to CAMERA, WorldNetDaily, and some other junk.

Now, whatever one may think of Shahak, Pappé, and Morris, it should be clear that for Jay, WP:BLP represents a strategic weapon and not an editorial principle. Edits like this are the meat and potatoes of his work here, and quite naturally they infuriate less powerful – but more intellectually serious – Wikipedians and would-be collaborators.--G-Dett (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, G-Dett, but... Electronicintifada calls itself "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction". Can we really take that as a neutral sources of information? As to Front Page Magazine, It hardly seems little better than a Right Wing political opinion blog, and thus probably no better. Both sections should be removed per BLP and the RS writings on the uses of Blogs. I would like to see Jayjg explain why one source is so much better than the other. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I do not personally think ElectronicIntifada, CAMERA, or WorldNetDaily should be used as sources for potentially defamatory material. Removal of information cited to EI citing BLP is absolutely justifiable. In the present context – where the quote is one scholar's rebuttal to criticism from another, and both criticisms are comparably heated/negative, and the initial criticism is included in the article – then you could also make a case for its retention. Removal would be justified by a very firm, strict application of BLP, and one could reasonably expect the removing editor to apply an equally firm hand elsewhere. In this case, Jay's firm hand is waving its middle finger at his interlocutors, as is clear from his adjacent edits to the other articles.

What in the world does WP:BLP have to do with Israel Shahak, who is dead? Nandesuka (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

EI is doubtless a partisan source, somewhat like CAMERA, but it isn't an outright laughable source like FrontPageMagazine or WorldNetDaily. It's run by Ali Abunimah, a relatively respected writer if not quite an academic heavy-hitter, and it's a sort of clearing-house for pro-Palestinian articles of all kinds, many from other sources. And in this case, remember, the source is Pappé himself, and his response to a potentially defamatory criticism.

Incidentally, where do you find EI describing itself as "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction"? I can find only reference to EI in those terms, by an obscure blogger unaffiliated with EI. Is this what you're referring to? At any rate, here is what EI's site mission statement says: "The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective. EI is the leading Palestinian portal for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its depiction in the media."--G-Dett (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's how the site lists itself on Google. Check it out. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Instruction, Thuranx.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrmm, so it is. Still not much better, really. It's still just as clearly a biased site and source, and the play on words doesn't do much to distance it from the more violent biases of its readership. I still say both should go. ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty offensive statement, ThuranX, but at least we are agreed that both should go.--G-Dett (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving." This type of comment is exactly why I ask for an apology. Although I accept that writers GF opinion I'm still automatically labelled by the original accusation. Why am I not a reliable complainant? I've never been blocked for my actions, this is the first time I've lodged a complaint and I've never had problems with any other users or on any other articles despite averaging far more than 100 edits a month. And why does edit warring David Irving justify a personal attack? Has anyone even looked to see what was edit warred there? Although it was a year ago I think it was about his credibility on subjects not involving Jews which had nothing to do with Irvings anti semitism. Before this I have had (as far as I can recall) only one dispute with Jayjg. When I first started editing WP I deleted a dead reference in the Hamas article which he reverted. I asked him why and he told me policy allows dead links because they worked when first used. This led to me being ridiculed by other editors when I used that same explanation later for replacing a dead link in another article (one was MONGO so if you know him you know he doesn't beat around the bush when giving an opinion on someone). This incident is why I did't deal with Jayjg again after his first refusal to apologise. To address other points brought up that this ANI is not appropriate I would also point out that I was originally told to lodge the complaint here. It was archived twice on the basis that it would be dealt with later. I never informed Jayjg of this ANI as I posted it at 3am and forgot so i apologise for that (I did however inform him of the previous ANI and he chose not to take part). I also apologise for being "longwinded". Not being experienced with complaining I have no idea how much detail is required. It was Jayjg's comment that reminded me to bring it up again and the ANI is not actually for that comment, it's for the original unjustified personal attack. I believe this ANI is more important than me, too many editors are getting away with too much because they have a high profile or a large group of friends. Unless they are made to be responsible for their actions everyone suffers. Wayne (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. Relata refero (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved, because it is not at all clear why this is an issue for AN/I. As near as I can tell, this is a dispute over content and a series of unfortunate user interactions. I suggest that you and JayJg try to work things out civilly on a talk page or, failing that, seek dispute resolution via mediation or an RFC. Nandesuka (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No need for an apology Relata refero. You are entitled to your opinion and I was using the quote as an example of what damage Jayjg's claim could have. Wayne (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misuse the noticeboard in the future. It is reserved for actual, ongoing incidents, ones that are in need of administrative attention. Use dispute resolution. Thanks. El_C 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Misuse"? Why was this not put forward the first or second time when it could have saved wasting so many peoples time. Twice I have been told to wait and something would be done. I was never informed this was the wrong place for it.
This is not a case of someone calling another editor an idiot but of labelling an editor with what is probably one of the most offensive offences possible with no legitimate basis for such a claim. It has nothing to do with a content dispute as Jayjg took no part in it other than to use it as an opportunity to malign another editor. Working things out with Jayjg is out of the question as in my past dealing with him he lied, showed bias and displayed an inability to "work things out". Also, in three ANI's lodged he has declined to comment or defend himself.
I apologise for sounding a little annoyed but now that I’m being accused of misusing the forum it is hard to assume that this is not just another case of protecting Jayjg from the consequences of his actions. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User Cherso made these edits on Feb 17, 2008, in a timespan of 30 minutes. I find that these edits weren't made in good faith:
19:48, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
[46] 'Today (february 17, 2008) for the first time since WWII a piece of Yugoslavia breaks away from the Slav control!! KOSOVO IS INDEPENDENT ! I hope soon other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow....may be even my CHERSO, or Istria or Zara....who knows" ??????? On his userpage. Inflammatory statement. Territorial expansionism.
20:11, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
[47]. "Independence of Kosovo...... what a beautiful day for the non-slav (and even Italian) Irredentism!)". ????? Comment on of the edit on the article Italia irredenta. Glorifying of irredentism ??? Non-Slav - what does this mean, that every cr*p is can be good unless it comes from Slavs?? Are we going to tolerate this?
20:24, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
[48]. "! BTW, "Enjoy" the independence of Kosovo! Finally, the Slavs have lost some territories in ex-Yugoslavia since WWII and withdraw from Albanian Kosovo.....As you can see, the legacy of your Tito (with his ethnic cleansing) is starting to disappear...""??? On my talkpage. With this one he obviously tried to taunt me. That's inflammatory behaviour.
Am I wrong or he has bad attitudes towards Slavs? Please, make conclusions for yourselves what kinds of attitudes are these. From my experiences with him, this looks like anti-Slav attitude.
As you see, he gradually shows that ("...breaks away from Slav control... I hope other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow", "beautiful day for non-Slav irredentism", "finally, the Slavs have lost some territories????????????").
These are heavily inflammatory edits and even worse. Something must be done. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're opposed to people abusing their Wikipedia user pages to make divisive political statements that have nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia, then why does your own user page say "This user is against the joining of Croatia to the EU" ? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because this is how nationalist conflicts work on Wikipedia. You continue to call the kettle black, hoping that someone will grab the bait and block the opposite party of the dispute. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My favorite is always when I end up having to block the original poster because they were the one initiating things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Finlay, EconomicsGuy, Ricky81682.
It wasn't me who wrote those messages, but Cherso. He messed up, not me. He may be my opponent or not, but he did write that. Don't draw the attention away.
Don't equalize my opposing to joining of my country to a certain economic union, with the statement that Cherso wrote "finally, the Slavs have lost some territories" [49].
It's Cherso that wrote that things. Do you get it? Take a look better. These kind of messages aren't funny.
You weren't involved in the case before, please don't disrupt the flow of admin's procedure. Please, don't draw the attention away from the original problem. That's unconstructive. It's sad to see that none of you gave any criticism towards the Cherso's inflammatory messages.
In order to avoid crowding of this page, I'll talk with you on your talkpages.
Still, I'll remind you: how would you feel if you have seen the message like "finally, (your nation/country) have lost some territories". These kind of messages are not constructive, but disruptive and inflammatory.
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No you are both in the wrong, you more so for attempting to get someone else banned fro doing something that you yourself were doing. Viridae^Talk 08:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ln of x (talk · contribs) is a particularly abusive sockpuppeteer. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ln of x and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ln of x. The user has a long history of abuse stretching back more than six months. The user is continuing to set up sockpuppet accounts as recently as a few minutes ago, with Entershikarirules (talk · contribs) and Ilovepunk (talk · contribs). The vandalism is always similar to this, describing someone as cute and cuddly. I seriously doubt given the long history of abuse that any admin would unblock this user; as a result, they are defacto banned already. Let's make that official. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What benefit is there to "make that official" besides bureaucracy for its own sake? The edits are pure vandalism, it's not like anyone's going to suggest not reverting them. —Random832 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A ban is virtually impossible to overturn, an indef block isn't. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I could overturn the ban simply by unblocking - that is the definition of a community ban. Debate exists for cases which have some degree of ambiguity; this case is completely unambiguous. Post such blocks for review if you like, but there's no need to do more than that. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We can add the user to the list of banned users, and add a ban notice to the user page. --Yamla (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm going to oppose this in principle as there is absolutely no reason to hold an in-depth community ban discussion for a blatant vandal. WP:DENY, WP:RBI, etc. —Random832 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, any listing for this "user" belongs on WP:LTA, not WP:BANNED. —Random832 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Why on earth bother? Ln of X is a blatant vandal, nobody will ever unblock them. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support ban I have encountered this vandal multiple times before, have blocked several of their socks, and have been trolled by them at least once. They have caused nothing but disruption to Yamla, to various other users, and numerous articles. I think a ban is appropriate here. Acalamari 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting a stop to this before we waste any more time on process for its own sake. —Random832 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation: A community ban is _defined_ as "no admin is willing to unblock" - the discussion/process stuff came later. By any reasonable definition, this "user" (if you can call him a user) is already banned. So, this whole exercise is pointless. We can revisit this if his status as being banned is ever disputed (but it's unlikely it will be). —Random832 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the following:

• (Creating deletion discussion page for List of sidekicks. (TW))

As you can see, this new AfD is written right over an older already closed AfD, i.e. instead of creating a new discussion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (3rd nomination). I'm not sure if it should just be reverted back to the closed version and a note left to the nominator that he has to start a new page or how we handle these sorts of things. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I would recommend reverting and leaving a detailed note with the nominator about how to nominate an article for the second time. Just remember to WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated this as every fiction has a sidekick, plus I feel that the list is too indiscriminate and will never be completed otherwise it will become cluttered. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that you nominated the article, it is that it is not properly done. We do not write new nominations over old nominations. You have to create a new page with (3rd nomination) in the title. You should create that page, move all the comments from DGG, Colonel Warden, etc. to the new page and then revert the current page back to the closed version. Again, the AfD was not properly formatted, which could just be a problem with Twinkle. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the discussion-to-date (with reference to the source in the edit history) to a new 3rd-nomination page, reverted the 2nd nomination page to the prior discussion, and corrected the transclusion link on the current day's log. I think that puts things right for this to go forward. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a bug in Twinkle. I've previously reported it, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Twinkle#TW-B-0099_.28open.29. Jfire (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Am I missing something here? This article was deleted by consensus after its second nomination. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (2nd nomination)). The article List of sidekicksthen shows up again, by a spa, a few days ago without any of the history, meaning a copy paste from an off-wiki site most likely, (according to my magic admin screens, 553 deleted edits are not visible - doesn't that constitute a GFDL violation??) This should be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material after discussion at AfD (G4). Anyone object to a G4 deletion? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea that would be a GFDL violation and shouldve been a db-repost. If this AfD somehow resolves as a keep, we'll need to do a history merge to resolve the GFDL issues. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Given it was created with "List of sidekicks PDF Print E-mail" as part of the article, it is very likely a copy/paste from elsewhere. I'd agree with a G4 speedy. Even putting aside the GFDL violation, this should have gone to Deletion Review first. Resolute 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been deleted, and the AfD has been closed. Natalie (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

We have a peculiar case here of a red-link user who started on the 17th and seems to know his way around wikipedia very well. Of course, he could have edited under an IP address for a year. But his approach seems oddly familiar. Be that as it may, his edits, confined to TAOS and Gidget so far [51] are based on the peculiar notion that a published book is not a verifiable source. Specifically, he's saying that he can delete any opinion given by author Gary Grossman on the grounds that "he's biased and is trying to sell books". [52] According to this user's theory, no published book (or website, presumably) about a subject is a usable source. Taking that to the extreme, that would clobber most of wikipedia. In talking with an admin about this, he pointed out that a blanket accusation that an author is biased is a very serious charge and could get someone in big trouble. What's up with this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, I'm not arguing about specific POV complaints (like uncited claims by editors which find their way into articles), I'm arguing about his assertion that the author of a book can't be cited for his analysis and conclusions about the topic he's writing about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered the same user and share Baseball Bugs' concerns. User:Dorftrottel 22:51, February 19, 2008

The red-link user lifted the List of Adventures of Superman episodes directly from a wikipedi-banned website called tvrage. That's funny, considering he was lecturing me on copyright violation for quoting the series spoken intro. Something is fishy here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I've noticed similar: Here he removed external links, saying "WikiP doesn't cite TV.com and IMDb as External links". But here, he added links to those same pages as references in another article. Also, most users don't know about the concept of undue weight on their third day of editing.[53] User:Dorftrottel 00:20, February 20, 2008

Now that I've turned him in here, and notified him about it, he's hurriedly paraphrasing the descriptions. I advised him that I will be preparing a suspected sockpuppet report, on the grounds that he knows way too much about wikipedia for a guy who just started 2 days ago and immediately started in on revamping the Superman and Gidget articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than reacting indignantly at being notified, he reacted with another comment that seems a newbie would be unlikely to make. [54] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And copping a flippant and un-newbie like attitude when I asked him to explain himself. [55] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued mockery of legitimate questions and issues raised [56] suggests the user is engaging in an elaborate form of trolling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sure quacks right. ThuranX (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, obvious case. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruddigger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting shock images into common templates (such as Template:Cleanup-rewrite, here.) Anyone willing to block without warning? This is a fairly serious form of disruption, and should not be tolerated at all, since the vandalism affected a huge number of pages. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind: [57]. Silly rabbit (talk)

WP:AIV would probably be the fastest way to stop this next time. John Reaves 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked User:DILD0Z for an inappropriate user name. Please let me know if I was over zealous. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks straightforwards and correct to me. The use of l33tsp33k to try and avoid our username restrictions is a non-starter... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Looking at his few contributions, looks like a joker but is not prevented from contributing useful content under another username. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All is well here. Tiptoety ^talk 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reporting a violation of this injunction: [58], it clearly states that "no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character", however, this article [59] has been redirected. This article was also under review by MedCom. It was made by an anonymous user, however, as it's in violation of the injunction, can the edit please be reverted? Steve Crossin (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just do it :) --Haemo (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Am I authorised to? I also checked their talk page [60] and they have a history of malicious edits. Can a block possibly be enforced? Steve Crossin (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are able to revert action that you seem to constitute vandalism or harm the project. On the topic of a block, the user needs to be properly warned before a block can be issued. Tiptoety ^talk 04:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• The user seems to have been warned several times over the editing of these 24 articles, see their talk page. And they have been banned before, as well. Regarding this template [61], does it also extend to articles that have been tagged for merging, that are also subject to the injunction? There are some users who have declared they will persist with the merging, regardless of the injunction.

Am I allowed to 'warn' them? Make them aware that the articles are subject to an injunction. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, the warnings where from almost a year ago, along with the block. And yes, any user operating in good faith may warn a user for a malicious edit. Tiptoety ^talk 05:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I reverted the edit, and I will warn them about the edit. No further action is necessary, thank you. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised Sphantom (talk · contribs) wasn't blocked for template and page move vandalism back in December. I'd like some opinions on their recent contributions combined with their vandalism beginnings. (I'm still trying to make some connections, but I also believe this account's owner is related to the template vandalism that we've seen the last couple of days. I'm hoping to have enough time to put together a checkuser report this afternoon if needed.) --Onorem♠Dil 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I should probably think an block of some length, especially for this. Rudget. 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be a racist as well, judging by the picture of Hitler and the bordering swastikas. This seems to connect with his recent comment on the talk page Rt. brought up. This would not only be an improper solution to a proposal, it would be racist, and unencyclopedic (the article is about the term, not the race). So, he's a definite POV pusher. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with a block for disruption. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How long for? Indef? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked for one week. No problem with an indef though. Moving Jon Stewart to Jon Jewart, combined with the link from Rudget, are enough for me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've changed it to indef. Racism, pagemoves and obviously not here to contribute. Black Kite 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't expect that to go so smoothly. Thanks for the input/action. --Onorem♠Dil 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sbkbg (talk · contribs) has nominated Raveau, an article which I created, for deletion in retaliation for my having created an AfD on his non-notable (and COI) radio program. I have no problem with the nomination, since it's a real place and real places get kept at AfD, but he didn't do it properly. I'm not going to fix his nomination for him, but if somebody would either fix it or revert it, I'd appreciate it. Corvus cornix_talk 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be listed at AFD, so the notice has been removed. Rudget. 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of leaving a comment on the user's talk page warning them not to engage in bad faith AFDs, as it's trolling. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread is being considered for deletion by those guilty of discriminatory anti-dramatism.

No, not that sort of drama. Just a userbox for all you guys.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 03:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooooooooooooooooooooh that one's for me! Thanks :) Merkinsmum 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Me plz. Will ^(talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The real question is, can we put this on other users' pages as needed? :) MastCell ^Talk 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Adding it to my userpage now :-) Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That is just awesome. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-D

Agreed. To my subpage! Malinaccier (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, I was looking for the right place to advertise my userboxes. Now I know that it's Wikipedia:ANI 72.193.12.47 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me!

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you make one for the opposite point of view as well?  :) Antandrus (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean for people who AREN'T tired of lieking Mudkipz?? Didn't know there WAS such a point of view! >: Gladys J Cortez 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is sad, but I can see a range of T-shirts being made lol Merkinsmum 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• This userbox should immediately be deleted as it is extremely offensive. I suffer from lovidus exemptulus, a rare syndrome denying one the emotion of love, and am therefore unable to love, like, or know the wikidrama. This is both offensive personally and generally, and is considered racist since I am not only of race, but of a disabled race. Failure to immediately delete this template will result not only in a TfD, MfD of the TfD, AN/I thread, MfD of the AN/I thread, RfC, MfD for the RfC, etc., and an MfD for the etc. Let us please not turn this into one drawn out wikidrama and just stop the nonsense now; please delete this dreadful userbox to avoid any further wikidrama. --12 Noon ^2¢ 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rofl! I find that the alternate statement, 'ignore all dramas' is deeply offensive to me, because I have a recognised disability, a personality disorder that leads me to be dramatic and call endless attention to myself (I believe there to be an epidemic of it on wiki and ANI) as such, to ignore all dramas would be to ignore me and my deepest needs, and be discrimination on grounds of disability. This disability has also been found to be genetic and hereditary and yes, racial, I am shocked at the high levels of anti-dramaism I see on wiki, all other racism seems to be fought to some extent, but it's fashionable for people to say that the dramatic, should be ignored and even killed. Shocking. I may have to write to that friendly journalist at The Register. Merkinsmum 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai has been leaving rude remarks and accusing of be a sockpuppet at my talk page. This was after a Wikiquette alert was filed by User:Hux. I proceeded to become a mediator in the situation by leaving calm warnings at both of their talk pages. User:Cheeser1 suggested bringing the incident here. Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have not, nor will I, endorse either side of this dispute. I simply suggested that since SISKYWARN wanted administrator attention, and was in a dispute with an administrator, that he bring his complaints here. The WQA isn't the place to hash out issues that (at least in his opinion) require admin-on-admin intervention. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to stay neutral initially, but when User:Mikkalai left the messages on my talk page, I stated that on the WQA page and left the user a kind warning. Also at that point, I asked for administrator intervention. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As Southern Illinois SKYWARN says, I was the one who opened up the original WQA. When I first saw that this ANI had been opened, I was going to post to say that I didn't think it was necessary at this point. However, having seen Mikkalai's reaction to that WQA (which I described here), I concede that this ANI probably is necessary after all. Hopefully we can resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction. I really hope it doesn't escalate any further. :( -- Hux (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikka knows what he's doing, and he's (wisely) decided to take a break until things cool down. I think you guys got what you wanted. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think you're right at all. His response to this ANI and the original WQA is indicated by what he posted to his user and talk pages: "Taking a break until wikilawyers move onto other victims. Have fun with cangaroo courts." This is not the actions of a person who recognizes that he is in any way at fault. As such, there is every reason to believe that if this just silently blows over he will continue attacking people and abusing WP:OWN. -- Hux (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to stay cool, but I find the above response outrageous. I was initially a mediator in this case. I left calm warnings on Mikka's talk page, and he responded by attacking me on my talk page. His comments are illustrated here. He accuses me of being a sockpuppet, and calls WQA "Cangaroo courts". Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring to repeatedly add templated warnings to the Talk page of an admin (after he has acknowledged the templated warnings by removing them from his Talk page) is not the way to go about winning friends and influencing people. Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no edit warring here. Southern Illinois SKYWARN left two separate warnings on Mikkalai's talk page and Mikkalai reverted them both (as he's entitled to do, although imo doing so while the dispute is ongoing tends to look pretty bad, as if the reverter is trying to hide something). But the more important issue is the incivility and the WP:OWN stuff. Perhaps you could comment on that? (Details at the WQA link above, if you need them.) - Hux (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I left two warnings on Mikkah's talk page (one of them for ownership, the other for personal attacks). I added my own words to the first warning in addition to the template. I believe that warnings should be left on talk pages unless they have been rectified in some way so other editors are aware of infractions. If anyone has a problem, please say so, but also back up your argument. Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You may believe that, but Wikipedia:USER#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings disagrees. Corvus cornix_talk 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I had never seen that essay. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to repeat that I was initially an outside mediator in this case. I knew that I should have never gotten involved with dispute resolution even though it usually does not turn out like this. Also note that this was my first mediation ever. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai has had trouble with civility before. Given the number of long-term users who are having real trouble with civility, I'm beginning to think our current policy on this is completely broken. Relata refero (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. --Iamunknown 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero: I found this comment of yours further down the current page quite eye-opening (emphasis mine):

if you look up and down this board and think about what tends to happen, there are usually dozens of complaints about civility, most of them against long-term, established users. Half of them are against the same small set of people - and we all know that Guy, Mikka and Betacommand top the list and Jay and a couple of others usually aren't too far behind. This system is broken, people, until somebody has the good sense and/or courage to stand up and say "Listen, I don't care if X deals with trolls on a regular basis, these last questions weren't trolling/insensitive/necessarily bad faith, and I'm blocking this established user for being grossly uncivil just as I would if he had 250 edits."

I don't tend to pay much attention to this or similar pages, so I'm not well aware of the history, but if what you imply is true - that long-term established users are basically being allowed to get away with being grossly uncivil because they're long-term, established users then that's a big problem. It goes dead against the whole point of Wikipedia as a fair, welcoming place for people to contribute, and is inevitably going to make large amounts of users lose all respect for the disciplinary processes that have developed here as a means to make the site a better place. That can't possibly be a good thing. -- Hux (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it might be a case of "Yeah, we know these people tend to mouth off and treat people badly, but they also do a lot of really great stuff on the wiki - if we alienate them by making them play by the rules, we'll lose their services." I'm not saying I condone this line of thinking, but if it happens to be the line of thinking, I can sorta understand it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside comment: I left a message on the WQA page as well, explaining that when a user removes warnings from his own talk page, it's taken as a sign that he has read and acknowledges the warnings (even if, in fact, he hasn't) - the warnings are acknowledged for purposes of admin action. However, with all due respect, I'm disappointed with the initial responses to this report. I found the initial response of "Mikkalai has (wisely) decided to take a break" to be overly trivial, and the further responses of "edit warring on Mikkalai's talk page" to be rather dismissive of the original complaint. It came across as justifying Mikkalai's actions by way of pointing out how Hux's/Skywarn's actions were less than perfect.

I don't believe it's right to condone an admin breaking established policies under any circumstances without consensus, and I further do not believe it's right to dismiss a user's complaints about an admin's actions via procedural technicalities. And, more personally, I agree with Skywarn's assessment that Mikkalai's "kangaroo court" comment about WQA indicates a disdain for WP's dispute resolution process and an unwillingness to acknowledge or change his behavior. I've reviewed some of Mikkalai's edit history and agree that his behavior has been out of line, especially for an admin. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, any comments from the admins who originally looked at this report? This is now the third time I've commented on a situation like this, with the intent of requesting discussion from other admins, and received no response (other than from other people who are basically already on the same side). I really would like to see an end to this seemingly common practice of sweeping stuff under the carpet - I realize you're busy with other incidents as well, but I'd sincerely like to start working toward a consensus on rectifying some pretty serious issues. My vested interest in this, of course, is to protect my own credibility as an admin of this fine project. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See past discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Lilkunta requests unblock, promises better behavior.

Lilkunta (talk · contribs) has e-mailed me (directly, not via Wikipedia e-mail) asking for additional assistance. From the past AN/I discussion (a little less than a month ago) it was discussed why Lilkunta was blocked, but little to no discussion regarding a trial unblock. Behavior was the main reason, not the font mess, but even with that I would like to ask that this situation be reviewed and a trail unblock be granted. Given that blocking, let alone indefinite blocking, is a last resort, I believe a trail unblock after almost nine months is a reasonable request. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't give them another try, but if the behavior starts up again it will have the same result. DarthGriz98 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So would anyone have any objections to a trial unblock? -- Ned Scott 03:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

66.174.79.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Special:Linksearch/*.blackhistorydaily.com. Do we care? Guy (Help!) 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For context, the BBC's linked, and also the NYT and the Globe and Mail. I don't think we need any more North American ones.

About a single user adding it to all those months, yes, assume its spamming. Relata refero (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also sympatico.ca, whihc I think is unnecessary - the others at least attempt to be global in scope; do we need "January 1 in Uzbekistan" style external links added for every country and every date? I'd say not. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• See also 66.174.79.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There might be some more IPs. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Bradhemmings (talk · contribs). Suggest blacklisting the site. • Anakin ^(talk) 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I need some newbie admin advice on my first potential block for incivility rather than simple vandalism. Yesterday, User:Hammerandclaw was deleting portions of user talk pages at User talk:Tony Sidaway and User talk:Carcharoth, in theory due to some issue with his broadband service. User:Nh.jg‎ warned him about this, and Hammerandclaw reacted poorly, being rather uncivil on User talk:Nh.jg, vandalizing User:Carcharoth, and claiming that User:Nh.jg has made now-deleted racist comments on someone's talk page. I've looked, admittedly not at every single edit, and have found nothing of the sort. I noticed this while watching recent changes, and left a message asking him to stop, and that further disruption would be met with a block. His reply to me wasn't very civil, but I don't care. He later emailed me, explaining the supposed technical difficulties, and I replied on his talk page. Meanwhile, Nh.jg had evidently had enough, and has retired. Hammerandclaw's response was this: [62]. My questions:

• That final hahahahahaha seems over the top after his warning yesterday, and I consider it worth a 24 hr block. Yes? No?
• I'm unclear whether, due to being the subject of some of his incivility, I've somehow become "involved", and in a bad position to issue a block. I don't think so, but better safe than sorry.
• I'm unclear on whether, in addition, to somehow push for a retraction (or I suppose, verification) of his comments about Nh.jg before lifting the block, but that seems heavy-handed. Still, at this point he appears to have driven someone off the project.

Any and all advice appreciated. I will notify him of this thread. --barneca (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I refuse to accept this, User: Nh.jg made several racist comments on the user page of an IP user, and has shown poor conduct towards me in an e-mail he sent, hugely insulting. There is no way you can block me without blocking him, but then he's retired, too scared to face the consequences for his actions, because he knows he will be blocked. Honestly check his edits. It's a disgrace.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not an admin, but I suggest based on what you say above, barneca, including a "hahaha.." posted about 4 hours ago on the page of a retired user, that a 24 hour block would be reasonable. On the other hand, without having read every word of your comments on the user's talk page, perhaps your previous warning had not been sufficiently strongly worded, and perhaps the user has stopped the incivilities after receiving notice of the existence of this AN/I thread, so unless you consider some of the subsequent remarks by the user to still be sufficiently out of line to warrant blocking, (some of them look rather angry; I'd have to study the context) perhaps it may also be reasonable not to block at this time but to keep an eye on the user and block if they do anything else out of line. I would suggest choosing a length of time for the block and letting the block expire after that length of time, or possibly earlier if the user shows remorse etc.; not blocking indefinitely until a specific behaviour is exhibited. I believe that's the usual procedure and that this is not an unusual case. Re when you start to count as being involved: difficult to say, but people should not be allowed to disqualify admins by swearing at them. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)"Remorse" doesn't matter - refraining from unconstructive behaviour does. And blocks are not punitive, they're to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. If there were any evidence that Hammerandclaw's (apparently) completely spurious allegations had caused Nh.jg to retire then I would say an immediate block would be warranted, however there isn't. I'd agree that keeping a close eye on Hammerandclaw's interations with other editors would be good, with the possibility of mandatory mentoring if incivility of this nature continues. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I looked at NH.jg's edits and failed to see any evidence whatsoever of what you claim. Diffs, please. I can, however, see a good deal of evidence that you have but a passing familiarity with WP:CIV (diffs above, by Barneca) Tonywalton ^Talk 14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reply to Hammerandclaw: Incivilities against yourself are not an excuse for incivilities you commit. (I.e. "two wrongs don't make a right.") You might want to provide diff links here, showing the alleged incivilities by the other user; but that would probably be pointless anyway, since as I said they would not be an excuse for your behaviour, and I doubt anybody is going to block a retired user. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, buddy, I didn't swear at him did I? No, I didn't. Nh.jg's retirement is completely fake, he's just operating under sockpuppets, and will continue his racism in no time at all. Besides you can't do squat, you have no more powers that I do, so if yoou think I'm gonna keel to you...get real.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With the additional clue that this "racist comment" was on an IP talk page, I've now gone to the trouble of reviewed every single one of hn.jg's contribs to IP talk pages, and all of them are simple standardized templates. This is a blatantly false allegation, and I can't imagine how it could be a good faith mistake. The civility is a concern, but I find nasty allegations of racism completely beyond acceptable behavior. 24 hours now seems quite short, especially considering the fact that the false allegations are continuing to be made. --barneca (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're gonna block me are you? I've had it with you Barneca, go get a job, and help out your racist buddy boy.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Completely unacceptable. Black Kite 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Black Kite, I was still hesitant to do it myself. I'm curious though, in your opinion, it would have been OK for me to have done the blocking, right? Otherwise, you just curse at all the admins and you're immune from blocking... --barneca (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think so. Obvious failure of NPA and CIV towards you isn't the same as blocking someone who you've been in conflict with over an article, especially when it's as blatant and public as that. Black Kite 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, you showed remarkable patience and good judgment here. I would certainly have supported you blocking Hammerandclaw, and wa about to block him myself, but Black Kite got there first. Gwernol 14:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Off the record: You don't have to take that shit. On the record: You DON'T have to take that shit. Seriously, no one is going to overturn a block you give if someone attacks you personally. Once it degrades to what this guy did, you are completely free to block them yourself. You don't have to wait for another admin to notice. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Tonywalton down here so it doesn't get lost; yes, it appears Nh.jg left specifically because of this: [63]. I've left a note on his talk page and hope he chooses to return, and in retrospect, wish I'd noticed the racism allegation sooner. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! I'd missed that one. Well handled, Barneca. Agreed 100% with Jayron32, by the way. Once H&C came up with the slaggngs off and "nyah nyah you can't touch me" here, of all places, where you are guaranteed to find admins, I was reaching for the block button myself but Black Kite beat me to it. 86.153.31.90 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Tonywalton ^Talk 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to everyone else: Thanks much for the advice. I thought I wasn't "in conflict", but doesn't hurt to check. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I don't think the "legal threat" was intended as such, the phrase used "report you for harassment" can mean reporting to (for example) this noticeboard, rather than to the police. —Random832 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hammerandclaw seems to me to be a new and unacculturated user. I don't think anything he has done is unreasonable, although it has tripped some wires here and I don't think that is unreasonable either. I ask for patience. He and I are engaged in a dialog and if I give up I'll let you know.

I would like those who have blocked him to consider their reasons. In particular, the claim that he has made any kind of legal threat seems to me quite inexplicable. --TS 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, I would not consider it wheel-warring if TS lifted my block on this user, provided he is convinced it would be appropriate to do so. I think there should be a consensus for such an unblock, but again, if TS is convinced, that satisfies me, the current blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Though as the original blocking admin, I will say that I believe the 48 hour ban should at least be served out. He certainly deserved that. Black Kite 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

After fully disproving the racism allegation, and noting his response to, well, everyone, here and on his talk page, I was set to block for a week without considering the "legal threat" aspect, which I agree is probably a misread. I don't ask for, or want, any kind of apology, and I'm not trying to play some "look who's winning now" power game, but I'm just frankly opposed to an unblock until there is an apology to Nh.jg, whether or not he is under your tutelege. If that happens, I'm still slightly uncomfortable with, but would not oppose, an unblock after the original 48 hours is up. But really, shouldn't there be consequences to that kind of nteraction with other human beings? That "aw, come on, I'm sorry" thing he did after the second unblock request strikes me as nothing more than seeing if he can eek a little more fun out of us. --barneca (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: the user has now apologised. Thoughts now? Woody (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess when I demand someone apologize, I can't complain that it doesn't sound real. It doesn't, but whatever. Unfortunately, Nh.jg isn't around to accept it, but I guess, whatever again. There probably was never a legal threat, the mysterious broadband problem has cleared up right on time, so I'm grudgingly OK with a reduction back to the original 48 hours, although I will make a final note for the record that his unacceptable behavior has continued right up until 10 minutes before the apology. --barneca (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good block, unacceptable behavior by Hammerandclaw. If he's apologized, however perfunctorily, and an experienced Wikipedian (Tony Sidaway) is working with him, then I think letting the block run for 48 hours is the best approach. It should be abundantly clear that this editor has used up most of his allotted patience, and that a recurrence of these sort of issues will result in a longer or possibly indefinite block. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'd still love to hear the details (details, not "my f**** broadband won't process it", whatever that's supposed to mean) of the apparent problem that obliges an editor to delete things. Hammerandclaw, if what you meant was "I screwed up and deleted something by mistake" then an admission is fine. Assuming good faith, if there's a real problem with an ISP, browser or (unlikely as it seems) broadband provider then it should be reported as a bug. I'd also add that your comments here will probably have led to your subsequent behaviour, if the block is reduced, being quite extensively watched. Tonywalton ^Talk 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We have some really obvious POV pushing on Palestinian people. I am giving a heads-up that I am highly considering ignoring all rules and breaking 3RR, seeing as a) the POV pushing is really obvious (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:75.72.88.121), b) this is being done by two obvious sockpuppets, c) the said editor has been blocked in the past. As I said, I am more worried about keeping Wikipedia pure, so if I get blocked, fine, then block away, but I'd rather ignore the rules and keep it correct. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no rush. Those articles are on probation, its up at WP:AE, dont go overboard. Relata refero (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn, he did it anyway. Relata refero (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I've never edited Palestinian/Israel-related, at least not significantly (that I remember). But I'll be straight with y'all, if we do anything other than call this POV-pushing spade by what it is, then I have no part in this encyclopedia. <removed by me>. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to get information about the evil spartan for he/she is defaming palestinians and their homeland, by removing the information needed for the article. I did not defame or make any POV just the facts according to the references on the article itself. The map has nothing to do with the map of a state, it is a geographical map, and I did not alter the Israel map for example. However this person is altering freely the Palestinians article , because he says that a map of the middle east with out israel is offensive, (where did he got that info from) and how did he not figure out that removing the homeland map of the Palestinians is not offensive, and was he expecting that Palestinians should put the political map of Israel on their homeland map is not offencive to them. This is very insulting, especially that Palestinians outnumber jews of the world and the number of Isreali citizens!I demand immediate response to stop his vandalism and hiding behing unreachable name to be contacted!abubakr (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Adnanmuf (talk · contribs), and not The Evil Spartan, for blatant POV-pushing and edit warring. Sue me if that makes me an evil admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't at all, but as Guy says further up on this page, we should be worried about crusaders. Relata refero (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've reverted to the previous revision. Obvious POV edits and a the MOS mess he was making. — Save_Us † 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure the right procedure here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Hollis01 shows basically all spam/advertising. I've cleaned up the current mess as seems right to me. But note on his talk page that there is a history of recreating rapidly deleted articles, etc. DTRT.

Tb (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Warn the user about creating inappropriate wikipedia pages and that if it continues he/she may be subject to a block at WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Page has been hacked to add gross NSFW and racist imagery in that I cannot seem to edit out even after going manually into the history to revert (image tags do not show up in page edit mode). This needs an emergency deletion and restore to rectify. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't! {{YouTube}}, which is used on this and many other articles, had been vandalised, but has been fixed before I looked at this. I've fully protected the template as a result. Bencherlite^Talk 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick fix, I didn't know exactly what was causing the problem. I didn't think of one of the templates being the cause of it. Nate • (chatter) 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hint: if you can't find what's causing it, it's always a template. —Random832 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

After three years here, you can always learn something new in your editing travels :). I just never ran into something like this before so you could call my reaction sort of a 'panic report'. I knew it had to be in the wiki-coding, but I just couldn't place it in my view of the pagesource where it came from. Thanks for the advice and keeping me level! Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we agree to semi-protect all articles on Kosovo's cities for a couple of days (or a few hours, at least) ? Compare the edit histories of all cities (Template:Municipalities of the Republic of Kosovo) with that of Priština‎, which I semi-protected some three hours ago. There's little more than sterile nationalistic edit-warring. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'll take advantage of this opportunity to mention the existence of a shared watchlist for Kosovo-related articles, WP:KOSWATCH. - Ev (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont think so, protection shouldnt be used pre-emptively. That said, if any specific articles need it then we should consider only on the basis of what is happening at that article, not what is happening in the world. Just my two cents. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reported this twice already, but as of yet, nothing has been done and the user continues to cause issues Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive363#Problem_User_follow-up. This is the last report with a link to the first. I first took this to village pump but a suggestion was made for me to take it to AN/I. Marcopolis (talk · contribs) has uploaded many copies and parts of an image which I'm sure are a copyvio (can't find the original, but another editor also agreed these were likely not his own work) yet he's claimed them as his own work. He continues to insert them in to the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which also introduces some formatting issues in addition to the questionable origin of these images. Links to several copies of this image are to be found in the first report. User claims to speak English, but I cannot continue to assume good faith at this point. I've continually used edit summaries, made posts on the article talk page, and made comments on his talk page, but he hasn't responded to a single one of them. Nor does he use edit summaries to do anything except label the photos he uploads. Another editor had previously asked him a question in English but I can find no evidence that he ever answered them. It seems the ONLY conversation he's engaged in, has been in Korean with another Korean editor. He claims to be going to school in Montreal and a native french speaker. Someone who can speak either Korean or French well enough needs to get through to this editor, or he has to prevented from continuing to edit wikipedia since he either refuses to or can't communicate over issues he's creating.--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

These two edits on the same day seem extremely questionable. In one article he tries to introduce improper formatting [64], and yet in another article he removes it [65]--Crossmr (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I speak neither Korean nor French, but I wanted to suggest that we might find somebody who does at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. I have previously had to hunt down translators to help with editors who do not speak English, and I've found the WikiProjects a helpful way to do so. Elsewhere, I see these individuals are listed as willing translators from Korean. Most active among them seem to be User:Styrofoam1994 and User:PC78. Perhaps if we approached one of them, they might be able to help you open a dialog with this user to clear up questions about his image use. I'd be happy to approach one of them about it, if you'd like, or you can try it yourself. Alternatively, perhaps a French/Korean speaking administrator will come along who can handle things without the need of a go-between. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like PC78 just has a page for holding templates, I'm not sure he actually speaks korean. The other fellow has a notice up about being tied up for a couple weeks. I'll try asking to get started though.--Crossmr (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw the notice on the other fellow's page, but his contribution history suggests he's doing stuff anyway. I hope he has the time to help out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Korean editor and don't see any big problem on the mentioned user. The format looks not good, but I think he intended to put more contents in the spaces. Some of his pictures don't look like professional photos. Admin, BorgQueen can speak Korean. --Appletrees (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the formatting is that he's changing it away from what's recommended in the MOS as well as what is already established in the article. The problem with the image in question is he claims it as his own work, but the logos from the lines are way too perfect to be his own creation, and he keeps uploading it, both in complete form and cropped sections of it. The bigger issue is that he can't or won't communicate and just continues to insert these things over and over even though they're being removed with explanation.--Crossmr (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition when a map he uploaded as his own was deleted as a copyvio Image:Seoulsubway.jpg instead of discussing it or realizing the problem he just uploaded it under a new name which was once again speeded as a copyvio Image:Submapvers.jpg. I'm not denying that he's adding lots of great images to the project that aren't a problem, the problem is when he does something against guidelines or policy, he just keeps doing it over and over no matter how many times someone tries to communicate with him or undoes the edit.--Crossmr (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'am just asking him, in french, to be more precise on the origins of his pictures. Wait and see .... Yves-Laurent (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its specifically the images in this section. My second post outlines all the various copies and crop jobs on this one questionable image he's claiming as his own work: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive358#Problem_user.--Crossmr (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I translated Crossmr's comment on his talk page to Korean. I hope that works. I'll keep an eye on his talk page. --Memming (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know enough french to see he says he made them in illustrator and photoshop. Exactly how did he make them? Did he just cut the logos from another source, or did he perfectly reproduce them? There is still an issue here whether they're cut and pasted or whether or not he perfectly reproduced them by hand, it amounts to the same thing. There is also a formatting issue with the image he keeps trying to insert in to the article. Someone may want to kindly suggest to him that he remove English from his user page as its becoming very apparent at this point that he doesn't speak enough English to communicate effectively in it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, i'am askink him for the pictures. Each thing in its time. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly tell him to relax on adding the image to the article? There are more issues than just copyright here. This is where the problem comes in. He can't communicate in english, another editor has an obvious issue with what he's doing, but he just keeps doing it over and over.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've stumbled through some french to try and get through to him again. Even though you were explaining what the problem was, and it appears asked him for further detail he just kind of ignored what you said and added the image yet again.--Crossmr (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I add a message to him wich explain that the wiki syntax has to be prefered to HTML and that he have to speak with other user instead of always make the same modifications without explanation. I haven't got a lot of free time this week, and four days ago i present an article to FA election in the french wiki. So i think that was my last message with this kid. Yves-Laurent (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I really appreciate the help. As you can imagine its quite frustrating dealing with someone who keeps doing stuff over and over that you can't communicate with.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He told me that he will use the wiki syntax for his next edit. A vous les studios Yves-Laurent (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As well does anyone know if there is an equivalent section for the MOS in french or Korean which explains how to properly format section headers so we can also get him to stop trying to format them with HTML?--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look to the interwiki : fr:Wikipédia:Conventions de style#Comment structurer un article ? give the basic structure of an article and fr:Projet:Aide/Recommandation/Code HTML told that it's better to use the wiki syntax but it's not an official rule. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No but we have the same encouragement here, and really its a standard. And its already set up with wikiformatting in every article.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone other than myself deal with this? As a result of this AE report I placed Radical-Dreamer (talk · contribs) on a variety of editing restrictions per WP:ARBPIA. As you can see here, these restrictions included civility supervision. His first comment: this gem, aimed at yours truly. I'm unwilling to block, due to the fact that the comment was directed at myself - can someone else please decide on appropriate action? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the comment certainly was uncalled for, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing whether it's incivility, or just minor disgruntlement. He should certainly be warned about it, though, if he keeps it up, a block might be warranted. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an accusation of abuse of admin tools is incivil, and someone on ArbCom civility parole ought to be more careful. Is WP:AE backed up, or should this report be directed there? Avruch ^T 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly an assumption of bad faith. Read the terms of the civility supervision - you'll see those aren't permitted. ArbCom restrictions are supposed to be enforced fairly stringently. I brought this here, as opposed to AE, to get a fast response.. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give him a one-time pass to vent his frustration about being called on his disruptive editing, which he's just expended; and no more leniency from here on. But a block would certainly not be out of place, either, under the circumstances. The tactic of accusing an admin enforcing policy of being motivated by anti-[Israeli/Palestinian] bias says alot about the accuser, and it's really tired on this particular set of articles. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's not a "tactic" if the admin really does happen to be biased. (And I'm not talking about Moreschi, who I don't know from anything.) 6SJ7 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Then why are you commenting here? MastCell ^Talk 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to your second sentence, which went beyond the scope of this particular incident. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be a fine line, but saying something "not nice" isn't the same as being uncivil or what some might consider rude. It's an unfavorable opinion, and a mild one at that. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latha P Nair (talk · contribs) has been adding a link to Comparison of office suites into dozens of articles on application software and technologies. In many cases, the link seems of questionable relevance, since the comparison deals only with current office suites. For example, the addition of the link to the article on the long-defunct CEO (Data General) doesn't seem helpful, nor does it seem useful in Pivot table. The editor is not responsive to concerns raised on their talk page, and has re-added the links after their removal in some cases.

This is a relatively minor matter, so would I be overreacting if I issue a block for say 24 hours to try to force the user to discuss their edits? What other options are available when the editor does not respond to talk page queries?-gadfium 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They have continued to place the link in many more articles. I have rolled back the edits and blocked indefinately until they are willing to discuss their edits.-gadfium 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI regular User:White Cat is at it again. In keeping with his regular pattern of overreaction when confronted with editors who disagree with him (compounded in this case by the high emotional drama and general juvenalia of the ongoing episodes debate), User:White Cat is "assembling evidence" to "prove" the meatpuppetry of another editor. I think it's a vicious smear, but admin attention would be appreciated, especially since making this kind of very public accusation at arbcom is inappropriate. Relevant link is here and here. Of course, I may be wrong that making sock/meat accusations against other editors at an unrelated arbcom case is not problematic. Eusebeus (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's at ArbCom. I think we'll just have to let them deal with this trash. I'm pretty sure they can see this for what it is. --Haemo (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Eusebeus that this appears very inappropriate and that this aggressive behaviour is also typical for White Cat. Incidentally, I had posted to AN regarding the same issue, to little response. User:Dorftrottel 22:50, February 19, 2008
• What sort of admin action are you looking for? White Cat will not be blocked on ANI for actions on an ArbCom evidence page or workshop without a fight because this is a dangerous precedent. ArbCom can, will and has before considered all behaviour including behaviour during a case. Think the Badlydrawnjeff case. Just leave this to ArbCom because it causes more drama than good to do otherwise. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Some form of oversighting might be needed, but so far no one has requested it. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • True but the arbitrators are more than well-equipped to deal with that themselves. Leave it to them. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond his sock allegation, he is accusing just about all the editors he disagrees with of meatpuppetry;

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)

I suppose this is primarily the ArbCom's remit, but more eyes are welcome. There are only a few ArbCom members and they are busy. ANI regular? He's only edited an/i 880 times;^[66] a bit over 2% of his edits — this is his most edited page after his user and talk pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone is using template transclusion to vandalize Fidel Castro, as you will see the second you click the wikilink. I caught User:PlantDraft doing this and reverted and warned him, but it appears he has help. Administrator assistance is requested. --Agüeybaná 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Related to Higher vandalism I reported above...I've reported him to WP:AIV. Nate • (chatter) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he had assistance from User:Ruddigger. Sockpuppet, probably. Anyway, this has been solved for now. --Agüeybaná 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked that one too. There's definitely some socking going on here... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Related to User:Poloris's vandalism on Bobby Robson yesterday? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should we "obey" this . Because Mr. Fidel Castro is a communist that has ruled Cuba for 5 decades with an iron fist. Wikipedia is just honoring Castro the same way it has an article on Hitler. People proably Vandalize the article of Castro because they are againist his dictaorship he has held since the 1950s. I support these people because they fight for freedom, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Asking us to "repect" the article, is saying to "respect" Hitler and the Final Solution. I have the right to free speech by the Founding Fathers of the USA. Wikipedia cannot censor me. Its a violation of the First Ammendent. Rio de oro (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a private website, and we are neutral; that means that we neither support nor oppose these people or their actions in their respective articles. You have no right to free speech here. Get used to it. --Agüeybaná 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FREE. It gives a good explanation of why you have no right to free speech over here. The article about Castro is supposed to be written neutrally, meaning that a person who will read it will not be influenced positively or negatively about Castro-they'll form their own opinion. Having access to unbiased information is one of the best things about democracy. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was to a template: Template:Cleanup-rewrite which effects potentially hundreds of Wikipedia articles. It just happened that the Fidel Castro article was the most visible. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was probably less to do with Castro's politics than someone obtaining lulz from getting large, floating, difficult to remove pictures of wangs on as many WP articles as possible. It's not a new idea by any means... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Rio de oro. Exactly how does adding a penis template to an article constitute fighting for freedom? JuJube (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My toughts exactly, our goal here is to present a neutral biography, not push our own pov because we disagree with the actions of a certain politician. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you guys techinally wrong, the servers are in the USA. So its USA law. Get it right you Cubans. --Rio de oro (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things, number one I'm not Cuban and I hold no particular POV over the country's political status, and two your last comment can be considered a personal attack, I recommend that you stop your pov-pushing and political trolling before you get blocked for personal attacks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the servers are, the US constitution says that congress shall not pass laws that restrict the right to free speech; it says nothing about private websites like Wikipedia. Get it right you gringo. --Agüeybaná 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You really are an idiot, Rio de oro. Fire in a crowded theatre mean anything to you? Can we just block this obvious troll already? JuJube (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This page, User talk:Ajk5055, appears to be two people chatting to eachother by signing into the same account. I am not sure what should be done about this, or even if this is not allowed, so I posted the incident here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page should probably be blanked of their comments, and then protected if they ignore warnings. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments blanked. Let's see if they express any interest in editing properly. Tyrenius (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

aww, but now we have such valuable GFDL contributions such as "I mean all that was for dinner was salad and pork slabs, so salad it was...i mean i needed to eat something, ive been eating crazy carbs lately and probably getting fat so i needed some salad, but if i get sick again ill go to the doctor...ive been fine for a bit now, so im not too worried...so any big plans for tomorrow?"

and

"if they left you a phone number - call them back. Although it is 5:20PM here now. Call them in the morning. Walmart is fine to work for. Don't poo poo them. Call them tomorrow..

I'm not poo pooing them...I don't have the qualifications to work there--remember I got an email from them when we were at grandmas house? I didn't fill out the paperwork or anything b/c I'm not qualified for what they want...I have a phone number but I have things to do tomorrow,and I'll just have to find an internet cafe when I can...the 7 hour time difference works in my favor though"

They apparently had a lot of problems trying to use this for chat. Ironically this post talks about how they use cell text messaging, e-mail, AND Skype, but are using a Wikipedia talk page for communications... oh man, I gotta save this. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the comments I can't help but feel bad for them. This appears to be the communication between parents and their daughter while she's on her way to or already on another continent. In the instances where the page was used there must have been a reason that was the only option, since email certainly would've been easier. I feel like saying "have a heart, IAR". But that's just me. They haven't edited anything other than their talk page, so I don't see the harm. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:43, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

True. I guess we could leave a note on the talk page recommending a better site or something. Still, funny stuff :D -- Ned Scott 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Tyrennus warn (or better still, politely steer) them before blocking? Since the talk page history was deleted, I have no way of knowing, but it seems unlikely to me that these people would carry on their conversation if they knew an outsider was not only reading but actively disapproving from a position of authority on the site. This whole section seems a bit inappropriate to me. I don't see why we needed to draw any attention to them (and post excerpts here), let alone block, unless we know that gentle, quiet reminders have already failed. Everyking (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that the only other account to edit that user talk page was SineBot. If necessary, I'll undelete the rest of the history, but I don't think we need all of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. No offense Ned but it really seems like a personal conversation that the participants aren't necessarily aware is available publicly. Perhaps you wouldn't mind removing your excerpts here. And I agree that an unblock and warning might be appropriate now. Perhaps we can assess their reasons for using that page the way they are, 'cause call me a softy but if it's their only option for communication I frankly think we should allow it. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:00, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

My own entertainment aside, it doesn't really matter if they're blocked or unblocked since the only page the edited was the user talk page. Like I noted, they have tons of other ways to communicate, and in the discussions even exchanged e-mails and text messages. There's no reason for them to be using the talk page like that, but we should make sure a message explains to them what's going on. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of a ANI report a while back where a similar incident was taking place. I can't remember which account it was, but they were also using the usertalk page as a IM. Maybe it's the same group of people, maybe not, iunno. nat.utoronto 07:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be the season for it. I've come across two pages in the last couple of days (User talk:Kragar and User talk:Sullke. In both cases I gave the relevant users the "it's not mySpace" warning - that worked for the latter, but I had to strengthen the warning a couple of times for the former. I have them watchlisted, but they've either gone and got Skype or have moved to another talk page... _GB^T/C 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here? One bot (User:Roboto de Ajvol) is going around removing all instances of lmo interwiki [67]. But another bot (User:AlleborgoBot) is going around and re-adding it. [68]. ??? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Domo oregato Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Damn you!!!! I've been on a roll tonight! You broke my roll! :) Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Imo Wikipedia closed or something? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Justin:On a roll? I don't get it Equazcion •✗/C • 04:01, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

No, It's kind of an in joke. Me and User:AndonicO have been going at it. I shot him a yo mama, he came back with percentages, "I know you are but what am I?"... it got multi-lingual. It seemed to have ended with me using Norwegian to roughly describe that it's over when I say it's over. That'll show him. Then I come here, see the heading "Bot Battles!", and what pops into my head? Oh wait, shot down! You, sir/madam/member of any number of the third genders, have broken my roll. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago, or a little more, I saw one of the anti-vandal-bots going at one of the archive bots, and back and forth. I wish I could find the diffs; it was hilarious. Didn't last long though. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have notified each bot owner of this section on their home wiki user talk pages. —Random832 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It was standard pywikipedia interwiki bot. I will try to understand the problem. --ajvol (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I had asked about the same thing, after I saw a slew of lmo.wikipedia links removed from articles on my watchlist. I talked to User:Snowolf, who is an admin over there, and he told me that they decided to remove about 100K bot-generated sub-stubs, many of which were in English or Catalan (as opposed to Lombard). Not sure why another bot is adding the links back, though. Horologium (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I update my bot twice a day to the last svn version of pywikipedia bot and seems to work correctly. The article lmo:Algèria exists and there's no reason (imho) to remove its interwiki links. Seems to be an error generated by Roboto de Ajvol. :-/ So, I'm still running my bot. Please keep me updated with this discussion if I have to stop it or if the problem is mine. Thank you all. --Alleborgo (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

72.76.88.140, now moved on to 72.76.12.248‎, has a negative WP:BLP agenda. Tyrenius (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If unresponsive to your warnings/messages on the talk page, go to WP:AIV after final warning. Since the IP strings are so similar, you can take the liberty of expressing WP:SOCK concerns on the user/talk pages. If it keeps up, an admin could try a string a very short string IP block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Taulant23 who is already on civility parole gave a barnstar to User:Dodona. The first reason is "For your work dealing with shovinist Greek Propaganda". Is it acceptable? I've kindly asked Dodona to remove that wording from his user page but nothing yet. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I'd say some of the wording is in poor taste - and does not really reflect what that particular barnstar is supposed to signify. Asking for a rephrase would have been my suggestion. Although, I don't think one can actually officially object to another's receipt of a barnstar. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing doing here. Taulant's currently sitting out a block, and has announced his intention to quit. Dodona is a separate case. Looks like he's removed the barnstar, though. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor keeps removing the birth date from this article: 11 times since 11 February. Examples: [69], [70], [71]. I've tried establishing communication through edit summaries and the user's talk page, but to no avail. Can anyone turn their attention to this? Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you filed a report at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? Seems a short-term semi-protect could probably take care of this. --jonny-mt 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have done so now—thanks for the suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've declined the request: that qualifies as vandalism, so the editor should receive a warning. Skip straight to a level 3 warning, and report to AIV after the fourth. · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I warned already. · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, fellas. An anon IP removing an unreferenced date of birth from a BLP is emphatically not vandalism. Please familiarize yourselves with these two sections of WP:BLP before doing anything ill-advised. If an anon IP is removing an unsourced birthday, that birthday needs to stay removed until properly sourced, and perhaps even then. Mike R (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ack, there I go again editing articles about musicians... Got confused with the removing of birth name (forget stage names exist), and the adding of "LUNATICA" (forget that albums/songs sometimes have vandalism-like names, and sometimes are in CAPS). I'll strike out the warning and apologize... Thanks for noticing Mike. · AndonicO ^Hail! 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd read the section about anonymous content deletion, but I hadn't read the note on birthdays. Good to know--thanks for the sharp eye! --jonny-mt 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on that point. I'll look out for appropriate citations. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page for this is getting ugly and they are edit-warring over the talk page now, let alone the article. The edit history for the talk page contains, for example, a recent change comment of Please fuck off which is clearly uncivil.

The background seems to be that the meaning and usage of the word hacker is heavily disputed per Hacker naming controversy. We now have a morass of POV-forks, as can be seen at Hacker (disambiguation). There seems to be a fair amount of conflict-of-interest and systemic bias.

We have already had some admin action but more is needed. I responded to an RFC earlier but it did little good. I reckon that this entire cluster of disputed articles needs a good going over by editors with a genuine NPOV.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrative scrutiny would be welcome; the talk page has been unusable for several weeks (my reaction when I read Colonel Warden's description was "getting ugly?" :-). Note, however, that one of the parties has filed an arbitration case. Nandesuka (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading his block and (mostly) vandalizing Durham (HM Prison). He needs to have a peck of IPs blocked and the articles he is interested in semi-protected. See User talk:Bamford. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a solid case for WP:SSP. The evidence is there in black and white (black & white diffs that is). That would be my suggestion. However, the semi-protection would only be appropriate if multiple IPs (one IP or two could just be blocked for repeated abuse) began vandalizing said pages fairly heavily. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the block on the named account to indefinite for block evasion and disruption, and blocked the active IP for 31 hours. If he switches IP's and continues, let me know or go to WP:RFPP and the page can be temporarily semi-protected. MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, lets hope this is the end. If not, a range block would be a viable option. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I have got to ask for help on this. In spite of agreeing in the past to leave me alone and to cease personal attacks in general, SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back, editing my talkpage (something I had requested he not do and I have agreed not to edit his...which I have abided by) multiple times, removing an obvious self-deprecating joke, and now is making his personal attacks on me again. This user, with a long, distinguished list of blocks and interventions, has been begging for a indef block forever. Granted, he's not calling people "Nazi scum" or even calling people "rude brat". Now it's these: "I would sum up your comments as trolling" "your foramtting is lousy and your refusal to fix it is typical of your arrogant behaviour". Can something be done? He has worked very, very hard to antagonize, vilify, harrass, and belittle many users on Wikipedia. Something has got to be done about this highly disruptive, verbally violent user. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) if more links and diffs for history of attacks is needed, let me know... but they'd fill up an entire page.

I think it's safe to say that the patience of the community is wearing thin. I, for one, am very tired of seeing the same names appear at AN/I with issues. I recommend that both parties find a way to solve this on their own, because I have a feeling that if administrator action is required, it will be of a grave nature. - Philippe | Talk 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We did, and he is reneging on it. I leave him alone, I do not edit his userpages, but I cannot get rid of his following and attacking. I have worked hard to not be involved with him. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through some history and at the risk of taking sides, I have to say it looks to me like SqueakBox is the short fuse in this dispute. He's very quick to use colorful adjectives to describe other people and their actions, in statements that could probably often be considered personal attacks. I think at the least, he could use a stern reminder about civility from an uninvolved admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:47, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Squeak is a decent person. I blocked him in the past, and he impressed me with his ability to understand that a time out was right in that case. What SqueakBox doesn't like, being a decent person, is any hint of the promotion of pedophilia, racism and a number of other things that decent people don't like. Each time I've investigated an issue with Squeak recently, it's turned out that the problem was excess of decency. Make of that what you will. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Translating that into objective terms, he acts inappropriately but since he does so in accordance with your POV then it must be okay. In the interest of neutrality I don't think the cause he's fighting for, even if it's the majority POV, should be a determining factor. Considering blowing up at people as an "excess of decency" means little since "decency" is subjective, and even if his views were considered decent by matter of fact, you can be excessively decent and still conduct yourself appropriately. We don't judge people based on their views but on how they act, the two being mutually exclusive. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:44, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Pro-pedophile advocacy brings the project into disreupte and has led to bans. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing, not pro-pedophile advocacy or anti-pedophile advocacy in particular, leads to bans. And regardless of the reasons, inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. You can't justify it by saying you were acting for the good of Wikipedia. If you want to do good things, you do it the right way, or you leave it to someone else. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:00, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Squeak mainly does NPOV pushing, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, do you disagree with ArbCom in the SqueakBox and Zapatancas RfAr when they found that Squeak was edit warring support of his POV? I agree largely with SqueakBox's POV when it comes to pedophilia-related topics, but that doesn't mean that I think his POV (or mine) should be presented as the thesis for an article. A broad subject like adult-child sex can be neutrally described and discussed without running the risk that someone will become confused and think that it is somehow OK. --SSBohio 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The history is perhaps more complex than you have seen, Equazcion, this is perhaps a case for dispute resolution (possibly arbcom) and I have initiated that while also resolving the current flame at VPs talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that Squeakbox has a long fuse, but that it's been re-lit over and over by a succession of POV warriors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rules should be applied consistently - you get the same sentence for assaulting sinners as saints... oh, and assaulting a sinner makes a sinner of the assaulter. i.e. If you are on the side of the angels, then act like one! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's a denial of human nature. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• this is wikipedia, not the nsdap. its not the job of any editiors on here to attack verbalyl any users that he doesnt like just becuase he feels that they are "acist" "pedophilic" or any other pejorative. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Spot on , as usual, Smith Jones. Thanks for cutting through the "acist" crap, again. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I just don't understand why it was necessary for Squeak to even edit Vigilance's page. I didn't see any attacks, I saw the (rather odd) addition of a template. How does that involve Squeak at all? Why even get involved? Frankly, if I were he, I think I'd have walked away from that, even if I thought it was incredibly offensive, because of previous involvement with Vigilance. Strikes me as an astonishingly bad choice to even engage there. - Philippe | Talk 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with SJ and other users. As demonstrated in a (now deleted) subpage of VP's, this user has a history of disruption and repeated harassment of editors on stigmatic, personal grounds. I would not personally support an indefinite block, but see the umbrella WP:PAW as a good dividing line when it comes to what articles this user should e allowed to edit. Lambton ^T/_C 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• VigilancePrime's deleted subpage was an attack page against Squeakbox that contained similar content to the material currently on VigilancePrime's user page. The subpage was deleted by MfD:
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox

with comment from the closing admin that : " The subpage is serving no other purpuse besides serving as a attack page against another editor..." When content is deleted by MfD as an attack page, what is the policy on re-creating that content on a user page? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be holding up a mirror on his talk page. It is not disruptive to simply list edits that you dislike. Lambton ^T/_C 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. You brought up the deleted subpage, not me. So I provided the MfD link and the quote from the closing admin, who found that consensus in the discussion considered it an attack page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I should note, though I had hoped to stay out of this, that EVERYONE in that discussion saw it as an obvious keep except: SqueakBox (of course, as it quoted his poor word choices), you, Jack-A-Roe (always jumping to his defense and a partner with him in deleting content you don't like), Will Beback (same difference), and Pol64 (who was very soon after permablocked for the same type or aggregious personal attacks). As one user said, "Quite frankly, I just don't see how accurate quotations (supported by diffs, no less) constitute personal attacks." Other comments about the former page: "The piece is neutrally worded and consists almost exclusively of literal quotes with links.", "no apparent policy vio", "does not violate bad faith or civility", and finally "This is not an attack page; it makes no decisions or judgments about the comments themselves, merely puts them on display in a concise manner. There is no reason for this page NOT to exist, and quite frankly, looking at the diffs on display, it's a wonder such a page hasn't surfaced sooner. Clearly something needs to be done about SqueakBox's conduct." VigilancePrime (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

You're entitled to your opinion too, sure. In the situation with your user subpage attacking SqueakBox, the MfD consensus did not agree with your interpretation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up because it demonstrated something (listed edits, just like his user page), not to discuss its creditability as a project, which I would have to look at in further detail. Lambton ^T/_C 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, the MfD Jack refers to was closed against consensus, with comments 2:1 in favor of keeping the page. It went to DRV, and VP, in the kind of selfless act I'd like to see more of, agreed to withdraw their DRV request in exchange for SqueakBox's agreement to stay away from VP's userspace. It's not a matter of opinion; it's reading the MfD & DRV. I believe Jack-a-Roe's description above is inconsistent with the facts. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's the third opinion expressed here about the way that MfD was closed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The process of the MfD resulted in deletion of that page, and the closing admin described it as an attack page. That's the history, not an interpretation. If someone wants the facts they can view the archived page directly, and they can check the DRV too. They don't need me or anyone else to interpret it for them. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I applied arithmetic to the situation; Referring to that as mere opinion is like saying that evolution is just a theory. A 2:1 ratio in favor of keeping is no demonstration of consensus to delete; Therefore, the MfD was closed against apparent consensus. The deletion review was tied 7:7 when VigilancePrime stepped up and ended the drama by agreeing to the deletion per user request, provided that Squeak were to leave VP alone. A consensus in support of the MfD closer's point of view has never been demonstrated, and was, in fact, explicitly opposed. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I feel I must say a few words here. I'm sure SqueakBox will believe I'm persecuting him but he still has not offered me (or anyone else he has unfairly stigmatized) any sort of decent apology for labelling me a passive supporter of pedophile activists (because of I speedy closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Man/Boy Love Association), repeatedly calling a now deleted Category:Rape victims "your beloved category" (because I asked him to nominate it for deletion rather than unilaterally depopulate it). He has unfairly accused Haemo (talk · contribs) of pedophile sympathies, during his RfA no less. This is the umpteenth ANI thread about his short fuse and while I understand that it's not always easy to deal with POV warriors and the typical sockpuppeting nonsense that surrounds many of the PAW-supervised articles, his behaviour cannot be tolerated. Guy, I've told you this before and you refused to listen [72]. Now all I can do is repeat it and you'll tell me again "ah, deep down SqueakBox is a good chap" and of course, I can't even disagree with that. But tell me: how many times can you say this before doubt starts creeping in that maybe a good chap can sometimes go overboard, way overboard. If need be, I'll go back and dig out all the diffs that have popped up in the numerous ANI threads and User talk threads where SqueakBox's behaviour has been utterly unacceptable. There are many people who have the courage and patience to work with PAW but somehow, SqueakBox is the one that keeps generating ANI threads. Where does it stop? Fighting the good fight doesn't buy you a get out of jail card. SqueakBox has got to stop or leave. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PS for Guy. It had been a while since I got involved in that crap. But I just looked back at the details of our last conversation about SqueakBox. I was trying to explain that SqueakBox was not a good idea to mentor Pol64 (talk · contribs). As far as I can see, that experiment did not work out so well. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop editing altogether or be blocked from editing PAW? For me, based on his disruption and its rather narrow focus, a modest and workable solution would be a permanent curfew on PAW. I have saved quite a few of his mistakes, and would be happy to set up an e.mail so that I can communicate them to you off wiki. digitalemotion 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch needs more good-faith editors like SqueakBox, not less. Those topics are difficult areas for Wikipedia. More editors participating can help air out what otherwise might be a dark corner. Concerns about those topics affect the whole community, so the community is best served by more people becoming involved. It doesn't matter what POV editors bring, more participation is better in highly polarized situations. With more editors, it's less likely that discussions devolve into POV-pushing arguments. With more editors, it becomes easier to find actual community consensus, because there's less chance of getting sidetracked into arguments between indivudals or small groups.
• Whatever else comes of this AN/I report, I hope that more administrators and other editors visit the WP:PAW project and bring their skills to the various articles involved with those topics. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jack should probably specify that he/they only want editors that will edit to their liking. NPOV is not the goal, "SPOV" or their POV is. Fair warning: If you have even the slightest disagreement, you'll be labeled a pedophile, vilified, harrassed, personally attacked, and listed at Wikisposure. Contribute at your own risk, as this phenomenon has been widely documented (though much of it has also managed to have been deleted). VigilancePrime (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't twist my words. Your opinions and ideas are yours, not mine. I wrote what I intended to write. All POVs are welcome - a wide cross-section is preferable, to avoid POV-pushing - the editing must be NPOV of course. Broader attention on these topics can only be a positive thing for Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it comes across as assuming bad faith. Beyond that, I made it clear to VigilancePrime that the Arbitration Committee is willing to provisionally open any^[73] related case put before them, but that such a case needs to be submitted privately via email. VigilancePrime, however, does not wish to disclose his email address to the Arbitration Committee.^[74] Which is his right. I, for example, refused to disclose my real identity to the OTRS (a condition to joining), therefore, I don't do OTRS (although, it isn't as if VigilancePrime disclosing an email account amounts to the same thing, privacy-wise). But there's no way around this: arbcom-l is the venue for complaints about these topics (and, yes, it being a private procedure is not optional), so, VigilancePrime may wish to avoid editing that set of articles, because the constant public complaints are becoming increasingly disruptive. Thx. El_C 07:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I twisted nobody's words. I added my own. Stop the false-issue whining.
2. How is this complaining? Oh, "I was asking for it", eh? And reporting abuse is wrong now?
3. I have stopped contributing to those after being driven off those articles by Squeak, Jack, Will, now-perbablocked Pol, and the admin Herostratus. This choice was made after all the above actually happened to me and a couple other editors. If we don't edit to their satisfaction (meaning their bias rather than to actual neutrality), WP:STEAM and WP:PA become the license of the day.

If you want the littany of diffs that demonstrate the longstanding harrassment and name-calling and personal attacks (getting back to the issue at hand, from which many seem to be trying to distract), let me know and I'll post them all right here.

VigilancePrime (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly act as a go-between: If VP wants to make any submissions to ArbCom, they can email me and I'll pass them on. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In one edit to my talk page, Squeak described me as a troll, an idiot, hysterical, uncivil, a liar, disgusting, intolerable, rude, and a brat. In his defense, he did end his comments by saying thanks. I could cite multiple examples of similar commentary and worse, either in edits or edit summaries. Part of that history is hidden by deleted edits, however. I've tried very hard to assume good faith in Squeak's conduct, since it's motivated by pure motives. But, at some point, even the most ardent and righteous zealot must forswear zealotry in favor of harmonious editing. I sympathize with SqueakBox's frustration, but not with how he expresses it. In my view, he doesn't understand that his approach to these conflicts creates a vicious cycle whereby his sharp comments don't get him the outcome he seeks, which frustrates him more, so that his next round of comments is even more strongly worded, and so on. His ArbCom case and his history of warnings and blocks bear out my concerns about his conduct.

There's another side to SqueakBox, however. He's got a significant contribution history (41,415 edits), largely undeniable improvements to the encyclopedia. Similarly, he's undeniably passionate about the topics he covers, and about this project. One example that springs to mind is when he & I worked out our differences on the inclusion of a photo in a biographical article. We started on opposite sides of the question, but we maintained open communications and worked things out. Over the time we've collaborated here, I've had several thoroughly enjoyable interactions with him, and, aside from Wikipedia work, he's been patient enough to help me with my Spanish.

I'm honestly in a quandry . He's made multiple contributions to the encyclopedia and I have a good deal of respect for him. Conversely, he's engaged in the same pattern & practice of contentious commentary and tendentious editing on multiple occasions over multiple subject areas. He's been warned; he's been blocked; he's been to ArbCom. None of these have worked to modify his behavior. No matter how good the reason, we all have to play nicely if we're going to play in the same sandbox. SqueakBox does that, for the most part. But, when he breaks from that, he does so spectacularly. --SSBohio 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that SSB. There's no denying that Squeak can be a positive force. It's also clear that one can only sympathize with the frustration that comes with editing and policing delicate articles. But random insults and accusations don't help, they make things worse. SqueakBox tends to get away with it because powerful admins like Guy protect him as a useful guardian of these delicate articles. Similarly, ArbCom doesn't want to intervene (I did ask), lest they be accused of supporting pedophile activists. It's just oh so easy to look the other way. But many have demonstrated that it's entirely possible to counter extremism on Wikipedia without resorting to insults, accusations, blatant contempt for Wikipedia processes, etc. It's not too much to ask of SqueakBox. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pascal, I've been tarred with that brush too. It's perhaps the most personally painful accusation I've ever had leveled against me, in any forum. I give no quarter to any harm inflicted upon a child. Those that know my personal history know why. A friend of mine, raped as a child, survived two unsuccessful suicide attempts, but did not survive his third. I've assisted SNAP in my own small way in investigating and bringing to justice Catholic priests who had abused children, including schoolmates of mine. Accusations of pro-pedophile activism against you, me, and others has been part of the problem, to be sure. --SSBohio 19:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow... that's interesting. I admit until now I had you pegged as a PPA, and I don't even edit in the area - had just watched contribs, the kinds of editors (including now-indefinitely-banned ones) and proposals you supported and opposed etc. :/ Certainly says something for assumptions that can be made (and also how important it is to be careful in a place like this what impressions one gives off). Orderinchaos 03:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In my view, one of the big problems with discussions around this topic is that any perspective other than absolute deletionism is tarred as PPA. I find it disgusting that I even have to assert that I oppose the sexual abuse of children. For the record, I oppose murder, arson, and jaywalking, but I never need to assure anyone of that. I've faced repeated intemperate remarks from Squeak and others, and been forced to defend my commitment to child safety more than once.

I think that the pro-pedophile viewpoint is notable, and I see zero chance that someone would read an article that neutrally covers that view and come away thinking that child sexual abuse is a good idea. We've been shooting mosquitoes with an elephant gun in this topic area, largely initiated by Squeak and editors in league with him, and enabled by sympathetic admins and editors swayed by pejoratives. That all of these are well-intentioned is beside the point. Well-intentioned people have done some pretty unwise things throughout history. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime has been canvassing around this, as around so many issues [75] [76] [77], hardly the act of a good faith editor. I am extremely unhappy to not only have to put up with VPs abuse but also his canvassing his friends. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable, will an admin do something about it or will people just allow him to troll me off the site. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of some of your comments, I'd view VP's action more as a case of victim notification than canvassing. Despite your insinuation, VP & I are not "friends;" However, I'm glad VP let me know about this because, while I don't agree with VP's methods, I agree that your actions have been problematic. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you one thing I find rather irritating right now, no offense, but it's that damn "thanks" in your signature. It's like, dude, what are you thanking me for? If you say "thanks" at the end of each one of your comments during a heated argument with a person, it makes it sound as if you think you've "won" something with each comment you make. Believe it or not, and some might disagree with me, but removing that "thanks" would really help ease some tension in your exchanges with people. Thanks, Equazcion •✗/C • 18:44, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC) (see what I mean?)

I agree. To thoroughly insult me, then thank me doesn't come across as polite, but rather as rubbing salt into the wound. I'd recommend saying thanks only when it appears not to be meant sarcastically. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but where does Squeak get off saying people are behaving hysterical. As far as I know, he can't see me on his monitor. How does he know one is hysterical, without seeing the person's face. Thanks :) Fighting for Justice (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone start an RfC on this? —Whig (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wants to start an RfC because it's not really an effective process to resolve this kind of problem. It's not like SqueakBox just suddenly started having problems controlling his temper. There was an arbitration process a while back that resulted in him being on civility parole for a year. He was blocked 3 times for violating that parole. After he told me and I quote, "if you think there is anything frivolous about propmoting pedophilia perhaps you would care to explain it", he was asked by arbitrator Morven (talk · contribs) to get a grip and tone it down. A few weeks later there was the Haemo incident, Morven asked him to tone it down. A few weeks later, Guy assigned him as Pol64's mentor. The result was SqueakBox encouraging Pol64 to have SSB desysopped. And that's just the incidents I remember hearing about. There have been countless threads on his behaviour here and they always end up dying out because no admin has the guts to say "enough is enough". I can tell you exactly how an RfC will end up: the two conclusions will be "SqueakBox is unacceptably rude and uncivil. He should get a grip" and "deep down SqueakBox is a good chap and he often faces trolls and sockpuppets". And then nothing will happen and new ANI threads will appear periodically. Bottom line is that as long as we continue to tolerate crusaders which are fighting the good fight through unacceptable means, no ANI thread, RfC and I even suspect arbitration case will really make much of a difference. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not an admin (though I'm open to being drafted). I think that Squeak was intending to encourage the desysopping of SGGH or Gonzo fan2007, but I'm not sure since it's 100% based on my recollections. Squeak has successfully advocated the banning of certain users based on their supposed status as pedophiles, pro-pedophile activists, or sockpuppets. At least one of these accusations has been erroneous, based on my investigation. I wonder how many other contributors have been driven away by the civility and abuse issues raised here. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, my bad. It was SSGH indeed. The thing is: there's nothing wrong with identifying pedophile activists trying to impose themselves in relevant articles and there's nothing wrong with advocating a ban for them. Of course, if you work on PAW articles and you label everyone you're in disagreement with a pedophile activist, well, you're gonna be right quite often. You'll also be wrong quite often and really these accusations are extremely hurtful for the victims. That pattern of behaviour participates in the toxic paranoia on these talk pages and they scare away a lot of editors who would be willing to try and arbitrate disputes but (not so surprisingly) are quick to give up in the face of the "you're either with us or with them" attitude. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Update Since this discussion opened, users (Barry Jameson, Digital Emotion, and GroomingVictim) have been banned, with El C referring inquiries to ArbCom and citing their history of editing these topics as the reason. I feel a sufficient chilling effect to make me think twice about contributing to content in this area, especially since these actions are similar to actions SqueakBox has advocated for in the past. --SSBohio 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

...and as usual, nothing happens because nobody cares...the user is now free to start up his incivility and personal attacks and name-calling and harassment because nobody seems to have the backbone to chastize this often-blocked user with a long, "distinguished" history of complaints, harassment, steamrolling, and victim-playing... of course, i shouldn't be surprised... • VigilancePrime • • • 06:31 (UTC) 23 Feb '08