Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive273

Tenacious editing claim

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was asked by me to not post my name in a talk page heading as I feel it is being done just for the purposes of harassment. I asked him to not do this here, here, here and and after he changed it to "with one editor who insists on being unnamed here" I again changed it back to eliminate the heading and told him to stop being a tenacious editor here. He has decided to reinsert the childish comment in the talkpage heading again here. This editor constantly skirts just this side of 3RR, and edit wars to the point of ad nauseum constantly to WP:OWN articles. He has been blocked for 3RR and other reasons more than 15 times, including sockpuppet use to evade 3RR in the past and as I mentioned, his efforts now are barely contained by the arbitrary 3RR rule which he constantly just squeaks under as if it is an entitlement. He has broken 3RR adding this stupid finger pointing to the heading and frankly, I am tired of his tenacious editing. I'm not looking for an indefinite block, but something needs to be done here to address his baiting commentary, his soapboxing and his neverending edit warring.--MONGO 09:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the offending title, and deleted the whole of the off topic bickering. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) *Personally looking at these edits - I consider the guideline at WP:3RR that states Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive to be valid. I appreciate Theresa's removal at this time however if Giovanni33 reverts and given Mongo has informed us that he has been blocked before for violation of this rule, and that the record shows such - and that his edits are disruptive I will be prepared to block if the content is returned. --VS ^talk 09:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As would I. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I had plenty of arguments to deal with his comments on the talkpage, but was spending all my time reverting his fingerpointing....how does one deal with such tenacious and constant edit warring on every single article he edits on?--MONGO 09:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My advice would be to ignore the baiting and add the arguments instead. Taking the higher ground is always a good move (although often difficult). Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to do that when there is no evidence he is willing to compromise. He constantly edits to 3RR and not over and reverts any efforts to really make articles neutral. He was protected thrice recently from 3RR since they were "borderline" cases and he knows that.--MONGO 09:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you could start an rfc. If the community backs you up, he can be asked to drop down to one revert a day. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict again) As you know I have recently had similar difficulty with an editor. It's not easy because some others will consider that you are edit-warring ... however as an apparently wise editor suggested to me recently post here or at AN to have a completely neutral admin examine the evidence ... and I guess the sooner you do that the better.--VS ^talk 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I welcome admins to review the content dispute and Mongo's behavior (as well as mine) to attempt to resolve it. The article is Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki [[1]] [[2]]

When I saw Mongo had followed me to the article to revert my addition, I did not edit war with him. I went to talk and added this section titled, appropriately "edit conflict with Mongo over use of term state terrorism". This I felt was a fair characterization. I wrote the following to resolve the dispute on talk: "I added this characterizing term, as many have used it, and as such is notable and fair to state, in the following opening sentence under the opposition section: "A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crime against humanity, and/or state terrorism. " Mongo has reverted my addition, even the softened compromise version added by another editor (which I accept). I have reverted Mongo, as I feel his justification is not valid. He states "POV" but that is exactly what NPOV calls for--that we report on all the notable POV's, using reliable sources. To suppress some POV's that you don't like, in fact, is POV pushing itself. But, in the spirit of discussion and not edit warring, I bring my case here and invite Mongo to make his. I'm sure we can reach consensus on the dispute."[[3]] I think my tone was rather civil, and I assumed good faith, looking for consensus on that matter, and avoiding edit warring, as a good experienced editor should.

The section title, I thought, was fair, as it was clear it was just Mongo who was disputing my edit. Note that two other editors reverted Mongo as well, and restored my edit, but Mongo kept reverting, a total of 3 times--3 different editors, instead of using the talk page to resolve the dispute, as an experienced editor should know to do. To have the title section on talk simply say there was a dispute about the term, I thought would give undue weight, that it would be more accurate to represent the conflict as just one editor who was reverting everyone else (the fact). So I said "edit conflict with Mongo." There was nothing harassing about that. Mongo should assume good faith. Finally when he ordered me to not use his name, even though he ignored my question asking him for a reason why he objected, I did what he wanted and removed his name in good faith. Still, it’s important to point out its still just one editor who this conflict is about (but did not name him). [[4]] When Mongo finally responded to the content dispute, I was looking to resolve amicably, he choose instead only to attack me, and bringing up my past block log of last year, and other irrelevant issues--talking about the editor instead of the content of my edits. This I feel was wrong as it was disruptive, and counter productive.

As I stated,, this kind of response from Mongo has been, sadly, typical: instead of addressing the argument itself, he instead engages in an ad hominem fallacy by attacking me, and threatening me with an indef. block. Bullying and edit warring in place of reasoned argument to advance his POV is also not appropriate. Raising red herrings, and attacks on the editor, at attempts to poisoning the well, may be the result of a lack of argument over the content issue, but do not belong on the talk page of the article. As another editor told him on talk after leaving that off topic attack to stop it: [[5]], Mongo ignored this request, and continued along the same lines by avoiding the content of my edits, seeking to resolve the dispute, and instead talking about my past, making threats, and generally being disruptive.

I will point out that last time I was blocked for making more than 3 reverts within 24 hours, was last last year. As anyone who following my edits, I use the talk page extensively and work with editors of all points of view to reach common ground, and with an improvement of the article and NPOV at heart. As is evidenced by this very incident, I edit by consensus. See the other articles where disputes were similarly resolved in proper fashion. Mongo, on the other hand, seems to not be able to conduct himself properly on controversial articles. Not only does he regularly edit war, but also he is not civil, attacking other editors instead of addressing the dispute. I invited him to discussing and make his case on talk (as I did) but his choice was to edit war. His sole use of the discussion page was not to discuss, but to attack the editor he disagreed with. I suggest if Mongo would simply start using and applying the WP policies that he often accuses others of violating, we'd have a lot less problems and a lot more progress. As far as his other attack on me here, I wont dignify them with further response except to say that he appears to be objectively describing his own behavior--not mine.Giovanni33 10:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the dispute on the article, but I do know that edit warring over the title on the talk page was childish. Being able to pick your battles is a key skill to cooperative editing. The title was a battle that wasn't worth fighting over you were foolish to edit war over it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I removed his name, as he asked, and asked that he instead talk about the real issue, which he was avoiding. Thanks for removing the rubbish that never belonged on that talk page, btw. I do hope Mongo will discuss the content dispute, instead. I look forward to working with all POV's, and think articles benefit best that way.Giovanni33 10:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be pedantic. I asked you four times to not edit war over adding my name to the heading which you were doing just to be disruptive. One other editor, not two disagreed with me...all in the space of a few minutes...lets see how many come along to disagree with you before you continue to try and own articles and add edits without a real consensus to do so.--MONGO 10:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Only one editor disageed with you? Really? Then why are you reverting these two other editors, in addition to myself? That a lot of reverting (with no use of the talk page, other than making attacks):

You revert this editor, who agreed with my edit:[[6]]

And this one:[[7]]

And this one:[[8]]

This shows its you who edits by edit waring and reverting and not by discussing and seeking consensus. Its shows you think you OWN the article. The proof is the talk page and your actions. You edit warred with all and any editor who opposes you. And you had zero attempts on talk to even attempt to address the problem you had with the edit despite my repeated attempts to get you to address it. Instead you choose to pick on the title of the section, which I explained to you my good faith reasons for its description--and asked you to explain your objection (which you ignored). I'm sorry but the evidence here about who is the one being disruptive is rather clear. You say you don't have time to address the actual content of article you are edit waring over, but you sure do have a lot of time to attack the editors instead (including starting this ANI.Giovanni33 10:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wake up call...this is about you repeatedly adding my name to the subheading on the talkpage...that was what I was complaining about. I asked you nicely at first, less so the second time and even less so the third. By the time I had to ask you the fourth time it became necessary to clarify that your edits were tenacious. I'm not the one with three close call lately for 3RR, you are. I'm not the one with a block log which shows more than a dozen different people who have blocked you for various reasons. I'm not the one who has been proven by checkuser to have used socks to evade 3RR. My comment that you routinely edit war right up to 3RR is not some kind of delusion on my part. As I said, the edits to the article in question happened in a very short period of time...so lets see if they stand.--MONGO 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys , stop it please. The both of you. This is not the place.Mongo came here because he was unhappy about his name being used in a talk page section title. That issue has been resolved. Let it be now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I second Theresa's comments above. Suggest you both move to different corners of wikipedia for a while - plenty of other articles to concentrate on for now.--VS ^talk 11:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to stop this by using archiving templates but MONGO reverted them. Looks like the arguments will continue for a while. --Deskana (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not by me. I listened to Theresa knott. Mongo did not, and keeps going at it, but I although I'd love to respond, I'll not take the bait for the sake of the greater good of WP and this board. Its not the place and I dont want to contribute to his disruption of it.Giovanni33 11:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Now at 3RR as I said...added, 1 revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert...when shall it stop, Giovanni33? Just in 10 hours, just on this one article alone...see WP:TE for guidance.--MONGO 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you forgert that you hit 3RR way faster than I did on that article (with no use of the talk page to boot)--so does that mean that what you claim of me, more applies to yourself than it does to me? You were at 3RR in less than just only 3 hours.Giovanni33 11:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Has someone filed an RFC on this user yet? Clearly a problematic user (good community members don't get blocked 15 times, sockpuppet, and edit war ad nauseum). The Evil Spartan 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm sure editors on here don't need me to point out that The Evil Spartan's comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. I note here he has requested a user check and made some rather serious allegations, such as that "I have it out for Mongo." [[9]]Let me first say that while this user check request is really without any valid basis, actually, I'm perfectly open with any user checks done on me--for any reason, and any time. I feel I made a promise to User:Musical Linguist, an admin I now greatly admire for her fairness (I'm sure those who know her feel exactly the same way), and never again would I ever even consider breaking the rules, getting unfair advantages on content disputes. I, ofcourse, regret my past rough learning curve on getting "broken in" to the norms of the WP community concerning its rules, but I've come out of it rather grateful with a new found respect for WP and the very rules I, shall I say, took casually. In any case, any suspected Socket puppetry inquires against me, has my complete support. I stand now and shall forever remain free of such behaviors. So all this talk of my past block log, socks, etc. is ancient history, stuff of last year, bring brought up by POV warriors, due to losing article content disputes. Its a special case of argumentum ad hominen--poisoning the well fallacy. I guess they feel that rather ugly block log gives them some capital. However, if you look closely, you will see only 6 blocks for 3RR and all from last year. Also, there are some false blocks that were quickly overturn by other admins. Anyway, this is all old news, and not relevant to anything happening now.
• Regarding Spartans claims, I have nothing against Mongo personally, but I have spoken out against his behaviors, esp. when he is uncivil to other users (esp. just because they are not from the US). I hate all forms of bigotry and do my part to speak up against violations of CIV, esp. along such unacceptable lines as I've seen engage in, which apparently is a pattern with a long history:MONGO (rv, antiwar foreigners pushing their POV)[10] MONGO (rv...the australian news piece is mostly opinion from a foreign newspaper, the wording was clearly POV in the remainder of the information.)[11] The most recent, he reverts a content dispute, and called it “vandalism,” when it was clearly just content dispute. But, he did an IP trace to make sure to attack him/her for where he was editing from—his country. And, used a nativist assumptions based in rather ugly bigoted reasoning in an attack on the users national origin, as indicative of proof that he was “anti-American"--judging him based on his nationality:"06:04, 4 July 2007 MONGO (Talk | contribs) (61,303 bytes) (revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not.)"[[12]]I understand he has strong POV issues, and has friends who share his conservative POV (and thus edit war together), on article content, with other editors, including myself. But, I have not violated the 3RR rule on article content and instead work with editors from all POV's to reach consensus for the good of the article. Needless to say, to claim that I "have it out for Mongo," is a rather absurd and paranoid claim because I don't take anythign on here personally. However, I call a spade a spade and stand up for editors who are unfairly attacked. If someonr bullied and attacked Mongo the way he has done so to other users, I'd stand up for him and call out the other users incivil behavior as equally unacceptable. For me the onlly issue is following the communities rules, applied equally to everyone. Civility, Assuming Good Faith, No Personal Attacks, are not optional luxuries, they are core policies no one is above. If Mongo doesnt violate them, I have no problem with him at all. I only oppose certain behaviors that are inconsistent with the rules we should all be following, and that includes behaviors like this--the most recent examples-- which I find rather shocking that he is not already blocked for it:[[13]]Giovanni33 01:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Go figure...you never work with other editors who have a contrary set of information than you do. All you do is edit war and if you don't get your way, you billboard the article talkpages with lengthy rants about why your edit is right and the ones aren't. I have no doubt I could easily detail your edit warring on virtually every article you work on, your POV pushing, soapboxing, baiting and attempts to OWN articles. Don't tempt me.--MONGO 06:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's enough for me. MONGO, if you want to file an RFC, I will sign it, if I'm around. The Evil Spartan 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll attempting to be used to evaluate consensus for guideline change

Recently, User:Jheald started a poll at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Straw_poll_1:__Re-wording_the_.22images.22_section "to poll consensus" on a wording change for our fair use guideline at WP:NFC. I closed the poll, noting m:Polls are evil and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion [14]. Two minutes later, I was reverted by User:Wikidemo, with edit summary "No contentious editing of talk page, please" [15]. I left a message with User:Wikidemo regarding this [16], and am now bringing it here. Would an administrator please step in and close this poll? It is not helpful to consensus and undermines our efforts there. Thank you, --Durin 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• One of the proponents of the poll is now asserting its result is binding [17] "the results of a consensus reached this way ... are binding". This is directly against Wikipedia:Polling. Please, someone shut this nightmare down. Thank you, --Durin 20:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would second that this poll is a disaster in the making. As an involved party, I won't close. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• If an admin wants to close, you can use {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. --Durin 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So there's a few editors who don't understand that consensus can change - what do you want an administrator to do? Any editor can close (or open) a poll, no special admin tools are needed. Surely you're not suggesting we lock the talk page? WilyD 20:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, I was not advocating locking the talk page. I want consensus to develop, and the poll directly interferes with that. User:Iamunknown summed of some of my thoughts rather well [18]. --Durin 20:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, what are you asking an admin to do? You want to close a discussion - but I cannot use my admin tools to close a discussion with any more force than you can with your editor tools -- Unless I lock the talk page as "discussion closed" or start blocking editors - neither of which I can do. Is there something else you need an admin to do you can't do yourself? WilyD 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I asked here because I already closed it and was reverted. It's been closed now anyways. Moot point. --Durin 20:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How can consensus change Foundation policy? Corvus cornix 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

i had to wait for Jheald answer to my question. A courtesy matter. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Polls are no substitute for consensus, but are helpful. I would oppose closing a poll before it has run out. All opponents of 'polls are evil' are welcome to get rid of polling in RM or RfA (both...) first.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Durin. A poll on that guideline would have been a bad idea, and not conductive to consensus-building. I endorse its closure. >Radiant< 08:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion nominators not following procedures

Image deletion templates ({{ifdc}}, {{di-no license-caption }} and {{deletable image-caption}}) are available which have to be inserted into the article where an image is being used. This helps notify people that the image is being nominated for deletion. If these templates are not used, image deletions practially go unnoticed and uncontested. This leads to some genuine images being deleted where rationale could have been provided by users, had they known about its IfD. One day the image is there, the next day there's a red link. Admins including Quadell (talk · contribs) (did not use templates for this image in James Plunkett) and howcheng (talk · contribs) (did not use templates for this image in Ann Richards) and users like Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) (did not use templates for this image in Holly Hallstrom) are not using these templates to notify the public about these image deletions. The templates exist for a reason. Whats up with this? What if I nominated an article for deletion without putting in a template (assume for a moment its possible)? When that is not acceptable, why is this? Please enforce policy and procedures and tell these people to start using these templates. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you talked to these people? They may just be honestly forgetting. -Amarkov moo! 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've talked to them. Quadell responded with this:

Thanks for the free advice. But, like everything, I'm sure some people will follow your advice and some people won't. That's life. and:

Making the nominators go through extra "paperwork" merely slows down the process

And he's an admin. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Those selective quotes do not accurately portray the gist of my comments. I would invite any interested parties to read my entire comments. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The in article notices are often strongly opposed by folks who are against doing anything that exposes internal operations to readers. With a minor mediawiki feature we could get around these issues and easily make a deletion mark visable to everyone who wants it: See 9616. --Gmaxwell 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats a great feature, but until that feature is made, they should use the templates to notify editors. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is not acceptable. If the admin wants to change the procedure, he should suggest it.DGG (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OMFG, he finds the one time I forget. How about [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] etc etc etc. Please be sure to examine contribution histories before launching into such tirades. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

People, people, people. This is an important issue and 'both sides' have valid points. From where I sit, I see that these points are not as mutually exclusive as some seem to think. If we focus on working 'together' on the issue and not in combat, I am sure we can find a solution where everyone is happy. Why don't we finish up here - at least for now - and return to the issue at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion in a collaborative, rather than combative manner, and try and surprise ourselves. Be civil, even friendly, and try to see each others legitimate points, and find a way where we can all be satisfied. I will now comment shortly on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion. Thanks. --Merbabu 07:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Cuddly Panda Image violations:

I'm not sure this is meant to go here, but I asked a some admins and they said I could go here. I recently stumbled accross the user Cuddly Panda through the Portal:Jurassic Park. I was worried by the use of fair use images in the portal without any fair use rationale and found that Cuddly Panda was the only contributor. I went to the user's talk page a day or two ago and placed a note saying that one should generally avoid fair use images except when needed and to always give fair use rationale. I also gave the user links to visit, but I never recieved a reply. I revisited Cuddly Panda's talk page & noticed numerous automated bot warnings and notices in regard to images the user had uploaded (For examples, see the user's talk page - you can't miss the numerous bot notices). Sure this could be over looked if the user was new and didn't know the liscencing rules well, but this user has been active for nearly a year now (In October) and has been provided with numerous links and pieces of advice from bots and other users. I'm concerned also becasue the user's edits relate predominantly to video and computer game articles, articles which almost always never have free use images. If the user is editing these types of articles, they definitely need to understand fully the rules of fair use, free use, uploading and rationale - I've tried giving the user advice, but it seems it hasn't been heeded and thus, I thought an admin would have better luck in showing this user the ins & outs of uploading. If this isn't the place to put this request, please excuse me and if you'd be able to place a link to the page I need to go on my talk page, it would be appreaciated. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You should not even be using fair use images in a portal anyway. In the articles if you can justify them sure, but not a portal (I can't think of a reasonable justification) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cuddly Panda I do want to thank you for your work on the portal, just please use free images. Those would be images released to the public domain, GDFL or Creative Commons. There are other free licenses as well. If you have questions on if an image is free or not feel free to ask me. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... Cuddly Panda hasn't edited here or seen this discussion - I'm confused by the fact you're referring to me as Cuddly Panda.... Spawn Man 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Improper upgrading of protection status

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Full_protection_pending_release_of_Harry_Potter.3F above. Apparently an admin has decided to upgrade from semi to full protection despite the noted lack of consensus. I'm not against re-instating full protection should opinion go that way, but the discussion - as far as I see - does not seem to indicate enough support. In short - please return to semi-protection ASAP. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just reading the article's history it would appear the full protection was put in place only to eliminate vandalism from sleeper accounts circumventing the semi-protection. Someguy1221 06:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read his post, he said that it was the only way to prevent SPOILERS. This is clearly against Wikipedia policy. If you don't like spoilers, don't read articles on subjects you don't want spoilered. Titanium Dragon 06:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Someguy, every semi-protected page I've kept on my watchlist still does receive vandalism - the object is not to eradicate it but to attenuate it. The page has been swiftly reverted in every instance today. The more important point is that the discussion seemed to favor NOT fully protecting it. I'd like to ask you to please see the discussion (linked above). Girolamo Savonarola 06:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I was actually well aware of that discussion, but was of the mindset of the post below me. Someguy1221 07:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But Vandalism is vandalism. An admin judges that too many sleepers are being thrown against the article to get some muck to stick, and protects. That was predicted in the previous section on this (in fact, I mentioned sleeper accounts specifically as a problem), and it came to be. So they protected it based on actual occurences, instead of the previous section's topic of pre-emptive protections. Now the previous section can be closed, as the events predicted came to pass, and like those above who said don't protect unless there's trouble, then we can protect like normal said, we protected once vandalism occured. They argued B not A, got B, now they argue C? Forget it. leave it locked for a few days. ThuranX 06:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a much bigger problem - the protection policy contradicts this. Girolamo Savonarola 07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring the the fact that temporary full protection does not list vandalism as an appropriate cause, or something else? I see it as you can leave it unprotected and block the vandals one by one, or you can ignore that policy and protect it for a few hours to see if it stops. Someguy1221 07:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, vandalism is not a cause for full protection. We can ignore everything but process is important in my belief, and so is consensus. And the vandalism was easily being controlled. (With the number of us putting this on our Watchlists, it's hard to believe it wouldn't be.) Girolamo Savonarola 07:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the protection will even last that long, but I reset it to expire roughly at the same time the book is released (the release is time zone-dependent).--Chaser - T 07:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not our job to "protect" the book from spoilers. It is our job to protect the article from vandals. We were doing that fine. No one is asking for no protection at all, we're just asking for a return to semi-protection. Once again, the consensus is right above on this page! Girolamo Savonarola 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly not right; you're protecting it from plot information which is legitimate, NOT from vandals. There's no reason to protect it until the book is released; that's censorship and clearly against Wikipedia policy. This article needs to be unprotected; if people are putting properly cited information from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows on the page, clearly removing it is vandalism and preventing them from posting it is censorship. There is NO wikipedia policy against spoilers, and indeed, every book on Wikipedia has spoilers in its article. If you don't want to see spoilers, don't read the article. Titanium Dragon 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bloomsbury etc have not commented on the leak - the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and its impossible to verify these edits before the book has actually been released legally - how can we tell the leaked version is the real version? I wouldn't put it past the publishers to have released a fake for some extra publicity. RHB - Talk 08:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to protection, but since another admin protected, I thought the expiry should have been sooner.--Chaser - T 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think protection is a good idea. As I said in the thread above, concentrating the vandalism at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - which will be avoided by those who don't want to be spoiled - isn't a bad idea. If we fully protect it, the spoiler vandalism will spread elsewhere - to other Harry Potter article or high profile pages. Either way it makes it harder for people to avoid the spoilers. Better to have loads of people watchlist Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and revert as necessary so we can contain the problem as much as possible. WjBscribe 07:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We had a few very number of vandals tonight, and the funny thing was that we seemed to all be jumping to revert at the same time! :) Girolamo Savonarola 07:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Though I personally want to see this article unprotected, I still think it's a good idea wait for responses from the administrators who have protected this page. Peacent 08:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows protection status

(thread moved from WP:AN)

Despite a consensus emerging - with much actual discussion - at WP:ANI that the page was best left at semi-protection, a straw poll was quickly drawn up at the article's talk page to request full protection. This poll was only left open for approximately 12 hours (during which time yours truly and several others were not online), and contained no discussion aside from very brief votes. It also was not mentioned on the ANI discussion (even though ANI was linked to on the talk page to invite comment), and it made not even a glancing mention of the fact that the protection policy explicitly excludes vandalism from full protection. The article was being adequately protected by editors and what little vandalism was received was swiftly reverted. Additionally, there were still many substantive edits being made to the article, and the increasing news coverage suggested more to come.

Nevertheless, the article was unilaterally given full protection by an admin, who did not respond to my request for further discussion. My request for downgrading the protection level was denied at WP:RFPP because a second admin had decided to modify the full protection to end at the exact time of the release of the book. I believe that the admins' actions were wrong for several reasons:

1. It violates WP:NPOV by endorsing the publishers' desire for a lack of activity on the article
2. It violates the protection policy
3. The article was being more than adequately protected by editorial watchlists
4. There are still considerable edits happening
5. It will diffuse the vandalism across many other Harry Potter articles instead of concentrating it at one location where it can be effectively and quickly dealt with.

Unless compelling policy can be found in support of the continuing full protection, I would like to strenuously request that this article be restored to semi-protection.

Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 07:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is already a thread on WP:ANI which you started. Stop forum shopping. Viridae^Talk 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, but I am not getting any response there. Furthermore, the RFPP is refusing to consider anything that an admin has already touched. I thought opening this up to a general audience of admins (and users) and making an enumerated case would be clearer. Girolamo Savonarola 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You will get the same response here as there, so either go along with the consensus there or try and change people's mind. Viridae^Talk 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my point - there was consensus! For semi-protection. Girolamo Savonarola 08:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

RFPP wasn't refusing to consider anything that an admin has already touched. It's just a good idea to be more patient and wait for responses from those administrators. Peacent 08:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my misunderstanding. But what I'm saying is that if they refuse to respond, then what? What I'm asking for is a general discussion amongst all curious admins. Surely if all of us are (and were - in ANI) discussing this and coming to a consensus, then the previous editors' actions should be disregarded and reversed. Now I've linked to this discussion several times. And no one seems to be touching it. Girolamo Savonarola 08:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - PeaceNT seems to be better at saying what I want to say before I can write it out) I agree that protection of any kind is against policy in this situation unless there is edit warring. IMO, the proper solution to the spoiler question is to cite the AP article from Yahoo News about spoilers. Specific spoiler information can be removed as unverifiable information. Prior to book release, spoilers are inherently unverifiable unless they are published in a reliable source. Blogs and personal websites don't count.

Technically, the online version of the book is not verifiable or reliable because, in theory, someone could have changed one or more pages of the illicitly photographed book.

My recommendation is that we should unprotect the article and block anybody who engages in an edit war over spoilers. However, I am also one of the admins who declined the request on WP:RPP to override the decision of another admin. My advice is to wait 12-24 hours and see if the admins respond. Also, consider re-opening the straw poll and specify an appropriate time period (24-48 hours). I agree that the previous straw poll was closed too quickly. Take the time to make your case and form a consensus. If you have to, issue a request for comment to bring in more neutral opinions.

The key here is patience. Decisions to override admins should not be made hastily. That just leads to hurt feelings at best and wheel warring at worst. While I agree that policy is not being followed here, no one will die if we leave protection in place for a couple more days while we hash this out. I am highly reluctant to override an admin's decision without discussion and formation of a clear consensus.

--Richard 08:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But I'd like to point out also that time is an issue here because if nothing is done shortly, the decision will stand either way. And I would like the policy to be respected. Not the least because this situation should not be regarded - IMHO - as a precedent. While no more Potter books may be released, these issues will arise again with something else of large hype. I don't believe it is our job to "protect" the book as per the publishers wishes. Our job is to protect and enhance the article in accordance with NPOV and V policies. Semi-protection and vigilant editors were doing that just fine yesterday, and adding substantial content to the article too.

I understand the concern for the other admins' feelings and wheeling potential and so on, but clearly if we are all discussing this here, and have the WP:ANI discussion on record too, then can this not be pretext enough? I don't mean just yet - it would be nice to hear at least a few more opinions - but by this evening at the latest? Time is a factor, and if neither admin responds, are we really going to do nothing, regardless of how many others also continue to discuss? In any case, thank you all for your time, Girolamo Savonarola 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, ok, I lost track of the fact that the 21st is really right around the corner. Maybe 48 hours is too long. 12-24 hours might make more sense in this situation. The real problem that I have is the existence of that prematurely closed straw poll that looks like a clear consensus in favor of protection. It's bad enough to override an admin but to do so against a putative consensus looks to me like a free ticket to ARBCOM. Please restart a straw poll, make your case and issue a request for comment. If there is a clear consensus to lift protection, overriding the admins is defensible. Without that consensus, it's one admin's interpretation of policy over that of another admin. That kind of behavior is what shows up at ARBCOM quite often. I'm in no mood to take a trip to ARBCOM over this.

I'm headed to bed. I'll take another look at this tomorrow. Good night. --Richard 08:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Full_protection_pending_release_of_Harry_Potter.3F - consensus is already here. (Why does no one acknowledge this?) Girolamo Savonarola 08:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can say there was no consensus for full protection in that ANI thread. However, it should be noted that the latest discussion on ANI doesn't appear to have a clear consensus for unprotection, either. Let's wait to see the outcome of the current poll on the article talk page. Peacent 08:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've returned the article to semiprotection as per the consensus that was already arrived at. Polls are evil and do not countermand policy - see WP:PROTECT#Full_protection for our protection policy - "to stop spoilers" is not on there as a valid reason for even temporary full protection. Just because it's a Harry Potter book doesn't grant it special status differentiating it from every other upcoming released movie / game / book / TV series, which we do not fully protect. Neil ╦ 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Full Protection is an emergency procedure to stop vandalism. It's not something for a talk page's "consensus" to decide. I disagree with this, this is a 100% complete endaround of the proper method of going to WP:RFPP and making a request there. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was at WP:RFPP initially. I moved it here (the thread way above) to get more input.--Chaser - T 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I will avoid the internet from when I get the book till when I have read it. Viridae^Talk 12:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Full Prot does permit the FP on 'high profile pages', which I'm sure some can argue DH's page will be. That said, I stand by my argument that the chance is here to show that Wikipedia grows and learns, but that we're losing that chance, and when some kid instead goes to that page and reads 500 pages of Harry on Ron porn culled from some dumbass internet site, and the parents kneejerk and call the cops and the tv stations, well, I'll be the one saying 'Told ya so'. It's even more likely that some TV station will feature Wikipedia's article being filled with the spoilers to ruin it for little kids, or in some other unflattering light. This is what we can avoid, but hey, I'm ust a SCOX troll, so what do I know? ThuranX 13:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's one thing that people haven't actually included in this discussion: the publishers sent GameFAQs, which is about 1000 times less active, got DMCAs on Friday due to the leak. It's almost certain that Scholastic and Bloomsbury will be keeping a watch on the wiki. Until 23:01 UTC on Friday night, it's unverifiable and a potential copyvio. Will ^(talk) 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unverifiable, yes. Copyvio, no, unless we actually transcribe the scanned text into our article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I've already blocked two sleeper accounts for spoilers.-Wafulz 14:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Further to Walfuz's point, since I took it back down to semiprotection some 5 hours ago, there has been a whole three vandal edits, and one to the talk page. All of which were reverted within 60 seconds and the perpetrators blocked. That is hardly unmanageable. Neil ╦ 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:STEALTH RANGER

Anyone interested in taking a look at this? STEALTH RANGER (talk · contribs) got into a bit of a dust up with Wafulz (talk · contribs) resulting in an ANI report last week, which I offered to look into. I warned STEALTH RANGER about incivility and modification of other editors' comments/headers rather than blocking the account, and left it at that. STEALTH RANGER requested on his talkpage that I do a more complete review of his and Wafulz interaction, which I did. In the mean time, Wafulz blocked User:STEALTH RANGER for 1 week for harassment. I posted my opinion at User talk:STEALTH RANGER, which can be summed up as "nobody owns their contributions, be prepared to be edited mercilessly, Wafulz probably should have left the block for someone else to do (though I note that Wafulz did post here at ANI with a notice he had blocked), and continuing to soapbox about the situation is counterproductive". Essentially I didn't find that Wafulz had done anything wrong, he'd been polite (up to the point where it was fairly clear his buttons were being pushed) and his edits after STEALTH RANGER were upfront and in line with WP:MOS. My findings apparently didn't sit well with STEALTH RANGER (talk · contribs) who was now purporting to be working with a newspaper on a story about Wikipedia, and the coversation continued. In the course of this conversation, the tone of the messages changed and the account/individual editing were referred to in the third person or with "we". I asked if I was speaking to more than one person and the response I got indicated to me that more than one individual was editing from the account, so I extended the 1 week block to indefinite per WP:USERNAME. A few times now the individual(s) there are asserting that it is not a role account and that I've blocked the account for helping the paper with an article. Despite this, at this time it appears clear to me that more than one person has edited from this account, though only in the user talk space (mainspace edits would all appear to be consistant with one individual). I've instructed him/them to request an unblock via template or email, but if someone else wants to review this, feel free. I'm disinclined to go back to the 1 week (or 6 days at this point) block without some discussion as it appears WP:USERNAME was violated, but likely only in the talkspace and only in regards to this conversation. The previous 1 week block should definitely stand if the indef is deemed unecessary or excessive though; the primary editor pretty much earned that one.--Isotope23 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I kind of followed this case with interest in the last couple of days and I've seen no misstep on an administrator's part. The user has been consistently uncivil and downright rude all the time. Having "ALL CAPS TANTRUMS" and acting like a complete 4 year old... I'd say undo the block if the user promises to stop consistently doing what he has been doing... but I don't see that happening... If he really wants to open up another account, let him. I'm fine with the indef block personally. Sasquatch t|c 16:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just removed some soapboxing from the talkpage because it was a text dump of a copywritten Guardian article. For a project purporting multiple editors, there seems a lack of understanding of policy here.--Isotope23 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also fairly certain he's bluffing about having journalists monitoring anything. First, there's the initial "why should they give a damn argument" - the majority of his edits are trivia-type additions to pop culture/comic articles, or outright insults and bursts of outrage when someone disagrees with him. Next, he's clearly still editing at the exact same time of the day as he has been for months. Finally, I offered my e-mail for communication, and he promotes communicating with me. To date, I have not received any e-mails.-Wafulz 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole cabal argument is really getting old... sigh. I guess its easier to find fault in others than it is to find in yourself. Sasquatch t|c 16:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Block check

I've blocked Putmedown (talk · contribs) as a disruptive sock/meatpuppet after his creation of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/67.87.225.29 and edits to my talk page. [24] It seems this user is connected to AFUSCO (talk · contribs) via 67.87.225.29 (talk · contribs) (AFUSCO's sock) as can be seen by the current unblock-auto request on the IP's talk page. They are also self-labeled socks of MWACHTENDONK (talk · contribs) [25]. So, my question: is this worth sending to checkuser, or is this enough to place a long block on AFUSCO for continued sockpuppetry? Also note AFUSCO's page moves on the 16th. - auburnpilot talk 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Lucifugum

This is a now-salted article. A user, User:Sasha13666 was recreating the article more than five times. After getting blocked for a week by FisherQueen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the user created a sockpuppet account User:Qweasd111 which inserted the same material. I have blocked both accounts indef. Special:DeletedContributions/Qweasd111 This and Special:DeletedContributions/Sasha13666 this are useful links. Feel free to discuss this if I overreacted, as I feel indef is justified because it's a clearly distruptive user that has started violating policy by introducing another account. --Evilclown93 16:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(Mutual) frustration with another editor -- would appreciate some feedback

Resolved

Hiya. User:38.119.112.187/-188/-189/-190 and I have been at loggerheads off-and-on for a while now about a handful of very dorky, probably-would-not-pass-AfD-if-anyone-looked-real-close articles. Our civility is less than exemplary and I'll readily fess up that I've antagonized him when I've been frustrated with some of his edits. I and at least one other editor have accused him of being a departed user now editing anonymously, which in and of itself is antagonizing -- and, if we're right, our confrontational editing has an even longer history. I offer the prologue to make clear that I've made my own share of don't be a dick violations when it comes to this editor.

That said, I'm curious as to whether the second sentence of this edit is appropriate. It asserts some somewhat personally identifiable information. Anyone who's looked at my since-deleted userbox page or old talk page archives can figure out plenty about me, including my profession, and make a hypothesis about where I work (although I don't think I've stated it on this site) -- but, I'm not particularly comfortable with this apparently baiting and off-topic flag about what I do when I'm not at Wikipedia. Is it just moderately irrational for me to be bothered by this, or wholly out of my freakin' mind irrational? And is it possible for someone to go into the edit history and erase that second sentence? --EEMeltonIV 16:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate. I'll delete it. Dina 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It took me a bit longer than I thought, as you had replied, but then I finally figured it out. ;) So it's gone. It has just been deleted, not oversighted but I don't really think this is a matter for that. But your call. I think I'll warn the user as well. Dina 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks! --EEMeltonIV 17:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatant violation of fair use rules in place

OK, this is really getting on my nerves. Several people continue to add a fair use picture of a living person to the infobox of David Duke, including an administrator. This is a blatant violation of our fair use criteria. Can I please get some help here? The Evil Spartan 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added Image:Replace this image male.svg. Hopefully that helps.-Wafulz 16:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It will only help if someone gives a tongue lashing to the people (an admin included!!!) who continue to add this to the page. The Evil Spartan 17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please close this IFD? It appears to have been forgotten. It would help, if, in the closure, the admin could make it perfectly clear, if kept, which articles this image can be used in, and in what context (e.g., not in the infobox of the subject). The Evil Spartan 17:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring over fair use album covers on a discography

Resolved

The use of album covers in discographies has, for several months now, been regarded as not acceptable under our non-free content criteria. Literally hundreds of discographies have had fair use images removed from them. A sampling of some of this work can be found at User:Durin/Fair_Use_Overuse#Complete (scan for the word "discography").

Today, User:Knight Whitefire has thrice restored fair use album covers to the discography section of Panic! at the Disco [26][27][28]. After my second removal today, I left a message for the user regarding this issue [29]. Subsequent to this, he left me a message insisting that the usage was allowed, and made the last revert. I left a followup message with him [30] indicating I am reporting the incident here, which I am now doing.

I'd like to ask an administrator step, revert the re-inclusion of the images, and leave a warning message for the user regarding the usage of images in this manner being against policy. Thank you, --Durin 17:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'm marking this as resolved even though I'm pretty sure I haven't heard the end of it. I'll watch the article and the user talk page. -- Merope 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing and Deletions on This Page WAY Too Overzealous

I am not sure where this is supposed to go. I hope I have the right place. I have expressed concerns over the editing of the team building section to no avail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_building

I would like to have an independent part look at this. I am concerned that legitimate content has been removed and yet a link remains unchallenged to a site where the individual is selling Amazon books directly on the page to which wikipedia links. Please read on. If I have posted this in the wrong section, please bear with me. I am still learning the ropes. Thank you for your patience.

Executiveoasis 17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Link to Team Building Primer that was on this page for a few year has been removed without foundation. It contains a ton of really valuable and practical information about team building and how companies can plan effective team building, pitfalls to avoid, et. .

http://www.thetrainingoasis.com/teambuildingprimer.html

Certainly a lot more relevant to business than some of the purely theoretical content on the page now. Sorry I just don't get it.

The removal of the UK Team Building Associaion as "commercial" also makes absolutely no sense. The website:

http://teambuilding.org.uk

CLEARLY states "The UK Teambuilding Association is a not for profit organisation formed to promote high standards among organisers of corporate teambuilding events in the UK. The Association will promote reputable regional providers of such events. The Association provides a forum for teambuilding event organisers to interact and raise the level of excellence in their field." How in the world is THAT commercial.

Current content is WAY too theoretical and not business focused. I have a lot of expertise in this area and would happily contribute but I would not expend the effort and invest the time due to the frequency and ease with which things get deleted. Some people are being WAY too overzealous when it comes to editing this page.

FYI, here are the Wikipedia spam guidelines:

There are three types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.

--executiveoasis 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia's external links policy. The links you are advocating do not contribute unique valuable information on the subject; promoting the organization is not adequate reason for linking it from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. / edg ☺ ★ 04:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns re: Team Building Editing

I really don't understand how you can say that a full page article that gives details about how to pull team building together and ensure it's effectiveness is not "of value" to a repository of information on team building. Some of the items discussed are not widely available anywhere on or off the ntet. I am sorry I just don't get it. To say that this is promotional is really beyond my comprehension.

Even the repository of articles you have links to contains the log and a link to the Autenticiy consulting site that promotes it:

http://www.managementhelp.org/grp_skll/teams/teams.htm

http://www.authenticityconsulting.com

Are you going to tell me THAT isn't promotional? The site is also selling books through Amazon directly on the page to which you link from Wikipedia. Are you going to tell me that THAT isn't promotional? Natually an organization that goes through the trouble of putting together information is going to want to put their logo with a link on or include a brief blurb about the organization. There is nothing "spammy" about that if the information they present is of value. The information in the team building primer IS of value and not that easy to find from other sources.

Executiveoasis 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

harassment/vandalism

Perhaps someone else could intervene here as I don't want to be seen as goading this individual: Sticky Note Man (talk · contribs). In response to this edit [31] I left him a test and npa template. His response was this comment on my talk page [32] and this edit to the same article [33]. --Crossmr 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like pretty blatant vandalism to me from the edits I've seen by the editor in question. Wildthing61476 18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO vandalizing again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please check out these edits done by RookZERO. He is removing 5k material off an article without prior discussion on the talk page and without reference to Wikipedia policy. I call this vandalism. This user has a long history of such edits and got blocked several times for it. I don't know what to say, but Admin intervention did not help much so far, also his edit summaries are quite hateful still. I'll pull out for now and watch Wikipedia Administrators doing their job.

Diffs (another 3RR, BTW) on Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia

18 July

17 July

17 July

17 July

10 July Step 3/3

10 July Step 2/3

10 July Step 1/3

Diffs, messing up intro section of Church of Scientology into incomprehensible english

17/18 July

17 July

Diff, Scientology unfounded claims in edit comment as a "reason" to nuke a reference which does not conform with his ideas on the subject:

17 July

Misou 01:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither is this vandalism, or is that 3RR above (4 reverts within 24 hours). You can't call good-faith edits vandalism, nor interpret it as vandalism because you disagree with it. Go to his talk page, and discuss it with him. And according to this [34] which you just called "incomprehensible English", this editor is stating in the edit summary that you are removing nuetral citations because you don't agree with him. I suggest you honestly not come here switching good-faith edits with vandalism. — Moe ε 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am baffled. Ok, 4 reverts in 24 hours are not 3RR but _4RR_, so what's the difference. Do I understand this right? You are ok with someone removing 5k of genuine text from an article simply because he disagrees with it, you are ok with him removing neutral citations because he does not like them and you are ok with 4RR without consequences for the offender? Cool. I wish I would be treated the same way as RookZERO then. As for incomprehensible English, well, two half sentences without verbs are what I say is incomprehensible English. I don't disagree with RookZERO, I disagree with his vandalism and destruction of articles and I disagree with whitewashing his actions. Can some Admin please look at this and give some reference to Wikipedia policy? Misou 16:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[35] [36] [37] All I see is 3 reverts within 24 hours, not a violation. If you actually don't agree with the edit, and it just makes an article look sloppy, fix it, rollback shouldn't be the first thing on your mind. And running to his talk page shouting "you're destroying Wikipedia" isn't the answer either. Content dispute, go through dispute resolution, next door on your left. — Moe ε 22:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am adding three violations against WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL to the whole number. Noted you logic on this. This gives me new freedoms. NPA vio's

here

here

here.

And yes, I am not a "cult" nor a member of one. Misou 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that what you're upset about? No you don't have "new freedoms". I'll leave him a message, just go something productive with your time. — Moe ε 23:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. But you know, me being away for an hour was just enough to crack the 5RR for RZ and 4RR on the other article. Can you do something about this?

Diffs Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia 5RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Scientology_Moscow_versus_Russia&diff=145559624&oldid=145543397 18 July]

18 July

17 July

17 July

17 July

10 July Step 3/3

10 July Step 2/3

10 July Step 1/3

Diffs Scientology 3RR/4RR

18/19 July

18 July

18 July plus NPA vio

17/18 July

He is making fun of you. Another new freedom? Misou 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please get a grip, just let me handle the revert warring and just let it be. I've filed a report for 3RR on Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia and look into the Scientology article revert warring in a bit. — Moe ε 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the 3RR report, it appears that these 4 reverts were within 48 hours, which isn't a 3RR. Revert warring is bad, and I don't condone it, just talk it out on the talk page and if you can't and continue to revert war, then protection will get applied. I have explained this on your talk page and refuse to discuss this imaginary 3RR any furthur. — Moe ε 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of block

Resolved

 – BC is unblocked Chick Bowen 04:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked Betacommand (talk · contribs) for running a bot on main account. See contribs for evidence. As far as I am aware, that is not allowed per WP:BOT. Viridae^Talk 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BetacommandBot normally performs the functions Betacommand was operating on his main account. I'm sure he'll tell us what happened. Someguy1221 04:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Might have been a mixup, I don't know how hard that would be to do. The block is only 24 hours. Viridae^Talk 04:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him per his request. It was a simple mistake on his part on his bot's configuration. It's since been recified. Can we mark this resolved? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In future, Viridae, please ask questions first and shoot later. Chick Bowen 04:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

3rd damn edit conflict. I was not sure wther betacommand was still and admin and it took me a while to fiind the suerrights log, by which time head had been unblco9ked Viridae^Talk 04:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

what ever happened to being nice? Instead of a talkpage message asking of what is going on all I now get is a rude block message?.

It happens that I am not running the script on the toolserver like I normally do. (Im using it for non-posting data gathering that is already gotten from the IRC feed that the bot uses) and am logging that on my personal PC. Because I also have several Non-bot python scripts that use the same file sets (pywikipeda) I forgot to change the config file from usernames['wikipedia']['en'] = 'Betacommand' to usernames['wikipedia']['en'] = 'BetacommandBot' so instead of using the bot account it was using my account, I did not even know it was happening until you blocked me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand (talk • contribs)

Given firstly your history of running unregistered bots (the most recent unaproved bot task run occured only a few days ago I believe, for which the bot was blocked), and secondly the potential to be running an admin bot (couldnt remember wether you were still an admin) the block first ask questions later approach was in my opinion justified. The block message was simply a notification, and was in no way rude. Simple mistake made, move on with your life. Viridae^Talk 04:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, considering your unfamiliarity with The State Of Things (you didn't know he wasn't an admin? Really?), your block wasn't appropriate. If you find yourself in such a position of KNOWING that you're missing a bunch of the facts, don't panic, either ask someone else to check it out or hold off and let eventualism deal with it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure Betacommand wasn't an admin, I couldn't recall wether he had been de-sysopped or not. Given the potential for a faulty admin bot, and that blocks are totally reverisble, I hardly think that 5 minutes blocked is really going to do any damage to him. A faulty admin bot has the potential to do far far more damage. Viridae^Talk 05:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Paranoia, if the bot were faulty (assuming he was an admin) it would likely not work. Did you consider checking his admin logs, thats one click from the contribs log? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The contribs showedmore than a dozen other bot edits... Viridae^Talk 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Misread that. Is it escaping anybody here, that no harm has been done by being blocked for about 5 minutes? Viridae^Talk 05:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The block becomes a part of his permanent block record, actually. I'm assuming you're not aware of this by your repeated insistence that no harm is done by your mistake. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, of course I am aware of that. However a (not incorrect) block that was undone minutes later is hardly permanent harm. Viridae^Talk 08:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and that was hardly panicking. I saw the username report from the wrong account name. Checked the history of the page to make sure it had happened more than once; checked the accounts contributions to make sure of the same and convince myself that it wasn't a automated script, not the bot; blocked (now convinced that there was a bot running on a normal account); posted a notification here and on betacommand's talk page and went in search for the user rights log. By the time I had found he wasn't an admin anymore and was about to ublock, I had been notified by demon that betacommand had replied explaining the mistake and he had taken the liberty of unblocking. Viridae^Talk 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Block first, ask questions later" is a dangerous approach, please consider making an attempt to talk to the person first in the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with any other one of my blocks, or can see a trend, feel free to berate me on it. But this is an isolated incident where a bot was clearly running on what may have been an admin account. If i had known it wasn't an admin account, I would have not blocked. However I didn't. Mistake made, user quickly unblocked. all finished. Get over it. Viridae^Talk 05:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to be an isolated incident. Since you accept this was a mistake on your part Viridae, you might want to drop a note of apology on Betacommand's talkpage. WjBscribe 05:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1. It wasn't running on an admin account, 2. It wasn't performing admin actions, and 3. You don't appear to have made any attempt to contact the user before blocking. If you're unable to accept input on your use of admin tools, you may wish to evaluate whether or not you have the temperament for the job. BC was de-sysopped because he didn't, what about you? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus christ. The first 3 points were already answered so you will have to content yourself with those answers. I am perfectly happy to accept input into my use of admin tools, and I don't think you will find any other incident where I am not. HOWEVER this situation was ridiculous. I was acting in what i felt to be the right course of action and made a mistake, leaving a user blocked for approximately 5 minutes. GET OVER IT. Mistake made, user apologised to and blocking without discussion/warning is not something I typically do... as I said, if you believe this is not an isolated incident then bring that up, but it is in my opinion so drop it. Viridae^Talk 05:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree obviously the bot was not causing harm. (or did I miss that memo?) It was making about one edit per hour. your actions here show a lack of AGF since when can an admin block an established user without so much as a word to the user before blocking? I always thought that the rule was talking before blocking I guess not. Instead of using common sense and ASKing what the issue was you just flat out block and post to ANI. instead of treating other users with respect its just block then later talk when the user cannot post to the discussion on ANI since they are blocked. or do the rules of common sense just not apply to me? ^∆ 05:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to be snippy. You seem to have adopted a remarkably unrepentant tone during this mini-drama. We're held to a higher standard, and when we screw up, we're supposed to offer something better than "no harm has been done by being blocked for about 5 minutes". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am being "snippy" because you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Seriously, get over it: mistake made, mistake rectified, problem solved, user apologised to. I justified why the block was made, I have admitted i made a mistake and if i had been quick enough i would have reversed the block myself. Viridae^Talk 05:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Viridae^Talk 05:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously. A bot operator is encouraged, but not required, to post their IP address on their bot's user page so that the owner of an anonymously running bot can be found." - taken from WP:BOT. As Betacommand is not a bot, when he starts running one on his account, whether it is a mistake or not he gets blocked. Good work Viridae - you did your job correctly. Everything is sorted now anyway......... Ryan Postlethwaite 17:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Uninvolved Admin Comment User:Betacommand makes a mistake and runs bot on main account; whoops, block, whoops, mistake, whoops, unblock, yay, apologised/explain, sorted.
• User:Viridae makes "mistake" on block, whoops, notifies, told off, apologises, told off, goes to unblock, told off, too late, told off, explains, told off, apologises, told off, defends themself, told off, explains again, told off, third party confirms that Viridae acted correctly, sorted...silence.
• Other than a bunch of people mumbling apologies through a mouthful of crow, I think the the answer I'm looking for is why the blocking of a bot for 5 mins (with consequences for user) that performs one action per hour so fucking serious we had to have a lame dramatic version of the Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python). There was one chance in twelve that it effected the bots performance. Of course, User:Betacommand may have been inconvenienced but I am sure that he accepts it as a consequence of a honest mistake and the edit summaries to his block log will qualify the actions taken.
• This is the second time today that an admin has been dragged over the coals only to be found to have been acting in accordance with guidelines/policy. Can we please try and not be so fucking dramatic in future. LessHeard vanU 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) yeah, really angry and I don't know any of the parties involved.

Please help...

Hi, there is an unregistered user (User:151.33.88.157), completely incapable of editing (or reading) in English, undoing my hard work beacuse of his family past (his family was directly involved in the matters in dispute). He is very insulting and persistent. I have invited him on numerous occasions to enter an ubiased, constructive debate, but he is incapable of doing so and only copy-pastes warnings and some texts. Some of the articles have been semi-blocked just a couple of days ago to stop him, but, incredibly, he just switched to other ones. If it is impossible to have him blocked, I request that at least someone helps and semi-blocks these articles: Zadar, Istrian exodus and History of Dalmatia. It is the only way to start debating on issues and actually get something done to make them NPOV. Thank you. DIREKTOR 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reported this and requested semi-protection of Istrian Exodus. I think it woul be good if Zadar and History of Dalmatia are semi-protected as well. --No.13 18:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I only see a handful of edits from that IP to Istrian exodus... and DIREKTOR, you exceeded WP:3RR there, which is grounds for a block.--Isotope23 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've protected Istrian exodus, Zadar, & History of Dalmatia for 2 weeks... and yes, I realize they are all the wrong version. I blocked User:209.215.160.114 for incivility and general inflammatory talkpage posts. I'm willing to let DIREKTOR off with a stern "do not break WP:3RR again", but if someone feels differently and wants to review Istrian exodus, they are certainly free to. I've been contacted about some of these article in the past and I honestly have very little knowledge about the topics, but I see lots of POV, reverting, and editor behavior that isn't by any means ideal. I'm strongly suggesting an RFC here.--Isotope23 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have suggested to you on your talk page you should revert the articles Istrian exodus and especially History of Dalmatia to previous versions. The person you just blocked has a modulating IP and your block does not prevents him in editing Wikipedia (unless the article is semi-protected or fully protected). I think in this case it would have been better if you semi-protected this article as it would prevent this person from editing articles in question. Right now you leaving his diruption edits is in eyes of this person seen as victory, you can see his gloating here. --No.13 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This fellow is not going to stop that easily. I truly appologise about revert rule violation, but it looks like I'm starting to lose it with this guy. He is now GLOATING because "they" have "defeated" us and will absoulutely not start discussing anything. At least until it is returned to the previous version and blocked (semi- or otherwise). As I stated on your talk page, that is the only way to get him down to the negotiating table. He is VERY STRONGLY POV, not because I say so, but because his family is, by his own admittion, deeply involved in the matter at hand. Hope you will understand what kind of person we're dealing with.DIREKTOR 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dropped the protection to semi protection. Further review suggests this is basically disruption by an IP as much or more so as a POV edit war.--Isotope23 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Dalmatia is still full-protected, is this an oversight, or does it take time? Also, thank you for your careful revision of the matter."Direktor of Lies" 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to User talk:Ubersmackgames

There has been a bit of a foofarah on User talk:Ubersmackgames and I ask for additional eyes. User:Ubersmackgames created an article on a game company which I deleted under WP:CSD#A7, and also as spam. That user also had a draft of that article occupying his user talk page. I blanked that while leaving him notifications about the speedy deletion of the article. He then posted an attack on me (a fairly mild one) and removed warnings about the attack and about the initial speedy deletion. Two other editors reverted his removals and bankings, and warned him of a block if he persisted. of course, under Wikipedia:User page#removal of warnings editors are allowed (if discouraged) to remove such warnings, and so there was no reason to block, and nothing to warn about except a couple of WP:CIVIL violations, not IMO at the block level. I at temped to calmly explain the issue, but this was, I fear, lost in the heat engendered by this whole sequence, which moved quite rapidly. User:Ubersmackgames has now restored his draft article to his user talk page. I would be within policy to take it as db-spam, i think, but at this point I am reluctant to do so. Perhaps a previously uninvolved admin can help explain to this user what he can and cannot do with his user page, and avoid our having to block him. DES ^(talk) 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete spoiler page?

I boldly (and perhaps recklessly) nominated Harry potter deathly hallows spoiler‎ for speedy deletion, mainly because I could not see it ever properly sourced without legal liability. My hope is that if my reasoning makes sense, it can actually be deleted very speedily. Thanks for checking this out. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, it's gone. Thanks again. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I knew it was inevitable someone would leak the book onto the Internet, probably just as inevitable that someone created an article about it. Good for you in putting it up for speedy delete, & good for whatever admin acted on it so quickly. --Yksin 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd delete anything of the sort because it's very likely to be trolling.-Wafulz 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are copyright violations, there aren't any legal liablity issues. Just sain' BenB4 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This happened for the last Harry Potter book, too. If I remember correctly someone even went so far as to create a DRV so that they could have the spoiler up for another five days (in that case the spoiler was in the title). Just delete these; the law doesn't come into it, but it's definitely trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And there is no copyright violation unless a substantial chunk of text is quoted verbatim beyond "fair use" standards. Nonetheless, such spoilers are unverifiable prior to release date. I would propose that news stories such as the AP article about Harry Potter spoilers are reliable sources. It's even OK in my book to post links to the spoiler websites in the "External links" section. However, saying that Harry did this and Hermione did that is unverifiable until the release date and should not be included in any Wikipedia article. --Richard 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Shoot me. Daniel 00:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Plonkeroo's creative spree

Can somebody take a look at what is going on here Special:Contributions/Plonkeroo. Among other things, this new editor has created a concept Sado-narcissism (see the single blog entry from google circa 2005 [58], created and article about it, and commenced SPAMMING the link to that (empty) article, he has also spent the day making questionable edits to a couple of other articles. He may be an over-enthusiastic newbie...but he is ignoring warnings and I think someone should take a look. --Zeraeph 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just gave Plonkeroo a level 4 warning for adding a sado-narcissism ref. to Narcissism (psychology). If s/he does it again, it'll result in a block. NawlinWiki 21:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• And there it is! pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Autism Initiatives

I tagged Autism Initiatives for deletion because it didn't appear to be a notable charity. Almost immediately, the article's author, AutismWorker100 (talk · contribs), weighed in and appeared to suggest that there'd be meatpuppets on the way to argue for its retention ([59]) I thought, No bleepity-bleeping way. He can't possibly be serious. Then I discovered that it was an apparent copyvio of [60], and tagged it accordingly. It also seems that it had been red-flagged as such by a bot, but AutismWorker removed the notice [61]

Well, only seven minutes after AutismWorker's announcement that meatpuppets may be on the way, Cold washed (talk · contribs) shows up and announces that he's changed it so it isn't a copyvio. The changes? Only two additional sentences ([62], [63]). Take the two sentences away, and it's still a copyvio.

So we've got meatpuppetry, gaming the system ... this thing has gotten out of hand in a hurry, and some help would be appreciated. Blueboy96 20:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD closed by Kurykh. CSD G12: copyvio. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange subpage

Can someone take a look at Stringmans/Deathly Hollows Leaks? It was probably meant to be a user subpage (created by User:Stingmans and it looks like Stingmans wants to use it as a speculative forum about the forthcoming Harry Potter book. Such a forum doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but I don't know if it's appropriate for user space either.

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this. pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 22:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read it? It seems to be about how the leaks happened, rather than what the leaks contained. Neil ╦ 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

According to its author "This is a place to discuss and place information on the recent leak on the book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" unless I read a different version than you. Whatever, what if anything should be done about this page. It's a subpage of a non-existent page in the mainspace - should it be moved? deleted? left alone? I don't know, hence asking here. pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving it to User:Stingmans/Deathly Hollows Leaks at a minimum, then running it through XfD. Argyriou (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:David Beckham

Could I ask some other administrators to take a look at Talk:David Beckham, especially the last three or four days (starting from Talk:David_Beckham#Soccer_or_Football, as I seem to have become unacceptable to one side of the argument, particularly as the cited policy which I have tried to maintain supports the opposite side.

The problem would appear to stem from the signing by Beckham last January of a pre-contract to play for LA Galaxy from 1 July 2007, from which point many editors in the US promptly started editing the player's infobox to include LA Galaxy as one of his teams, even though he was then contracted to Real Madrid and might never have played for Galaxy if he had died or been injured in the meantime; these edits were promptly removed by many other editors on the ground that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A feeling seems to have developed in some American editors that the rest of the world was ganging up on them, even though their edits were being correctly removed, per policy.

Since Beckham actually signed for Galaxy this month, it appears that a cabal of US-based editors or sockpuppets is attempting to change the variety of English used in the article from British English to American English, despite WP:ENGVAR being repeatedly pointed out to them. They claim that the unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic statement in the "Retain the existing variety" clause of ENGVAR justifies this change simply on the grounds that Beckham now plays in the US, despite the fact that he is a British citizen, played all but the last three years of his career in the UK, (and the subsequent 3 years in Spain), and is still a member of the English national team. Since 16 July we have seen the appearance of a considerable number of brand-new user accounts posting to this talk page, who have written to few if any other articles, as follows:

• User:Dylanedwards1986 - first edit 10:32 (UTC) 17 July, 35 edits up to 04:48 (UTC) 18 July, all to Talk:David Beckham
• User:Sirgalahadnj - 3 edits to Talk:David Beckham between 16:17 and 16:50 (UTC) on 16 July, and never edited any other articles.
• User:Kinkinfutbol - 7 edits to Talk:David Beckham between 23:03 (UTC) 16 July and 00:49 17 July, though in fairness in the same time period this user also uploaded a claimed "fair use" cover of Sports Illustrated depicting Beckham, and edited Sports Illustrated three times in one minute to use that cover (replacing the cover of the first issue of the magazine, which at least could justifiably claim historical interest).
• User:Jeremyroland - 3 edits to Talk:David Beckham between 0259 and 0313 UTC on 17 July, no edits to other articles, though this user did at least provide diffs to back up his complaints, even though on investigation the diffs did not support his claims.
• User:Lilyandvic - 26 edits to Talk:David Beckham (and no other articles) between 18:45 (UTC) 16 July and 17:46 18 July. This user appears to have a strong "US-English only" standpoint, and claims support in comments on his/her blog - URL not disclosed, and a Google search for this user name mostly brings up Chinese language sites.
• User:Futbolfanamerica - 4 edits to Talk:David Beckham between 17:08 and 19:30 UTC on 16 July, and no edits to other articles.
• User:Britonincarlsbad - 6 edits to Talk:David Beckham between 08:02 and 08:24 UTC on 18 July, and no edits to other articles.

There are a couple of long-established (since at least last January) editors, User:Sdsoc and User:Boyceboye, but I would be grateful if other admins could investigate what I strongly suspect to be sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry.

I have been repeatedly attacked for being partial in my comments on this article, although I have repeatedly requested the complainants to provide diffs of the edits which they allege supports their case. In the very few instances where diffs have been provided, on investigation they have not supported the complaints made.

If I might note a few of the criticisms made of me,

• in my first comment in Talk:David Beckham#Soccer or Football, Elliskev pulled me up for using the word "nonsense" to describe a suggested language change. In my defence, I will just say that I'd just got back from my mothers' funeral a few hours earlier and may not have been at my best.
• some of the critics appear to be under the impression that each article has its own administrator keeping an eye on it, and are upset that I did not support their view of what was going on. In response to one of the few diff'd complaints, I commented that I would not necessarily have considered the removal of occasions when Beckham was runner-up in various competitions and awards as vandalism, as it is normal in football (soccer) articles to only list wins.
• I have been criticised for pointing out that the 3RR rule only says that editors "may" not "must" be blocked for 24 hours, when they claim that User:Darkson should have been blocked (for precise offences never specifically documented); I suspect their gripe is that he often reverted the erroneous early inclusion of LA Galaxy in the infobox, even though there were explicit notices commented in the box throughout the early part of this year not to include Galaxy before 1 July and therefore the inclusion was vandalism, removal of which is excluded from 3RR. Since the specific complaint against Darkson was never documented, we can't be sure.
• I have supported the use of the word "Honours" and its British spelling in this article, as it is universally used in articles written in British English on football clubs and football players. Attempts to use the US spelling, or to replace the word with some anodyne alternative which is not used in the great majority of the football-watching world should be countered.

I ask my fellow administrators to take a look at this talk page, and invite them to support my actions. -- Arwel (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, could you paraphrase this?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go and look at the talk page, you will see that this is the paraphrase! -- Arwel (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that, as a non-admin, I'm allowed to post here (if not, please feel free to remove/delete this edit), but I completely back Arwel here, and if during the investigation it is found that I did break any Wiki rules or policy, I will accept the punishmnt meted out gracefully. I do however strongly believe there are sock puppets on that page, though I will not say who's I believe they are. I also believe Arwel is correct in his reasoning for why I've have been singled out by these editors. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to edit the administrators' noticeboards.-Wafulz 23:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good lord what a mess of a debate... There's even a threat of legal action buried in that debacle by an SPA that seems to have confined nearly all of their posts to criticizing various admins: User:Lilyandvic --Resolute 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I blocked all of the accounts listed here that have only editted Talk:David Beckham. I couldn't find "Fooballfanamerica" or whatever he is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Futbolfanamerica. At least 2 more accounts have started (i.e. first edit) in the last couple of hours. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Add User:JeraldTudor as well, another newly registered account dedicated to that talk page. Incidentally, as another non-admin, from what I've read of that mess, I'd support Arwel's actions well. Resolute 00:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Heartily support Arwel's actions. --John 00:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And still they're complaining on the talk page, despite Arwel posting that there was an AN/I for it [64] Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope this was helpful.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, it was a nice try, Ryulong, but Sdsoc has just done a "minor" edit "inadvertant removal of discussion sections"! Thanks to everyone for their support. -- Arwel (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it all, again. I've given him a stern… something.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A stern something being the first step towards hitting people with sticks? Confusing Manifestation 06:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparent Vandalism: Monkfish

Resolved

 – old vandalism reverted

I would appreciate if someone would take a look at a paragraph entitled "Squatinidae" at Monkfish. This paragraph (only) makes non-sensical or irrelevant references to the Muppets, the word "iDIOTS" and possibly someone's name ("Conor Ball"). This appears to me to be vandalism. If this is not the correct place to post this, please let me know for next time. Thanks. CheMechanical 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the last good version - there was a bunch of partially reverted vandalism in there. Normally, you should either fix it yourself, or contact an experienced editor on the article (look at the article history for named editors). Argyriou (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivilty

Could you please deal with User:RampageX? I've let him note to stop vandalising AS Roma (he continuously change Shabani Nonda's nationality from Congo DR to Burundi despite the article was stating the contrary). He was warned three times, twice by me and once by another user. Here is his answer. Thanks in advance. --Angelo 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gave him a warning threatening a block.-Wafulz 01:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Fox53 and sockpuppets blocked

Greetings. I just blocked User:Fox53 and his two sockpuppets, User:Kay Körner and User:Lucken, for repeatedly uploading copyright violations, using sockpuppets, and hate speech. This user had been previously blocked on the German Wikipedia and the Commons for the same reasons. He loves to upload anything about a certain East German sports club, claiming whatever he likes in order to keep them, and rails against both Christians and Jews (hook-noses) when asked about it. For his repeated uploads against policy, see this IFD submission. For other information, see this archived discussion. Note also his various talk pages. I'm pretty sure I did the right thing, but I'm submitting this here so that I can be told if I should have acted differently. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. An abuse mail was finally sent to the Saxon State Library and the University of Dresden (he used IPs from both institutions). I won’t block him on Commons by now, since I am unable to identify possible sockpuppets there. Please keep an eye on SV Dynamo – he’ll surely return. --Polarlys 01:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Another sock blocked: User:Nadia Kittel. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours by User:Swatjester

User:Symbiote-Spidey keeps making disruptive edits to Spiderman: Friend or Foe. When I warned him several times he is now threatening me on my talk page and his user page. I want someone to help me put a stop to this please.BlueShrek 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Symbiotespidey blocked 24 hours for the physical threats. BlueShrek warned for being incivil and biting. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

BlueShrek wasnt uncivil Iwent by the rules.BlueShrek 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You certainly did not. You were uncivil, biting to the new user (and you yourself are a new user) and you both have ownership issues. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hes still making threats somehow. He just left me a message. I need help against this vandal.BlueShrek 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten to click ok on the block. He's blocked now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New sock of User:Mariam83 blocked indefinitely

Further information: [[:User:Mariam83_blocked_indefinitely, Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mariam83 (2nd)]]

I've just blocked indef another sock of this disruptor. Irrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is waiting for an admin to unblock the account. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more → User:WinterT. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more → User:LeopoldSenghor7. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One more → User:FayssalK. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

..... → User:IndividualBrain. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This guy is persistent. I have a RV battle with another IP sock (User:68.89.185.223) of this user over several articles. Caknuck 07:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sending an email to abuse@sbcglobal.net today. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments made by sock, 68.89.173.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), removed by --OnoremDil 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Another sock of Mariam83 68.91.101.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just struck this board. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have requested full protection for the affected pages. (See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Articles targeted by sockpuppets of User:Mariam83). Caknuck 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good grief--19 socks? Can we consider this guy banned? Blueboy96 19:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to waste more space by asking for a ban. Would it serve for something? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, Fayssal ... proposal withdrawn, I was just trying to lend a hand. Blueboy96 20:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bigoted comments on my talk page.

User:Klaksonn made this edit to my talk page. First, his insinuation that I can't edit because I am a Salafi is very prejudiced. Second, Nasibi is a religious slur and was very hurtful. Third, I was only reverting a large edit this user made to the article on Ali, a respected Muslim figure, without discussing it first on the talk page. He then reverted my revert and insulted me again in his edit summary. I request a temporary ban on this user to let him know this isn't acceptable, though I will abide by any decision that is made. Thank you for any help, this is very distressing. MezzoMezzo 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Warned. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Nasibi is not a religious or racial slur, it is a term applied to people like User:MezzoMezzo, who writes about Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, the Mufti of Saudi and other racist fanatics who called or call for the beheading of what they consider unbelievers i.e Shi'a Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sunnis who refuse to follow Osama ben Laden. You can see what articles User:MezzoMezzo contributes to from his user page. I'm not going to allow this Wahhabi to monopolize articles about Ali, and I don't think anyone should. I suggest you look up Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baaz, Ibn abd el Wahhab and their works and decide to block this user if ever he tries to insert his POV to the article in question. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

While I would normally defend myself against the personal insults and attacks you have once again directed toward me here, this is an administrative noticeboard and is not the place for that; please don't start an argument here.

In addition, this user has once again inserted the same edits and refused to discuss them, instead accusing me of vandalism; my response may be seen here. I don't want to take up time that could be used administrating other issues but I would ask that some admins could keep watch over the Ali article and this user as well, as this is getting out of hand. MezzoMezzo 00:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

While neither version is ideal, I see nothing approaching "vandalism" here.Proabivouac 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope administrators see the irony in the fact that a Wahhabi is controling the article about Ali, and actually getting away with it. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 01:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Klaksonn, Ali, like any other article on Wikipedia, may be edited by anyone regardless of his/her religious persuasion. I also see that you were warned only yesterday to avoid precisely this kind of religious labelling.[65]

This, too, coming after the warning: "rv vandalism - considering your religious affiliations, I do not think it is wise for you to provoke me or other concerned editors. Refrain from further editing this article."[66] Compare this from before:"Undid revision 144860521 by MezzoMezzo (talk), the Sunni fanatic can back off now."[67] Similar ownership issues my be seen in these edit summaries to Fatimah:[68],[69]

We don't need this kind of sectarian hostility here.Proabivouac 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ali is not like any other article on Wikipedia. Again, and again, to allow a Wahhabi Muslim to edit an article about Ali, let alone attempt to control it, is extremely insulting and quite disturbing. I hope any other administrator sees the irony in this. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Klaksonn, I understand exactly what you mean to say and why, and it's completely wrong: Ali is no different from any other article on Wikipedia. That you revere Ali and someone else might not revere him quite as much is irrelevant. If anything, the attitude you've displayed suggests that you shouldn't be editing Ali, because you're too invested in your sectarian struggle to follow basic Wikipedia policies which mandate civility and disallow personal attacks. Salafis, Wahhabis, "Nasibis," Jews, Israelis, Americans, Hindus, atheists and anyone else is welcome to edit Ali, Fatimah or any other article on Wikipedia. If you can't accept that and act accordingly, you will be blocked.Proabivouac 05:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The only irony I see is a muslim demanding tolerance from the general group of wikipedians in approving and allowing his INtolerance of other muslims. This is a joke, Klaksonn made a personal attack, of a clearly bigoted nature, after recent warnings, as mentioned by Probivouac, and continues it by implying that 'Salafi' are inherently unworthy of editing articles about the founders of Islam. Block him for 72 hours to a week, and move on. ThuranX 05:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone should be allowed to edit, but allowing a Wahhabi Muslim who follows a certain ideology, to edit the article would be allowing a Nazi to edit and control an article about the Holocaust. This is why not anyone can edit all articles. This isn't about revering Ali less than me or anyone else, it's about hating Ali. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 07:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit any article regardless of their religious inclinations. Please stop trolling in the contrary. —Kurykh 07:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Klaksonn has been showing a *lot* of incivility towards other editors and using abusive and threatening language in edit summaries (see history here where he's asking an admin to "f****** protect the page"). I suggest Klaksonn take a breather for a while and go and read up on the policies on civility, NPOV and WP:OWN and come back when he's willing to abide by those. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 08:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Klaksonn (block log) Shows a history of being blocked for incivility - so it doesn't appear he's willing to adapt. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Klaksonn has been uncivil with me too [70]. I am not sure if ban will be appropriate at this point but please keep him in close watch. --- A. L. M. 09:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re [71] - Wow.Proabivouac 09:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can go you one further: [72] was the original, your posting was him REposting it after ALM blanked that. Looking at Klaksonn's history, I think it's clear he needs an extended block. He's already had an indef(removed after 25 hours), a 24 hour block, a one week (dropped after an hour), three hours later he pulled a 36 hour, then another 36 hour. Given the user's persistent rabid, racist, venomous hatred of all of Sunni Islam, and of the Salafi, I have to wonder if it's possible for him to be a part of this project in ANY form? Can we get a one week block, esp. as he's already broken Godwin's Law, showing he can't civilly discuss the idea. ThuranX 12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Klaksonn has indeed been making unacceptable comments of various kinds recently. it is high time he seriously considers reviewing Wikipedia's five pillars - for his own benefit - because further behaviour of this kind will not be treated lightly. ITAQALLAH 13:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

I am blocking User:Klaksonn for 48 hours. Despite the warning given by an admin above and a previous block and lots of warning for incivility (plus an edit warring block) there is no sign that this editor is listening to the comments or modifying their behaviour. Indeed they are still arguing the toss when apology is needed. --BozMo talk 20:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable. WilyD 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not long enough. He's fully aware of the bigotry in his actions, and despite warnings, despite an AN/I, his ONLY response it to continue with the 'Some muslims are just evilbadwrong' vibe. Wikipedia welcomes any editor willing to AGF, act for the betterment of the project, not troll others, or look for ways to cast others AS trolls, and who can accept that neutrality and analytical writing is needed. Klaksonn can do none of the above. If his block is NOT extended to a week or so, I at least would like a commitment from all involved in this incident report to back a long (30 or 60 day) block on Klaksonn should he resume, immediately OR later on, the same discriminatory attitudes. ThuranX 23:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Dangerous-Boy

I am posting for review and comment an indefinite block that I have just placed on Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs). This user was a party to the recently concluded case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2, in which the decision emphasized that the parties were immediately to discontinue all forms of harassment of and personal attacks against one another. Nonetheless, on three successive days, Dangerous-Boy placed offensive quotations on his userpage mocking two of his former adversaries in this case. That the quotations were aimed directly at these two users is apparent not only from the selection of the quotations themselves, but from direct evidence including links in the edits and the edit summaries. Dangerous-Boy persisted in this conduct in the face of two strongly worded warnings by this administrator and went so far as to post a link to WP:STALK on his userpage to express his disdain for my input on his edits.

I think it is well-known that I am not quick to block, certainly not to block indefinitely, and view doing so as a true last resort. I have advised Dangerous-Boy that in this context, an "indefinite" block does not necessarily mean a permanent one, and that I will lift the block if he clearly and unambiguously promise to stop this type of behavior. Given the sad history of this overall situation and the clear ArbCom ruling, however, I felt that this behavior could not be allowed to continue. Review of and comments on my action and the reasons for it are welcome. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom was very clear that "Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute". You and dboy had a dispute about quotes from macbeth, wild allusions to the Roman empire and some perhaps taunting edit summaries. Since dboy is doing things on his own userpage, not on talk, mainspace, and usertalk pages, I find this block highly inappropriate. However, because you are a fair admin, I'm willing to assume good faith here unlike the situation with another individual that also indef'd this aforementioned user. DaGizza does not seem to have lost sleep about the "offensive quotations" and I fail to see why you would, considering that the arbcom fiasco is over. Its not like Dboy has been sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, and vandalizing. He's only ranting on his userpage, probably getting something off his chest. I dont see how this he is being "dangerous" (haha) at all. Perhaps time to cool down, but an indef block, especially when he has never been (legitimately) blocked before is a little outlandish.Bakaman 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I read at the arbitration decision page, the ruling you referred to was about the admins involved as parties in the RFArB. NYBrad seems to be enforcing other rulings from the RFA. The enforcement of such rulings doesn't constitute a "dispute between DBoy and NYBrad". D-Boy has previously resorted to such taunting using quotes about Roman Empires and other literature. The intended meaning of such taunting isn't difficult to understand, and it is quite a mean attitude to continue doing so. --Ragib 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So you think that indef-blocking a user never legitimately blocked before for some userpage shenanigans is somehow justified? A great solution if you feel offended by Dboy's userpage is to not look at it. Then whatever "offensive quotations" will have no effect, and perhaps when he is less emotionally charged he may take them off. You are treating an innocent user worse than you treat socks and meats of banned users, perpetual vandals, and abusers of admin priviledges. Even some of them don't get indefinitely blocked.Bakaman 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is NOT that the quotations are offensive. Rather, the issue is that, despite being told explicitly, D-Boy used the user page to taunt the other parties involved in the RFARB. A very clear example is this version, which taunts User:Rama's Arrow (another party involved in the RFARB). --Ragib 01:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Per Newyorkbrad, I can see no reason that it should be allowed to continue. I also can see no problem with allowing Dangerous Boy to return upon some acknowledgment that this is inappropriate, and a pledge not to repeat it. Userspace blocks are always tragic, for even in the best case scenario, the disputed material accomplishes nothing useful. Hopefully, Dangerous Boy (and others who see this thread) will appreciate the folly of fighting to retain inappropriate userspace content, especially in violation of an ArbCom decision which (as he observed) generally was quite favorable to him.

Bakaman, it doesn't sound as if there was any intention to remove Dangerous Boy from the encyclopedia, only to stop the violation. So, let's focus on how we can help Dangerous Boy help himself, as it were, by committing to stay far away from anything that might be construed as a violation, whether in userspace or anywhere else, and thus get unblocked.Proabivouac 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)Rama's Arrow left wikipedia weeks before Dboy's emotional outburst. Besides we all have legitimate anger towards the rogue admin (facilitated by many facilitators of admin abuse) who wheel-warred and scarred our block logs. If that is dboy's "sin" its hardly worth an indef-block. I have not seen either Rama's Arrow or DaGizza take any emotional beating from or make any response to the taunts. Perhaps a protection of his userpage may be in order, but an indef-block on grounds this spurious? Definitely not.Bakaman 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's spurious. Rather, it seems that Newyorkbrad means to send a very strong message that the decision will be enforced. The trouble is that Dboy is on the wrong side of that message.

I understand why Dangerous-Boy (and you) are angry. Perhaps you are correct that protecting userpage should have been the first resort. I do not mind if Dangerous-Boy is unblocked. But, the decision should be enforced, and that is what Newyorkbrad is doing.Proabivouac 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#On_notice, an appropriate "stick" is the protection of his user and user talk pages.Bakaman 01:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno... the ArbCom decision made it pretty clear that everyone was fed up with this bickering. Starting right back in immediately shows a severe lack of insight. A block is entirely appropriate, and Newyorkbrad is not in a "dispute" that would disqualify him from applying it. A block is suitable as a "stick" in this case; protecting another user's space is more of a last resort to stop a disruptive blocked user, not a first line of prevention. As to whether it should be indefinite, it sounds like Newyorkbrad is willing to unblock him if he promises to shape up. How many last chances can a user expect? MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said above and also on Dangerous-Boy's talk: I'll gladly unblock if he'll promise to stop this sort of behavior. Newyorkbrad 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The indef block was an overreaction. Blocking someone frome editing Wikipedia forever is always an action of last resort; it's not the default mode of action upon first seeing a violation of an ArbCom ruling. Beit Or 08:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves" (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2). Newoyorkbrad just implements the ArbCom's decision. It's as simple as that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing in the arbcom ruling about *blocking*. How hard the hit is to be was left to the enforcer(s). For this exact reason, its *not* "as simple as that" - there isnt a guideline to decide length of the stick.. --soum ^talk 09:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeffing does seem an overreaction to me. He was ranting only in his userpage. It could have been very easily dealt with by protecting the page. Or a short block at max to get the message across. Things could have calmed down more easily that way, an indef might escalate things further. Indeffing only increases frustration, not reduce it. --soum ^talk 09:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an element of subjectivity in "hit on the head with sticks" so I have asked User:Mackensen, the proposer of the remedy and one of the participating arbitrators to comment on this issue. My personal understanding is that the remedy was a strict, last-warning type remedy because personal attacks had been fired by many parties from both sides during the arbitration case. It is important to note that this behaviour was ongoing. It didn't start after the case had finished. During the case he was warned about his behaviour by uninvolved parties too. [73]

Whether the length of the block was too harsh can of course be discussed in more detail. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to Baka. From Wikipedia:User page Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not. Nobody, which means you, me, Dangerous-Boy, admins, non-admins and even banned trolls, should ever have to deal with receiving a constant barrage personal attacks. There is a difference between a one-off emotional incident, which I understand, and continuing to do it explicitly after being warned on numerous occasions. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Newyorkbrad's approach to the situation. The nature of the stick was deliberately vague so as to not bind the hands of the community--in that regard, DaGizza's commentary on the situation is more or less on the mark. Indefinite blocks are just that--indefinite. Given a guarantee of good behavior the block can go away. Mackensen (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that D-Boy actionswere a rather juvenile, still ibelieve and indef block is rather harsh. I urge D-Boy to come down from his high horse and apologise to the community... His contributions outweigh his emotional oubursts! AMbroodEY Reloaded 12:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that people here agree about the main point. D-Boy has to consider the case as sensitive. He would stop it definitely and get back to business. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If "the nature of the stick was deliberately vague", then going straight to indefinite blocking was incredibly inappropriate.

I'll admit: When I hear "hit with a stick" online, I think "ban stick". But that's only because I'm a forum geek. Problem is, I don't take them as personal attacks. Some of them may have been little jabs. But a personal attack is saying something like, "Bladestorm is a douchebag!" Or, at least, directly implying that "Bladestorm" is in the process of doing something really bad. Even if you take brad's analysis that he's gloating over someone having fallen, that's neither: a conspiracy theory, an actual personal attack, or (obviously) an ethnic dispute. As such, it isn't covered.

What's more, since I tend to try to 'assume good faith', I tend to assume that d-boy just might be telling the truth when he says that he took brad's advice and stopped trying to gloat, and, rather, decided to put up a nice shakespeare quote instead. (I happen to like MacBeth myself, and think it's a nice one to quote) Taking that as the final straw for an indefinite block (no, not infinite... just "infinite until he decides to never have another quote on his user page ever again, and admits that he was wrong, regardless of whether or not he actually was") is downright absurd.

And, seriously, does this mean that he can never have another quote on his userpage ever again? Seems so.

I mean, holy crap... just look at wikiquote's quote of the day:

Maintain a constant watch at all times against a dogmatical spirit: fix not your assent to any proposition in a firm and unalterable manner, till you have some firm and unalterable ground for it, and till you have arrived at some clear and sure evidence. ~ Isaac Watts

I chose that one only because it's the quote of the day. But, if you were looking for a problem, then even that could be easily taken as an attack against rama's arrow! This is seriously messed up. Bladestorm 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted from a response to Bladestorm on my talk

I appreciate your good-faith concern over this issue and will respond to your comments in the spirit in which you have placed them here, but I believe you have overlooked a couple of aspects.

First, you are right that I wouldn't normally consider it as a personal attack on other editors if a user posted a classical quotation on his or her userpage, in and of itself. But I think I would treat it as a personal attack if you had (1) actually linked from the words "send word to Rome ... Caesar has won" to the text of the arbitration decision, as Dangerous-Boy did here, and (2) posted another quotation about prevailing in battle with the edit summary "[name of another editor who was a party to the case] do you see me." Under these circumstances, as other admins have commented, it was not a large leap to see this context as intended to mock, tease, or troll other parties to the decision and to continue the ongoing hostilities.

I think you may also have your chronology slightly confused, in that the Shakespeare (Macbeth) quotation was the one with the objectionable edit summary.

I was not and am not in any underlying dispute with Dangerous-Boy or any of the other editors in the arbitration case. I am, however, the most active clerk for the Arbitration Committee and one of the admins who has taken a role in enforcing its decisions. I don't see any conflict of interest in the action I have taken. I also did not say that to be unblocked, Dangerous-Boy must never utilize a quotation again, although it will be in both his and the project's interests to use far more discretion in the future if he wishes to edit harmoniously.

Frankly, I am not relishing the position of having had to block a contributor, even one with some well-known rough edges. I regard blocks of contributors as truly a last resort and in fact have often been teased by other admins for my reluctance to use that particular button. I hope that Dangerous-Boy can realize soon that his conduct was unhelpful and promise to stop it, so that I can press the "unblock" button, which I enjoy doing far more. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, brad, was it the "personal attack" section of the arbcom decisions to which you were referring? Because I'm not sure how, even if you take it as gloating, that could be construed as a "personal attack". A personal attack would be saying that "Bladestorm is a douchebag", or "Bladestorm sucks donkey balls", not "Caesar has won", or "Gaul has fallen. Pompey has fled. Cato has retired.", or a shakespeare quote. They aren't personal attacks, are they? The arbcom decision (if I'm looking at the right decision) was that personal attacks are a no-no, but that doesn't apply. Your edit summaries call the quotes "offensive", even though they aren't offensive on their face.
So... if they are personal attacks, what insult or accusation are they making? And, if they aren't, how are the quotes covered by the arbcom decision?
(I prefer to discuss the more general issue of quotes on your talk page. You can cross out my comments on that issue here if you like) Bladestorm 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators wrote that "[a]ll parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means." The comment about non-complying parties being "hit on the head with sticks" was (to say the least) non-standard wording for an arbitration decision, which I took as meaning that the arbitrators were totally fed up with a situation permeated that had led a couple of arbitrators to comment on the proposed decision page that they had come very close to banning a number of the involved editors, of whom Dangerous-Boy would certainly have been one. The user conduct by many editors, including Dangerous-Boy, throughout the arbitration case was absolutely appalling. In view of the history, Dangerous-Boy's conduct was gratuitous and disruptive even absent a specific ArbCom ruling telling the parties to cut it out. Nonetheless, I will repeat for the umpteenth time that I am prepared to unblock him or for any other admin to do so the minute he agrees to discontinue this behavior and use his access to Wikipedia for productive editing. Newyorkbrad 17:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well now, hold up here. Again (I can't remember where I said this, but even I acknowledge this), his behaviour during the arbitration was inexcusable, but... that was the time to punish him for that. Now's too late. Only his conduct since then, as well as the arbcom rulings, should matter. I don't think that it was unreasonable to interpret "hit with sticks" as meaning potentially any punishment; I don't fault you for that. (though I would've thought that "indefinite ban" is a bit of a jump, especially since it really means, "infinite ban, unless d-boy accepts my personal interpretation of his userpage quotes")

I think it's absurd to say that his behaviour would've warranted a block in the absence of the arbcom. In no other event would quoting shakespeare ever warrant an indefinite block. Absolutely zero chance. It would never be considered "gratuitous and disruptive".

But, I asked you two important questions.

"if they are personal attacks, what insult or accusation are they making? And, if they aren't, how are the quotes covered by the arbcom decision?"

Since it was the MacBeth quote that warranted the final block, I'm especially interested to hear how that qualifies as an insult or accusation. I realize that you said you're fine with an unblocking so long as he stops his behaviour, but you haven't even identified what that behaviour is! Linking to the arbcom is obviously off-limits, no problem. But "personal attacks", which don't include insults, accusations, or even a direct connection? Maybe it'll be easier once you explain how that shakespeare quote, in and of itself, is a personal attack. Bladestorm 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Brad's block was a good block and I confess that I find Bladestorm's hypotheticals above beside the point. For all intents and purposes, every involved and associated editor was placed on double secret sudden death probation as a result of the arbitration. The idea that ArbCom should have "punished" Dangerous-Boy (or anyone else) during arbitration or not all overlooks this salient fact. To argue that his behavior would not have warranted a block in the absence of arbcom is pointless for that very reason. Dangerous-Boy and others were warned that the previous behavior was unacceptable, and that the continuation of vendettas, conspiracies, and factionalism would be mee harshly. Mackensen (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised that Dangerous-Boy was the first recipient of the stick. One of the biggest annoyances during this entire affair has been many people's inability to just Shut The Hell Up at the appropriate times. D-Boy needs to understand that the appropriate time is now, and (as far as this particular sort of sniping is concerned) for the foreseeable future. He's also got to understand that (a) Wikipedia is not a battlefield; and (b) he didn't win anything in that arbitration; it was a lose-lose situation for everybody involved. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And to facilitate "shutting the hell up", you can protect his user/talk pages.Bakaman 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Or you can block him. This particular incident is the culmination of a long string of abuses of Wikipedia. Rather than wikilawyering it to death, how about admitting there's a problem and agreeing to go the extra mile to avoid conflict (which is what the ArbCom decision was trying to get people to do)? MastCell ^Talk 00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The block of Dangerous-Boy is appropriate and exactly the type of sanction I intended for the community to take against the parties in this case. All parties were warned to stop their disruptive behavior or they would be made to stop. FloNight 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous-Boy has agreed not to post any quotes on his userpage, so I've unblocked him. I shall watch what he does now, but I'm ever optimistic that this one whack with a cluestic will have been enough. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the unblock and hope that there will be no further issues. Newyorkbrad 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good. I'm also hoping he finaly got the message. FloNight 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe he has gotten the message.Bakaman 18:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Lcnhop

This user keeps formatting the Immortal Technique article incorrectly, he adds album covers in the article, which is not allowed, fixes redirects which are not broken, and also he is being uncivil, with rude edit summaries, insulting comments on talk pages, and he left me uncivil messages, please at least give this user a warning. --- Realest4Life 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He also just added false information to the Matisyahu article. I just asked Stephen, an administrator, to block this guy. Alex 00:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I also suspect that this is another account of user Hoplcn. That user was already blocked for these formatting issues and rude behaviour in the past. --- Realest4Life 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: User has now been blocked for 24h, however, please consider extending the block, considering his uncivil behaviour, and considering he was engaged in another edit war at the same time, and also considering he has done this before on "Hoplcn", and now he is continuing this edit war as an anonymous user, see here. --- Realest4Life 01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, he has used rude edit summaries, this one simply because I was ordering the links and categories alphabetically, I didn't remove any information whatsoever, other than some sort of advertising for a forum, and some sentence that sounded like a promotion for a song. --- Realest4Life 15:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And AGAIN, he insists on his preferred version, after I CREATED AN ARTICLE FOR THE DISCOGRAPHY SPECIFICALLY DO AVOID ANYMORE EDIT WARRING. Something must be done. Please help. --- Realest4Life 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet again. --- Realest4Life 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, look at this, he has done this just because he doesn't agree with the article formatting. Please help. --- Realest4Life 15:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User has again insulted me on the Immortal Technique talk page, and also just made another account to edit war, and insulted User:Acalamari using that account. He also wanted to "speedy delete" a discography, simply because he does not agree with Wikipedia rules concerning fair-use of covers and Wikipedia formatting. Maybe someone should block all of these sockpuppets for a longer period of time, as he clearly did not get the message that he must change his behaviour. Also, I am getting a bit tired of his constant insults directed at me, so please do something about this issue. --- Realest4Life 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User has insulted me again. I think they should be blocked for a longer period of time. --- Realest4Life 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User has also insulted Spellcast, and keeps using rude edit summaries, see here, and here. This situation is starting to get out of control. --- Realest4Life 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User is edit warring at the Roots Tonic article over the same issues as the Immortal Technique article, see here, here, and here. --- Realest4Life 00:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User also thinks he "owns" articles, see here. --- Realest4Life 00:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is from Acalamari's talk page:

He is still around. --- Realest4Life 12:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He's back yet again! This guy does not know when to stop. Please block all of his sockpuppets, look at his message on his talk page, or look at is user page, and look at his talk page. I don't think he will stop until he is blocked for like a month or so. He just keeps coming back with more sockpuppets. Can't you do anything about it? --- Realest4Life 13:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And again. Please do something. --- Realest4Life 13:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And again. --- Realest4Life 14:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

End of discussion from Acalamari's talk page.

---

OK, I think I added most of this user's sock puppets here. Is there any way to block him from editing or creating a new account for at least a week or so? He just keeps coming back as an anonymous and keeps creating new accounts. --- Realest4Life 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: User Acalamari has blocked his newest account and said something about "account creation blocked", so I think this problem is solved. For now at least. --- Realest4Life 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey et al.

As this post will most likely get lost in the cesspool up above, I have blocked Kebron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Pfagerburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Aim Here (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for trolling and disruption. Simply reading the mess above leads me to believe that these users are not here to work constructively and are currently trolling AN/I and causing a massive waste of time. I read through the situation and felt that while it may not have been the letter of the law, it what's best for the encyclopedia. If someone disagrees and wishes to reverse me, I won't attempt to wheel war. Thanks, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Merkey probably needs to be reblocked, but blocking everyone substantially involved (except me, thanks for that) isn't the way to do it. He was previously banned, of course, so due to the odd way people work, there's going to have to be an Arbcom case before he can be indefblocked again. -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

While I understand the sentiment behind this, I have to question the usefulness of the block. It's like adding kerosene to burning embers. I guess it will now end up in the ArbCom's playing field. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It would anyway. I fail to see how something else could happen when every complaint is dismissed as disruptive. But this did definitely squirt some kerosene on. Or maybe a barrel of crude oil. -Amarkov moo! 03:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably was going to burn. It was likely going to burn. Now, it is certain it is going to blow up. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, we need to stop babysitting people who are being disruptive. If they're not directly here to write the encyclopedia or help with the facilitation of that (via meta aspect such as xFD, adminship, etc), then they need to find somewhere else to go. If they won't go, then they need to be blocked, plain and simple. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Unfortunately, some people don't. And some of those some people are admins who will reverse the blocks, thus inflaming the dispute. Or at least the Merkey one, the others are iffy depending on who sees it first. -Amarkov moo! 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from Pfagerburg, asking if I could remove the block come Monday, so he can pursue proper dispute resolution via ArbCom when Merkey gets back in town Tuesday. I am willing to lift the block on them Monday, so this avenue can be pursued. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I fully support this. Merkey isn't apologizing to anyone, continues to withhold key evidence by which we can engage in DR. That said, I'm sure this will be overturned soon. and I was right. How frustrating. ThuranX 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked the blocks to auto-expire on Monday. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse User:^demon's actions. These are off-Wiki disputes that appear to be more about extending old conflicts than improving this project. An indefinite block may have been unnecessary, but time-off will at least keep things quieter here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the need to block Merkey. He's got his problems, but he's not made a career of trolling anyone listed here, and he certainly didn't start it up here on the noticeboard. Basically, he's being blamed for being targeted so relentlessly that others conclude he's more trouble than he's worth.Proabivouac 04:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2)They're all expiring Monday, so I suggest we just leave them in place and allow all of the parties involved a chance to cool down and then approach ArbCom with a clear and willing mind. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, if Merkey's behavior were wholly attributable to provocations by trolls, you would be entirely correct in objecting to Merkey being blocked along with those suspected of harassing him. However, I think the history shows that there's plenty of unwarranted and unprovoked disruptive behavior on his part as well. This is why I think an ArbCom proceeding is necessary to sort things out—there's a nasty brew of bad behavior, outside influences, suspicions, accusations and refutations, and a whole bunch of history behind this ongoing problem. I think this whole thing needs a fair hearing by people with the responsibility to protect WP from such problems and the authority to make the solutions stick, and that's ArbCom. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Although for the most part I agree with the actions taken here, I have to admit that I don't understand the inclusion of Aim Here (talk · contribs) in this big block. The only part he seemed to have in the discussion was discussing the possible BLP issues, and he seemed to be doing it in a fairly balanced and rational manner. He seemed to be honestly concerned with simply improving the encyclopedia. Then when the discussion turned into a flame war of who's a troll, and who's pointing at Elvis, and all the other disruptive stuff, he dropped out of it and didn't make any comments at all. In fact, the only mention of his name outside of the BLP stuff was Merkey requesting he be blocked. Now I'd like to AGF and assume that you didn't include him in the block simply because Merkey said so, so could you please point us at the diff that you found to justify having to block Aim Here along with the other three? Thanks. --Maelwys 13:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ^demon's blocks of Pfagerburg, Kebron, and Jeff. I don't know enough about Aim Here's involvement to endorse or not, but I've gotten involved in a few ANI reports with the other 3 and all three blocks were deserved. It's time to nudge them towards dispute resolution.--Isotope23 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:NobutoraTakeda indefinitely blocked

NobutoraTakeda's first edit here was a bundled AFD for a series of Space Marines related articles. That in and of itself is odd, but when taken with the "possible" result of a request for checkuser it seems to put it in a bit more context. SanchiTachi (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for disruption involving Warhammer 40,000 related articles and eventually had his talkpage protected due to repeated attempts to revoke GDFL on his contributions. Many of NobutoraTakeda's comments here have the same tone. NobutoraTakeda's other contributions here primarily are AFD !votes, and excessive levels of commenting about other editors' !votes either in the AFD or on their userpages (which he has been warned about by multiple other editors). Taking the disruptive nature of his commenting along with the checkuser possibility of a sockpuppet, and the definite similarity in NobutoraTakeda's/SanchiTachi's writing style, I have indefinitely blocked User:NobutoraTakeda as a probable sockpuppet who is definitely being disruptive. I'm not advocating a speedy close of afds he initiated per WP:BAN, but if someone wants to mention the block at the AFDs, feel free. I also welcome a review of the contribution history of User:NobutoraTakeda and User:SanchiTachi if anyone wants to double check my block reasoning.--Isotope23 17:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good block--especially since he tripped himself up by claiming he didn't know how to do an AfD, but nearly all of his contribs were to AfDs. Quack, quack. Blueboy96 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And something else ... may want to consider relisting any articles that were deleted as a result of his nominations at WP:DRV, for procedural reasons only. I've already found one ... Blueboy96 23:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboy that any articles deleted as a result of NobutoraTakeda's nominations should be reviewed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• It should be mentioned that in addition to an unblock request User:NobutoraTakeda is using his [[talkpage as a soapbox to attack me (which isn't really a big deal to me) as well as Blueboy for his comments above.

Not terribly related, but I entirely agree with the block. While I am not surprised he is a sock (case of knew too much for a newbie), his disruptive behaviour alone at a range of AfDs and elsewhere, and his harassment of User:Arkyan and myself amongst others, was getting to the point where a block was the next logical step. Orderinchaos 08:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I also fully endorse the block. Whether or not he's a puppet of SanchiTachi is irrelevant: he's disruptive and abusive and clearly is somebody's sockpuppet. Pascal.Tesson 11:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Now that I think about it, there are only two circumstances where I can think of where any articles that were deleted as a result of AfDs started by this guy should not be reviewed--copyvios and clear-cut cases of libel/defamation. Regardless of whether a sock turned them up, the legal risks of letting them back on the server for even a minute outweigh WP:BAN. Blueboy96 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiscali rangeblock

I've just blocked the three ranges 88.109.0.0/16, 88.110.0.0/16, and 88.111.0.0/16 for three hours. The range belongs to the UK ISP Tiscali, and is a pool of addresses used by their DSL customers. The block is anon-only and suspends account creation; logged-in editors should be unaffected.

It's used by the permabanned vandal and prolific sockpuppeteer Light current, and I've decided to take away his toys. (If nothing else, it will force him to exhaust his supply of sleeper socks—see tonight's example, HoseDummy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was used for pagemove vandalism after I reverted Light curren't IP edits.)

If there's someone who is in a convenient location to contact and deal with Tiscali UK, there is an abuse report for reference at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Tiscali DSL. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What is it about Tiscali? Almost all of the Nigerian scam emails I get come from them. Corvus cornix 15:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

SabbathForever2007 -- SEGA sock

New account SabbathForever2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is on a tear. Typical SEGA sock obsessions:

• uploading copyvio album covers
• altering Black Sabbath credits contrary to WP:ALBUM
• obsessed with Geoff Nicholls [74]

Requested on user's talk page he stop both edits. Initially replied with typical refusals, now is not changing formatting, but continues uploading copyvio art. / edg ☺ ★ 02:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He's putting a fair use rationale on the images description page. Have I missed something? What's wrong with adding the image of the album cover to an article about the album? Surely that is fair use? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jucha Wiban comparing Jimbo to Hitler

Could someone please have a look at this lovely contribution to User:Jimbo Wales/Poems (which I've already removed)? Jucha Wiban (talk · contribs) obviously thinks it's OK to post rewritten lyrics from Der Fuehrer's Face, quite openly comparing Jimbo to Hitler. --Dapeteばか 08:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Silly troll looking for attention. Ignore. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. Who hasn't been compared to Hitler these days? MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has to keep Godwin's Law alive...--Isotope23 18:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Saipan

I've recently been involved in a disagreement over my removal of an external link at Saipan. I'm not all that bothered about some of the abuse I got, and stand by my reasoning for removing the link (transcripts of a local broadcaster's radio program) even if others disagree. I'm even not all that concerned about the laundry list of nonsense that CyberAnth (talk · contribs) has posted on Talk:Saipan. I can even overlook CyberAnth's warning for me to be civil to C.m.jones (talk · contribs) given their collusion on this issue (see below). I do, however, have a serious issue with some of the edit summaries made by C.m.jones [75], [76]. A quick look at his recent contribs shows some other interesting summaries. CyberAnth has previously been blocked 3 times, and C.m.jones 5 times. Suffice to say i'm going to stay out of Saipan affairs from now on given that some kind of consensus to retain the link at all costs seems to have emerged, but if a neutral admin wanted to review their actions I'd appreciate it. They have noted at CyberAnth's talk page that they have been enjoying this and editing each other's contributions, and C.m.jones has interestingly requested speedy deletion of his talkpage. Deiz talk 09:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones response to my denial of the speedy and request for further information about why he wants his (warning heavy) talkpage deleted. Deiz talk 09:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User is continuing to request deletion of his talkpage without giving specifics, now quoting "right to vanish", which he does not intend to do. I've removed the template twice but he is clearly going to re-add it until someone deletes the page. Anyone out there? Deiz talk 09:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the request and left the user a note. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Deiz

Please see the very clear violations of WP:EL, WP:EW, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, a few others, and abuse of position by this user as detailed at Talk:Saipan#Harry_Blalock_radio_commentary. Note also that there are numerous lies in what he writes above. CyberAnth 09:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Deiz talk 09:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a content dispute here and nothing more. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any significant edit warring. I see absolutely nothing that suggests a violation of OWN. Some of Deiz's comments are a little condescending and mentioning his admin status during a content dispute isn't particularly wise, but I don't see anything bad enough to call a violation of CIVIL. As for EL, that's a content dispute and has no place on this noticeboard. --Tango 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that, in the context of :CIVIL, the comments directed towards me during this episode (for example, the edit summaries outlined above, bolded accusation of lying, accusations of various offences on this page and the Saipan talk page etc) haven't been given much attention. If my frustration with the situation was apparent I apologize... Deiz talk 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that your power has most definitely gone to your head and that your judgment is miserably, pathetically clouded. CyberAnth 15:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute. I'd lean towards allowing the link, but that's not the question. I see a bunch of editors teaming up and baiting Diez, and then accusing him of incivility on AN/I after his (relatively mild) response. At best, it's a two-way street and everyone should cool down. There's certainly nothing actionable on Diez's part, and comments like the one immediately above only serve to discredit your judgement as to what is civil or a personal attack. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Broncopaul

has been engaging in large scale deletion of content. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Broncopaul they have been warned previously about this. Michellecrisp 11:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He got a "last warning", and so far hasn't done it again. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The 10 months of inactivity followed by a blanking spree struck me as a compromised account. I indefblocked with an explanation message just in case. I have no problem with anyone unblocking as long as Broncopaul asserts it is really him. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Pag293

New user, User:Pag293 keeps uploading fair use screenshots from television and film, wanting to add them to the World Trade Center and World Trade Center in popular culture articles. The user left comments at Talk:World_Trade_Center#Galleries, "Its really amazing how you are the only one on this whole site who always takes off my Fair use pics." I have tried explaining to the user about fair use, what's allowed and what's not. Obviously, the user is annoyed with me. As such, I may not be the best person to try to talk to the user. To the user's credit, they did ask for additional opinions on the matter on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content [77], but apparently didn't like the answer. The user has made other good edits, but needs to understand about appropriate use of images. Would anyone else be willing to take a look at this? --Aude (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also this edit [78] earlier this morning "(Undid revision 145445131 by DLand (talk))" without any talk page discussion. Dland's edit was to "remove all non-unique images, and gallery - this not wikimedia commons, we have {{commonscat}} for that". --Aude (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a look and noticed the user had blanked their talk page. I left them a message offering help with image use policy. I'd like to compliment you, Aude, on the enormous patience you have shown to this user. Image policy is complicated and maybe they just need some coaching. I'll assume so in the first instance anyway. --John 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Their edits seem in good faith. The user clearly finds the policies confusing, and doesn't agree with them or understand our reasons for doing things this way.--Aude (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on any reply and on their future conduct. Please let me know if you see them doing anything else they shouldn't. They've certainly had ample warnings and offers of help. --John 15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Incredibly obscene

I still can not believe what this guy (known as: 82.55.179.11, LEO, Bruno and under many other IPs) with a modulating IP said. Please take a look at these pages: User_talk:DIREKTOR, Talk:Josip Broz Tito and Talk:Foibe massacres (near the bottom of the page). He has a modulating IP, has been warned on numerous occasions (by Admins as well), is extremely POV and a vandal. He has been disrupting my hard work for the last week or so and has forced many articles into semi-protection. Can anyone do something, he will continue with his insults. please help... DIREKTOR 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

UThe anon user is trolling. Remove the Anon's comments, warn appropriately, and report to WP:AIV if nec. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Adbux

(I'm at work, otherwise I'd do it) Someone needs to look at the competing edits of Tiredofscams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vs Ducucch2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The former asserts the latter is a Ponzi-scammer, the latter denies. A tad more than a content dispute, given the legal/illegal nature of what's up. Given the abject lack of WP:RS I'd be inclined to clusterblast the lot of 'em, but I don't have time for clusterblasting today. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Adbux.org should probably be deleted as an attack page, and Tiredofscams should probably be warned for soapboxing.-Wafulz 17:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If not an attack page, it doesn't look to be that notable or meet WP:CORP to start with. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my boldness, but I've deleted the article and warned the user.-Wafulz 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User requesting deletion of their talk page?

User talk:Jtm71 is currently up for speedy deletion, with the reason "it is my wish". The user doesn't seem to be invoking m:right to vanish, so this would just delete all talk page history. Is this allowed?-Wafulz 14:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I have declined the speedy request. Also, this is one of the few times I've ever seen someone give themselves a template warning. --Deskana (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No it violates the GFDL. Rlest 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How? Provided you delete every revision, there's no GFDL concerns. --Deskana (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In which cases can a talk page be deleted? Peacent 14:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To remove libelous material in the history, or to invoke m:right to vanish.-Wafulz 14:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I must have misread that bit, deleting a page to removed certain revisions violates the GFDL but not deleting to vanish or to remove the full history. Rlest 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Provided you remove all revisions after the one you delete, there is no GFDL concern. Or, if it was libellous and reverted straight away, simply removing the libellous edit and the reversion (not even the reversion is necessary) will do. --Deskana (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is for example when Qst left some nasty edit summaries when he was upset his talk page was deleted then restored without them revisions included and it had to be restored as to how it was per GNUFDL. Rlest 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be too much of a topic shift but I've heard it's okay to keep vandalism edits out when doing a restore of an article saying that the vandalism isn't contributing to the article and so doesn't need to be credited per GFDL. Is that true? Same for talk pages? Just curious... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

People are getting confused here. GFDL requires attribution for all derivative works. So were I to delete the last 20 revisions here at ANI, there'd be no GFDL issue. However, were I to delete the original post to this thread, without deleting the rest, that would be a GFDL violation, as the original post author isn't properly attributed. If vandalism is reverted immidiately, then the revisions can be removed without creating GFDL violations, as none of the content added was ever used to create derivative works (ie, the next revision). I'm not a lawyer, but I'm reasonably confident that I'm correct. --Deskana (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But if you deleted an article and restored just the non-vandalism edits, leaving out even old vandalism, that would be a problem? That's different than the answer I heard last time I asked. I had asked in reference to removing old vandalism with particularly bad edit summaries. I guess I'll change that practice in the future. (It didn't come up that often anyway...) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Provided the vandalism is reverted straight away, then there is absolutely no problem in removing the diffs. The problem is when you delete diffs of contributors. Were I to delete a single random page version from the page history of an article, the software would assign that edit to the next person in the page history, creating an attribution problem. --Deskana (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I will create two examples in my userspace, to better get across what I mean. --Deskana (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about GFDL, in the context of a user talkpage, strike me as too hypertechnical to worry about. Newyorkbrad 16:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to go with Newyorkbrad especially as talkpage edits are attributed by signatures. Saying that I would have thought the oversight people deal with those issues all the time, so an answer from them might be a good idea. Agathoclea 16:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in the context of a talk page, the page history isn't terribly important since the signatures are on the end. --Deskana (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad and with most of what Deskana said, except that to the extent that Deskana implies that a response to a post is automatically a "derivative work" of the original post, I believe that is not correct. If someone writes an editorial, for example, and I respond with my own independent work that attempts to refute the points raised in the original editorial, my independent work is not a "derivative work" under U.S. copyright law. See Derivative work. I think it is unlikely that deleting an original post and leaving a response would violate GFDL except in specific circumstances (e.g. if the reply incorporates the words of the original post without attribution). -- DS1953 ^talk 17:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the way that the software works. See User:Deskana/GFDLViolation. Edits one and two are deleted in the page history, and the software has attributed them to DeskanaTest instead of Deskana. In this exact situation it's not a problem because I own both accounts, but in mainspace this causes a copyright violation. --Deskana (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not really read the above discussion, but surely {{db-userreq}} isn't against policy?--Rambutan (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is intended for user (sub)pages, not for user talk pages, where other people probably have contributed as well.Fram 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewer semi-bot not working

Hi there, I recently (a few days ago) put a peer reviewer script in my monobook, yet I don't seem to be getting any difference when I go to edit a page. I think the bot is not working. Is their anything I can do about this? If not, is there any other peer reviewer bots like this? The same is also happening to the persondata semibot that is on my monobook page. Davnel03 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove the colon at the beginning and flush your cache (Ctrl-F5 in IE) Malson 21:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User page suggesting continuing work of banned user

Resolved

A. Shakespeare (talk · contribs) has a notice on her userpage advocating for user:Tecmobowl, "BRING TECMOBOWL BACK, OR I WILL GET SOMEONE TO CARRY ON HIS LEGACY, IF NOT ME!" Should anything be done, or just leave it and carry on? Also she has a lot of personal identifying info. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Give her a warning to not use sockpuppets (and not be a meatpuppet). I think deleting her userpage may be in order. 1) She's a minor and 2) WP:NOT#MYSPACE.-Wafulz 19:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Recap: I've deleted the userpage because it had an obscene amount of private information.-Wafulz 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As a note, this was banned user Sarah Goldberg who came up on this board (or AN, I forget) for exactly the same nonsense a few weeks ago. MSJapan 01:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB

User:TiconderogaCCB Who has already been blocked twice for 3rr reversion [79] has engaged in an edit war concerning the article St. John's University via his username as well as other ip address [80] . As well as adding in copywritten material [[81]] [82] . He has engaged in personal attacks of wikipedia [83] as well as other users using annon ip address [84] stating Your an idiot ; after enthusiasm for receiving a B rating for the article [85] . He also signs things with his name when using his IP address. [86] . Long term Edit warring doesn't seem to be out of his tools and blocks don't seem to work. The talk section does not seem to work. It has been offered many times as an option as well as an RFC. It does not seem as if things will change. Please assist. UnclePaco 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Opened a sockpuppet case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Choster UnclePaco 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ralbot malfunctionning

Resolved

Ralbot is resending the Signpost for this week. I've blocked it, and I'm poised to revert everything it's done today. Any objections? Maxim 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The block is fine. Reverting the edits is probably not needed, but if you want to do it, I suppose it might lessen confusion for the people who got two copies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not re-sending it. I sent half of them earlier this week, and am sending the rest now (I was interrupted on Tuesday, as I was only able to do some due to a business trip). Ral315 » 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We both figured it out - it has to do with a username change that caused the bot to send it to Maxim twice. No one else was affected, so I'm going to start the bot again. Ral315 » 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Goddamn lazyass paperboys. I should've gotten it days ago!-Wafulz 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you remember the paperboy at Christmas? Corvus cornix 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Serial hoaxer at it again

Resolved

Iabci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of creating hoax articles, and is at it again with Cartoon Network BLOX. It has been AfD'd already, and I've also slapped an IAR speedy nomination on the logo. I'm requesting that Iabci be blocked for disruption--Leebo warned him earlier in the month that he'd be blocked if he did this again. Blueboy96 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock (now silenced) of Danny Daniel. Someone will have to scrutinize the rest of his edits. SirFozzie 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Craze Commences

Resolved

User:Anonynoise has been posting images of the final Harry Potter book. After reading this, we should delete that reversion per possible copyright problems with Scholastic. --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted, there's no reason to delete the revisions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's good enough :-) --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Flatts is evading 3 month block

Resolved

 – User blocked

Flatts created a sockpuppet account called User:Flatts the Flounder. Can someone please block it? Pants^(T) 21:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done Shadow1 (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Puppeteer blocked indefinitely. Grandmasterka 03:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Sparrowman980

Sigh. Several people have talked to this user about continuing to upload copyrighted content as well as non-free images of living persons. On many times, this user has reverted my tagging of {{fur}} or similar things. I finally got sick of this happening, and left him yet another warning on the bottom of his talk page. He responded with image is free and this is admin abuse for this last image (people often mistake me for an admin, apparently). I'm really getting sick of following this user around; could someone please tell him to stop uploading nonfree images of living persons? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'll I'l leave him a warning on his talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block applied to User:Nonerds10

Resolved

Nonerds10 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely as a Vandalism-Only account. Major activities were page blanking and page replacement. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good block. ANI review isn't necessary for vandalism-only accounts.--Chaser - T 03:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Please note that nothing is particular about this issue. TOTAL VANDALISM! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TV station articles

This user was indefinitely blocked back in February. Since that time, he has continued to edit pages under various Houston-based IPs. The edits are vandalism/nonsense (changing TV station affiliations/call signs/channel numbers) and some threats. After months of this abuse, I send a boilerplate message to the vandal's ISP, but that didn't work. I've placed the Houston TV stations on semi-protection, but the vandal has moved on to Bakersfield TV stations, and WP:TVS members are asking for a range block. As I do not really understand the range block parameters, I'm asking here.

The IPs which have been used include: 71.147.18.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 66.139.10.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.6.214.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.92.33.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.156.123.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 72.236.190.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 65.34.130.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.94.98.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.147.16.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.21.56.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.1.22.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.90.246.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.90.232.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 70.132.151.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), many others. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As a member of TVS, I support something of a limited range block--require AT&T users in this range (the Houston area) to create an account before editing. It's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but clearly the ISP isn't taking it seriously (despite the fact that AT&T's TOS requires users to abide by the policies of third-party sites). To refresh some people's memories--he was community banned in part for exactly this behavior, including threats to the life of Christina Aguilera. At the very least, requiring him to create an account would make it easier to keep track of him. As it is, his vandalism is almost a weekly occurrence. Blueboy96 11:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I don't like blocking a whole city, but it really is necessary. Will ^(talk) 12:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Support -- I concur; if AT&T won't do something about it, we have to do something to keep him off for good, or at least, make it harder for him to vandalise. As long as there are loopholes, Mmbabies has the "keys" to the Wikipedia "kingdom". P.S. -- In addition to bakersfield, he also vandalised some Dallas / Fort Worth stations in the past; and his vandalism stunts are actually almost a daily thing. -- azumanga 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment One of the IPs he's used is already restricted from editing anonymously ... with this guy's history, it should be extended to the whole range, as suggested above. Blueboy96 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I was not involved with the originial block, but this guy needs to be stopped. Sadly, blocking an entire metro area might be the only way. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I think all of us are very tired of his nightly "fun", which includes death threats to Christian artist Nicole C. Mullen and Kenneth Copeland's daughter and a 'my way/highway' attitude towards Houston TV and every show airing on Daystar. Sad that it is to block AT&T access for Houston without an account, this guy needs to be reined in somehow. I would give this range block around six months, and then reopen for a review to see if he's finally been discouraged. I have only reverted him a few times since GridlockJoe, Postoak and Azumanga have done an admirable (and probably wearing) job keeping Mmbabies reined in, but I do keep a couple of Houston TV articles on watch just in case he might try something funny late when I'm on. Nate 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. I don't know how to perform a range block, but hopefully an admin who does will read this. If not let me know and I can make a quick post to wikien-l. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think with the now three seperate death threats, that we should also let perhaps the Houston area police department know. Even though they are the rantings of an obviously disturbed person, we should let the police know. Perhaps they can track the guy down. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on Comment:I agree, especially since we already have 131 "leads" as of tonight (7/15), right here. -- azumanga 04:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Make it 132 with this new one. Now he's on to using a picture of eggs in a pan and very fuzzy math to insist KETH is on Channel 39, not KHCW, and threatening the life of Juan Gabriel. Why is AT&T not taking this very seriously? Nate 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it would take getting Office involved--considering that this guy is putting the Foundation in grave legal danger. By all rights, his Internet access should have been nuked a long time ago. Blueboy96 18:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• "this guy is putting the Foundation in grave legal danger"[87]. Is this as serious a problem as someone using 'reaction causing' red-colored typeface? "Duke53 | Talk" 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Do what you have to (Support) WAVY 10 02:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked the history for The Gospel Bill Show and he struck again with a sockpuppet, this time posting images of eggs to a certain daughter of a certain televangelist. (That's what, 133-ish now). The edit, thankfully, has since been reverted. WAVY 10 13:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My God, it's up to 136. WAVY 10 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned user vandalizing from IP?

Check out this edit from 68.90.62.217 (talk · contribs) before a current vandalism spree diff—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

MMBabies (talk · contribs) doesn't exist. Anon misspelled the username, if there was a username. hbdragon88 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought -- I suggest putting a freeze on new members with that username, just in case the other Mmbabies entertains any thoughts. -- azumanga 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No need, Azumanga ... any users with nicknames similar to him will be hard-blocked on sight, per WP:U. Usernames similar to known vandals are verboten. Blueboy96 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies (talk · contribs) exists though. Viridae^Talk 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's probably what he meant. Where in Houston do you buy guts that big? He exposes the WMF to serious legal danger with his threats and has a large chunk of his hometown unable to edit for some stretches, and he wants to be unblocked????? Blueboy96 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism has continued, albeit on other articles, now that the Houston stations are semi-protected. I plan to start IP range blocks tomorrow, unless there are objections. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Got smthg to do w/ User:Mariam83?

Related to the case of User:Mariam83? (See thread above). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it. Only thing they have in common is their ISPs are owned by the same company. Blueboy96 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- Mmbabies' targets are generally Houston TV, Gospel Bill and Maniac Mansion; Mariam's (as I see on the first page of that user's rap sheet) is generally African subjects. Also, Mariam plays the race card in her comments (only by first glance), while Mmbabies, shall we say, plays "52 Pick Up" with his targets (read his comments and edits and you'll know what I mean). -- azumanga 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments made by sock, 68.89.173.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), removed by --OnoremDil 13:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above comment for yet ANOTHER sock of Mariam83. Wildthing61476 13:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubious block of DreamGuy by VirtualSteve

VirtualSteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) giving this reason, which suggests to me that his main reason for imposing such a hefty block—three days— is that Dreamguy speaks rudely of admins in general. IMO admins should practice ignoring that kind of thing. We have too much power to act out a sense of grievance—collective or individual—with a Power Answer. It also worries me that VS blocks an editor he has just been edit warring with; that he hasn't posted the block on ANI for review; and also somewhat that he signed out as "unavailable" 25 minutes after blocking.[88] [89] I'm quite tempted to unblock without further ado myself, as these actions make it in practice impossible to discuss the block with the blocking admin; but having in the past been perceived as a "champion" of DreamGuy, I feel I'm not the best person for such an action. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

As I have said elsewhere, I feel the length of the block to be excessive. At this time I think he has been unblocked by another administrator. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pascal.Tesson has shortened the block to 18 hours. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The block has been reduced to 18hours by Pascal.Tesson. I was prepared to unblock had DreamGuy agreed to not attempt to delete the disputed image, but I have deferred to Pascal.Tesson's decision. As there is a discussion relating to the image at WP:FUR#13 July 2007 I think another admin (or PT) might wish to further consider the block length. LessHeard vanU 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about someone removing the block completely with a note that says 'oops. Shouldnt block someone you edit with. It's called COI and admin-advantage.'. Peace.Lsi john 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, and since I'm in a pissy mood anyway.. Block comment Attempting to harass other users. What sort of weasel block comment is that? Either he harassed or he didnt. If he 'failed' at his attempt at harassment, thats sufficiently embarassing. Besides, blocking for 'attempted harassment' with someone you are edit warring with? Geez. Peace.Lsi john 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... "Attempting to harass..." is a value judgement; are you going to wait until they succeed (one which will work against the majority of editors)? The attempt shows the perpetrator is acting in bad faith. It is the same for attempted murder; you don't only arrest them when they manage to do the deed.

However, the above has nothing to do with DreamGuys situation. If I had known that the blocking admin was previously edit warring with the blockee I would have unblocked without requiring conditions. I don't know the situation but the fact that there was no request for review does not look good. LessHeard vanU 00:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in fairness, yes, we wait until actual harassment occurs. There is a law addressing 'attempted murder', but I'm unaware of a clause for 'attempting' to harass in our policies or guidelines. Either the behavior counts as harassment or it doesn't. If we use 'value judgment' for 'attempted harassment' then (overused or not) AGF says 'value judgment' also says 'not attempting to harass but perhaps overzealous'. Pre-emptive blocking is bad. It creates a 'trail' of block logs which may, or not, accurately reflect a history and lead to excessive escalations. And, I'm not going to pretend that DreamGuy is the most polite editor on wikipedia. But blocking where you're involved, is wrong. Blocking for 'attempted' is wrong. Sorry for my shortness above, I'm tired, it's been a long day and my patience grows short at times. Peace.Lsi john 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to Lsi john in relation to his knowledge of the options available in the blocking drop down box here--VS ^talk 08:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Provided it is impossible to manually edit or provide your own comment, yes. Peace.Lsi john 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• To assist in the closure of this matter and so that my comments are made on open record for all other wikipedia editors I have added the following:
  Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

1. For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
2. People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [90] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.

   I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.

   Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.

   It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).

   A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.

   DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.

   I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.

3. In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
4. I note the comments above (on my talk page) that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
5. I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS ^talk 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

VirtualSteve, thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand your reasoning and I still believe that since you had been 'fighting' over the tag, you were potentially emotionally involved and should have opened an AN/I for an uninvolved opinion. If for no other reason than for appearance and perception. (Perception is reality). Perhaps DG would have been blocked anyway, perhaps not. Peace.Lsi john 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again a helpful and informative comment - thank you - it is noted.--VS ^talk 02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I hesitated to simply lift the block as well. I reduced it to 24 hours instead (6 elapsed + the 18 I added) because the fact is that DreamGuy was being pretty stubborn in his fighting over the tag and because as an experienced user (who has been blocked a few times before) he should know better than to be overly confrontational and uncivil on such trivial matters. Pascal.Tesson 09:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not quite ready to join the above group hug yet. I just posted a response to VirtualSteve's defense of his block on DreamGuy's page, not realizing that it was here on ANI as well. Since this is the more public place, I'm pasting my request for some more explanation here:

1. VirtualSteve, I see you don't comment above on your "adjusted canned message" with its "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia."[91] I can fully understand DreamGuy's irritated reaction to that. Yes, the template includes a newbie greeting; so why use it? Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace: "if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template." There's nothing like leading by example when you call for civility from users, and your "Welcome" template use was not civil and not delivered "politely." And, er, how is it that you get to assume bad faith and tell DreamGuy he deleted your template "to hide the fact"? *I* might easily have deleted that annoying template, if you'd put it on my page, and it wouldn't have been to hide anything.
2. I didn't mean, in my original block comment on your page, to suggest that you deliberately made yourself unavailable after placing the block. Certainly not! But I did mean that it's a poor idea to place a controversial block at all when you are about to ge to bed. Let somebody in another timezone do it.
3. I notice that you have nothing to say about your failure to post what you surely knew to be a controversial block on ANI for review. That was one of my main criticisms. Altogether, you scarcely engage with anything I said. I'm sorry to see that. Since you're a new admin, I went to some trouble to make myself clear, and hoped my commentary might be helpful. Bishonen | talk 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

• Thank you for your further comments and questions Bishonen. I will answer frankly:

1. I have provided a detailed set of reasoning to this issue above. Administrators (both new and old) do make mistakes. I appreciate that you feel that I have done so in two or three areas and I will take those views on board. However I also note that others do not feel that I have made a mistake in blocking - other than imposing too long a ban - to which I have already provided a comment and my thanks.
2. Other editors/administrators have commented on DreamGuy's style of editing and his previous blocking - and of course I note that he continues to bombast his talk page on this issue. I also note the unreasonable hyperbole that he adds to his comments such as the discourse he attempts here. Realistically if that energy had been put in adding an informative and helpful speedy delete request to the image in question (which is what a good editor would have done) - rather than reverting all attempts to remove the item from speedy under its current tagging then this matter would have gone away - to DreamGuy's benefit (in terms of the image deleted or adjusted with appropriate fair use) - at least a week ago.
3. In terms of meeting your initial question - well to be honest (and of course I acknowledge that you are the first to note this), your comments do come across as *championing* DreamGuy and to that extent they are one-sided in his overall favour. For example what you consider to be edit-warring I consider to be removal of a template and a request for further information. I wonder if you would not also have reverted the speedy tag in the case of any other editor constantly putting it up, especially when that editor was actually reverting the tag against a total of 3 administrators who had an unwillingness to speedy delete the image as it stood. As you probably know WP:CSD is populated by 100's of items a day, to which administrators take personal time (as volunteers) to consider and delete. This is a thankless task - every editor that has created an article or image wants the item kept, and every editor that has tagged an item wants it deleted. That task is not made any easier by the tagging of an image in the way that it has - and please remember I was actually the last administrator to deny its speedy deletion. Finally and to put this point in a nutshell your interest in admonishing me would come across as far more reasonable to me if you also spent some considerable time instructing your friend that as an experienced editor his actions were inappropriate.
4. I do and have appreciated the point about listing this at WP:ANI - and certainly I can see that it would have been easier to do so. However whilst you say I have nothing to say about this point - I had actually (yesterday) acknowledged this point to Lsi john above.
5. Finally I tend to continue working wikipedia until I stop - in other words I do not spend the last 30 minutes or 60 minutes etc just looking. There is work to do and I tend to knuckle in and do it.

I have a strong feeling that I will not be able to say anything to totally appease your "supportive of DreamGuy views" on this matter - but I hope that you will see that I have attempted to do so as congenially as possible. Best wishes. --VS ^talk 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, so sorry, but has it occured to you that you were very rude with your template, and any editor can remove any template or manually written message whatsover from their talk page? I'm also somehow missing the part where you have any reason at all to block DreamGuy. Please clarify this. "Attempting to harass" (but presumably, failing utterly to actually harass) doesn't seem to appear on the WP:BLOCK page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes the template in terms of the *welcome part* was an error insofar that DreamGuy did not deserve another welcome message - unfortunately made when I used an automatic item made available from my monobook items. However the template message was modified by me to include far more pertinent detail.--VS ^talk 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• (Also explained personally at Lsi john's talk page) The BLOCK button automatically provides a drop-down menu in relation to blockable offences - including Attempting to harass other users and is a legitimate blocking offence.--VS ^talk 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I too fail to see where DreamGuy was harassing anyone. Being blunt and harassing are two different things. Also, please be careful about any blocks you do to established editors you may be having a dispute with...post here or at AN to have a completely neutral admin examine the evidence before a block is done. Why was the original block for 3 days? Lastly, any block of an established editor, no matter what you may think of them, needs to be posted for other admins to review.--MONGO 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• As you know Mongo from recent posts effecting you personally the continued return of items in a particular way is a method of harassment. I was not having a dispute with DreamGuy (I am still not having one) I was acting against his continued return of a speedy tag against other admins especially after he was informed (and added his own comment) that the matter had gone to WP:FUR. I was only going through day to day processing of category for speedy deletion requests and kept noticing that the image was returning to the list with no further information. I chose 72 hours because he has been blocked in the past, he should have known better, he had committed the actions over several days, he had been posted a message that he should wait the few days for FUR to resolve and 72 hours is a few days but not a week. That said Pascal Tesson's adjustment to 24 hours was not disputed by me in any way.--VS ^talk 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Further questions

As this seems to have been overlooked, I be more clear, as well as adding a few questions I feel have not been satisfactorily addressed:

1. Why did you block DreamGuy?

   DreamGuy was blocked for his continuing lack of civility (in terms of content and edit summary) when returning a speedy delete tag which other admins had removed (and which - despite DG's comment at his final edit summary - can be removed by any user but only requires a (hang-on) from the creator of the article), mumerous times (as a form of harassing and disruptive behaviour), and doing so even after another admin removed it again and put the article up for discussion at WP:FUR

2. Your comments to Bishonen: "your comments do come across as *championing* DreamGuy" and "supportive of DreamGuy" read like accusations of cronyism or favoritism, an inherent assumption of bad faith of Bishonen. I suggest you apologise.

   My post to this point is frank but not rude nor presumptive - Bishonen is the first to admit that he may be coming across as a *Champion* of DreamGuy. I am agreeing with him and reminding him that the person who he is championing did commit a blockable offence. I say this because what appears to be forgotten by him and some others is that another admin checked through my block and agreed with the action. I do not as you now put it make any accusation against Bishonen. I do however make the point that DreamGuy is not undeserving of some comment as to the inappropriateness of his actions by those that wish to belabour this situation further.

3. While you state "I do and have appreciated the point about listing this at WP:ANI" and that it would have been "easier" to do so, you are unclear on what you mean. Easier for whom? Do you see any reason other than "ease" for doing so? What does "ease" have to do with this at all?

   I have commented earlier also on this point directly to Lsi john - I indicated that his suggestion was helpful and informative. He explains the importance of appearence and perception - read that post it reflects my answer perfectly.

4. What on earth do you mean by "work to do and I do it" - are you saying you don't have time to investigate a situation, or reply to concerns, because you're too busy? Are you implying others aren't working? Please clarify.

   Your question here appears surly and again you are putting words into the equation that I do not think nor speak - I will try to attend to your complaint. If you have read through all of this post you will see that I was criticised for going to bed (becoming unavailable) 25 minutes after I blocked DreamGuy. My answer to this part directly followed those points, and specifically that when I am working through wikipedia I work as effectively as possible the time I impart from my otherwise real life time to the tasks at hand. I do investigate issues and reply to concerns - please check through all of my edits and you will see that to be the case. For example as explained above I took several days to deal with this matter. I do not suggest for a moment that others aren't working - and this part of your question is baiting and should require no further response!

KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Dif?

   Dif's [92][93][94][95][96][97]

2. It appears to me that Bishonen wished to clarify that she was not championing DG in that sense; you are "agreeing" with that which has not been stated.

   Yes I agree with your first point here. My point is that her second post reversed that so she did in effect champion DG as if he was not in some error.

3. If it answered the question satisfactorily I would not be requesting clarification.

   I do not understand what further clarification you personally need - I am agreeing with Lsi john.

4. My utter lack of comprehension appears "surly" to you? I assure you, I am asking for you to clarify your meaning. I have put no words into your mind or mouth, I have asked for clarification for a completely incomprehensible (to me) statement. And now you have accused me of "baiting", and you most certainly owe me an apology.

   KC I do not owe you an apology - it does appear surly. Why? Well when you ask this question, Are you implying others aren't working? Please clarify. you are asking a question that is baiting. I do not now or ever in this process think any less of any other editor and have been at pains to state this. I appreciate that you have the desire to ask further questions but not that you ask questions that simply have no basis in fact expecting an answer that somehow promotes the possibility that I might have been thinking in such a way. Indeed KC you should consider withdrawing that part of your question as an apology to me.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You think I need to apologise to you for considering your accusation of "baiting" inapropriate? This is beyond absurd! Your rudeness and arrogance is appalling. I have ignored your high-handed dismissal of my questions, your condescending attitude towards Bishonen, your total lack of response to MONGOs post (which I specifically directed you to on your talk page), and have attempted to discuss your actions rationally, despite your interleaving of your comments within my post. I will not ignore your accusation of "baiting" nor your claim that somehow I now owe you an apology. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding: Please provide a dif which actually demonstrates harassment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Calm down KC - you are blowing this out of all proportion. I have not dismissed your questions (other than the last one which is unfair). Actually I am frank and not condescending towards Bishonen - I like any other editor am entitled to an honest and reasonably verifiable opinion. And I have responded above to Mongo's post and in fact have supported him when he was recently harassed. Finally the dif's above do show harassment in my view and in the view of other admins (including the admin who removed and then reposted my block on DG). If DG's actions do not come up to harassment in your opinion then that is okay with me and no doubt with many other editors. Take care.--VS ^talk 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

One or two points: it appears that KC was asking for clarification. Also how can one derive "irritably sullen and churlish in mood or manner (i.e., surly)" out of the written word? What I see are inferences drawn by both sides, one, the question re Are you implying others aren't working? Please clarify. seems supported by implication in the original; the others regarding "baiting" and being "surly" are inferences drawn by personal perspective. In any case, move past the inferences and just resolve the issue. Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I ask for clarification. I see no harassment in the difs you gave - I see an editor attempting to have a copyvio deleted. Copyright violations are very serious, and should be pursued with diligence as DreamGuy did, the same as BLP violations should be pursued with diligence. Harassment indicates a target for the harassment - who was being harassed?

You first responded to my 4th question by accusing me of being surly and baiting, which as Jim notes cannot be logically inferred from a request for clarification; when I asked for an apology for your accusations, you stated it was I who owed you one, although you gave no coherent reason that I can discern; now you side-step the whole issue of civility and ABF alltogether and patronizingly tell me to "calm down" - I assure you, I am quite calm - and inform me that my question is "unfair". "Unfair" is not a rationale which I find applicable to one administrator asking another on the administrator's noticeboard to please clarify what the asking admin has clearly stated is incomprehensible to her. I now have yet another question for you, in what possible way is asking for you to clarify your very own statement "unfair"? I'm sorry, but the claim of "unfair" seems nonsensical to me. Please try to be clearer in your communication, so we may comprehend your meaning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I've been away from the site for a week and so I've missed all this drama and haven't had a chance to catch up on the details. I just want to point out one thing and that is that VirtualSteve is a newbie admin of about two or three weeks. I can guarantee you. Guarantee. With my own bit staked if necessary. That Steve has been acting and speaking in entirely good faith. It's quite possible, even probable, that he has made mistakes here, I honestly don't know, but please guys, we all make mistakes. I made mistakes in my first couple of weeks and I still make them now and I know that every admin and every editor giving Steve a hard time has made plenty of mistakes, too. Please consider whether BITE should and does apply to newbie admins as well as newbie editors. Steve is a good guy and he's doing his best for us, but he is a newbie. Sarah 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my persistance, or that of others, appears to be biting a new admin. I would appreciate an answer to the simple question, "who was DreamGuy harassing?" All the other questions here are about how he has acted to others since the block, they are not about the block. VirtualSteve needs to realize that controversial blocks lead to questions and discussion, and if persisting in trying to get answers for those questions is considered "biting" I submit for your consideration that perhaps he should avoid controversial actions until he is confident and experienced enough that he will be able to give coherent and specific answers to questions about controversial actions without dismissing them, going off-topic, belittling the questioners, or insulting them. I suggest that even if VirtualSteve cannot bring himself, through pride or self-rightousness or a belief that he was in the right, or whatever other reason, to apologise to me for accusing me of "baiting" and calling me "surly" for asking him for clarification, he at least acknowledge that in the opinion of at least one person, this violates civility standards and indeed is hovering close to a personal attack - all for asking him to clarify himself. He may well have been acting in good faith with the block, I have never questioned that - but his responses to questions about the event have not been so pristine. In short, its not ABF about his block, its his treatment of those who ask questions, and his lack of answering those questions, which is the issue here. I really don't see how I can AGF him calling me "surly" and accusing me of "baiting" - the shoe is on the other foot. He is failing to show those who have asked simple questions AGF, and ignored and/or insulted them. Insults when a question is asked rather bypass AGF, because they are in and of themselves ABF. Admins must be capable of discussing their actions with those who might disagree with them with clarity and civility. Are you saying that is optional for new admins? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes KC. You are totally right and i believe VS's already got the message about the block. He only have to understand that admins have to remain calm all the time while accepting positive criticism and learning to work under pressure. Yellow flag raised. But again, everybody learns. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish I shared your confidence that VS has "gotten the message" - I don't see anything which acknowledges that VS has "gotten" anything at all out of this. The closest I see to a direct response to any questions or criticisms of the block itself is that "it would have been easier to do so" about posting the block for review. I asked what he meant, and haven't gotten a clear answer. First response was basically "read Lsi john's post" and in the second, he states he doesn't understand my question. I have yet to see a "oh my error, I didn't realize that controversial blocks of long-standing contributors should be posted on AN or ANI for review, I'll be sure to do that in the future" or anything remotely like that. I have not, in fact, seen any clear response to any questions raised at all, so you'll forgive me if I reconfirm that I am still waiting for VS to address the block. If there was harassment, it is unclear to me, and to at least a few others, where the harassment occurred and who was being harassed. I see no discussion on DG's talk page about any perceived harassment prior to the block, the first post I see by VS is pointing here, and was made post-block and post-raising of concerns about the block. If VS feels the block was a 'good block', there is no reason I can see why he cannot explain his rationale. If he now thinks it was a 'bad block' and realizes there was no harassment, or he really shouldn't be blocking people when he's tired, or whatever, he can certainly say so here, (and add a one-second block to DG for the purpose of a block summary apologising for a bad block made in error) and I am certain everyone will understand - as mentioned, he is a newbie admin. But if he does neither, the block situation is still unresolved. Add to the block situation which started this that he has responded as he has to questions and/or criticism, and I am deeply concerned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Further response

KillerChihuahua I will try to reach a level of explanation that meets your expectations.
I note again that when you choose to add items into your questions such as "Are you implying others aren't working?", or I "shouldn't be blocking people when [I’m] tired", which I did not at any time give any indication of – that I felt and still feel that you were going beyond what was required and as other have put it, BITING me. However I note that you have asked for an apology because I used frank comment to question your use of this additional commentary and for the sake of reaching peace with you I provide that apology to you now.
In response to your further request for clarity I provide the following. I do so with some trepidation because whilst I do not mean to offend you in any way I wonder if this issue is beyond reaching a satisfactory conclusion? Let's try....

1. Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. In the difs I provided to you previously I showed that DreamGuy continued his pattern of behaviour over many days, and in my view that behaviour was offensive and intimidating. For example:

   (a) when his first tag was removed by EvilClown93 (who is a long established editor) DreamGuy replaced it with the comment what is this, some sock? don't remove the notice

   (b) despite the fact that speedy templates give a clear instruction that they can be removed by any person (other than the uploading editor) without the use of Hang-On – DreamGuy confronted with removal by long standing administrators of the tag, (and who were acting in relation to its posting at WP:CSD) acted, instead of taking the matter elsewhere, by continuing to return the tag with the instruction (and despite direct request to alter that instruction) for delete being: This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap .... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen. No further information was given and the image did not provide a previous deletion record of the quantity of deletions referred to by DreamGuy, nor did he provide Difs or any other way of assessing this suggestion.

   (c) ButSeriouslyFolks removed the tag and placed the article at WP:FUR. DreamGuy’s action with no explanation at all was to put the tag up again and again use these words as a direction for administrators to delete the image: This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap .... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen

   (d) Four minutes later he decided to attend to WP:FUR and he made a comment there, but then thinking further on his comment he came back 6 minutes later to the image page which he had again tagged and he adjusted some detail within the image description and added the edit summary explaining why the phoney baloney rationalization doesn't meet legal requirements

   (e) 2 and a half hours later ButSeriouslyFolks removed the tag again and left the following message The issue whether this image can be used consistent with WP:FU is being discussed at WP:FUR#13_July_2007. Please allow that discussion to run its course. He added the edit summary: let's discuss it first, please?

   (f) Further to this DreamGuy was posted this notice by ButSeriouslyFolks I know you disagree, but I think the fair use claim on this image warrants discussion. Let's permit the image people to have their say before tagging it again for speedy, ok?

   (f) DreamGuy refused to wait, stated so in his return to ButSeriouslyFoks and then again returned to the image – adding another speedy delete tag (which he now finally adjusted to a more civil request) but to attempt to make a point he added the following edit summary: The proper way to respond to a speedy delete notice you don't like is to put a hold on on it, not to erase the speedy tag... and I'm still hoping an admin with half an ounce of sense to show up This was clearly not a true statement by DreamGuy – almost any editor can remove a tag. I can only ask that you check any speedy delete template and you will see this to be the case. The edit summary was also in my view intimidating and harassing - and whilst I appreciate that admins need an even thicker skin; they also deserve civility and when coupled with all of DreamGuy's other edits they added to his intimidatory manner.

2. Harassment is also described as a violation by an editor of the guideline don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point .
3. I believed DreamGuy’s pattern of actions in the first instance to be harassing because his comments both in the content of the speedy delete tag and in some of the edit summaries were intimidating. I say this particularly because he chose to call the first editor who removed the tag a “sock”, and his tags always demanded the blocking of the uploader who was pull[ing] this crap.
4. I believed DreamGuy also was disrupting wikipedia to make a point when ButSeriouslyFolks removed the tag – which as I have briefly referred to above details If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice. ButSeriouslyFolks was clearly attempting to fix the situation at FUR. When DreamGuy made comment at FUR and then still chose to return the tag that in my view he committed a point disruption.
5. I did not (and still do not) believe I had been edit warring with DreamGuy – I have said many times now I do not have anything against DreamGuy personally at all (and still do not). Whilst I understand that it would have been better not to use a canned message (and I have commented elsewhere that this was a monobook tab mistake on my part – meaning that I did not know the *damned* warning was going to also say welcome (it certainly gave no previous indication that it would) and the monobook system does not allow a viewing before it posts) I did add what I believe to be a very polite personal warning (well prior to the block) that said Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing!
6. KillerChihuahua you have stated I see no discussion on DG's talk page about any perceived harassment prior to the block but with respect I consider the above, given my previous comments about POINT to be, quite frankly a warning that an editor of his reasonably long standing would understand. DreamGuy was in my view harassing a large part of the wikipedia community. Why? Well continuing to add the speedy tag placed it again and again into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion; it belittled the process of WP:FUR instigated by another editor; and he was attempting to manipulate the speedy request beyond normal process when he continuously mentioned in the speedy request of what should actually be an WP:AIVmatter, that is a request inclusive of incivility to the uploader in the words used of: the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen it removed any sign of good faith to the uploader.
7. With respect DreamGuy is not the image judiciary for wikipedia – WP:FUR had every likelihood of developing the situation to a commonly agreed one and it should be noted by all that that process (despite DreamGuy’s continuous efforts to thwart) appears to have now finalised and resulted in an acceptable fair use image.
8. In relation to the block it was only after DreamGuy returned the final tag – and noting all of the above that I moved to block him. I have already said I did not believe I had been edit-warring with him up to that point, and I certainly had not been edit-warring with him at that point (I had not gone anywhere near the image for 25 hours and only then to remove the speedy tag as a part of my WP:CSD duties). I chose 72 hours because FUR would take a few days to reach some form of conclusion; because DreamGuy had been blocked before; and because DreamGuy showed absolutely no sign of restraint. I did not act whilst tired or without thinking the matter through (shown by the fact that I spent a good deal of time detailing this notice [98] BEFORE I blocked).
9. Other Admins – as they are absolutely within their rights to do questioned the block. Of course everyone has their own view of these things but (and I have noted this previously at least twice) a more senior admin of whom I personally have high regard – Pascal Tesson reviewed my block and then chose to shorten the block to 24 hours. I did not converse with him in any way so his actions can and should be seen to be totally independent of mine. Interestingly in relation to my comments on DreamGuys behaviour he commented (see above) as follows:

   I hesitated to simply lift the block as well. I reduced it to 24 hours instead (6 elapsed + the 18 I added) because the fact is that DreamGuy was being pretty stubborn in his fighting over the tag and because as an experienced user (who has been blocked a few times before) he should know better than to be overly confrontational and uncivil on such trivial matters.

10. Two more final points:

    (1)KillerChihuahua you have stated above that "Attempting to harass" (but presumably, failing utterly to actually harass) doesn't seem to appear on the WP:BLOCK page. This appears to be a follow on from another non-admin's comment that questioned the fact in similar terms. As an admin you should be aware that the BLOCK button automatically provides a drop-down menu in relation to blockable offences - including Attempting to harass other users and is therefore a legitimate blocking offence.

    (2)I have been asked again and again to explain why I took the action personally against DreamGuy and not rather post it to this page for another admin to look at. I have responded in what I felt was a correct way. I will try and do so again. Yes it would have been easier for me to post to WP:ANI and allow an other administrator to take the decision. If I felt that I was edit warring with DreamGuy in any way I would have acted in this way but I did not feel that this was the case - my edits consisted only in removal of the speedy tag - which was my duty as part of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion patrol. In my view I had simply warned DreamGuy like I have other editors and then moved to block when the editor did not refrain from the improper behaviour. I understand that that action is viewed by some to be incorrect – and I took on board Lsi John’s comment – considering it informative and helpful (as I noted previously).
    What will I do next time in exactly this or a very similar situation? – The answer is most probably come to WP:ANI. That said my task is to protect Wikipedia – and I do so in good faith ALWAYS. I am an editor with nearly 12,000 logged in edits on this project alone - I have never been blocked and I have never had any major issue against my name.

    • It is sad and unfortunate that some editors do not seem to agree that that could have been the basis for my action – but, that is the joy of working on this project. To those editors who either have seen my edits for Good Faith and have commented, or who have asked me to explain, have listened and then accepted I give you my thanks.

    It is also correct to say that DreamGuy is a long standing editor, but he is an editor with previous blocks and a manner that others have described as not being helpful nor polite. Indeed he continues to expand this issue in edits and edit comments in a number of places and in ways that are exaggerated, unfair and untrue.

    • It is sad and unfortunate that some editors do not seem to agree that his actions were improper – but, again, that is the joy of working on this project. However in all honesty this process (as I have mentioned before) would appear even fairer if those jumping to DreamGuy's defence also took an action that instructed DreamGuy that his behaviour was not helpful. It is not my place to demand that action, I mention it and then I leave it to the conscience of those editors and admins.

I sincerely hope that this final explanation will suffice for your request for further explanation – if it does not then I am at a loss as to what to do next to appease you - and I will move on. I have noted my apology to you above. With respect, I would prefer not to be BITTEN by you again and I would prefer that you acknowledge that some of your comments stretched completely anything I had said previously. If you feel that you can not give that acknowledgment then please go with my blessings of peace and I will try not to upset you in the future. I wish you good editing at whatever other important part of the project you are otherwise pursuing.--VS ^talk 02:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was both longer and less satisfactory than I'd hoped, as your "apology" is a "non-apology" inasmuch as you indicate you are giving it for being "frank" - for which no apology is necessary, and which indicates you don't consider calling me "surly" or accusing me of "baiting" to be anything but frank, rather than even remotely any kind of insult or damage to my feelings. After reading your very long explanation of harassment, it seems the answer to my question "Who was harassed?" is "a large part of the Wikipedia community" and although I haven't done a head-count, the few people involved in the edit war with DreamGuy hardly constitute a "large part" unless you're using some matrix with which I'm unfamiliar, in which less than 1% is a "large part". All that said, you mention in passing "disruption" which IMO is a reason supported much more strongly by your extensive analysis of the events in question. I do not defend DreamGuy nor have I stated his actions were irreproachable, and he indeed was less than civil and edit warred, as you note above - but none of those things are relevant as they are not given as the reason he was blocked. IMO the block was overboard, your reason given was inaccurate and wrong, but I have no desire to pursue the block issue any further, as I have finally, after much time and effort, received an answer to the question put. For future reference "DreamGuy was edit warring to the point that I considered it disruption" would have been a much shorter and "easier" answer, with which I would have been much happier than the incredibly long and frequently off-topic multi-post answer(s) you have given. As far as the drop-down, it is very poorly written, and does not give a reason to block per WP:BLOCK, and I wonder at the reasoning of the people who wrote it. I myself will not ever use that drop-down, although I use others, because "attempting" to harass is not a blockable offence SFAIK. It seems you prefer "ease" to writing your own messages, which would have avoided the insult of the Welcome, and writing your own block summaries, which would have avoided the issues noted by others and myself about the phrasing. You state that it is "sad" to you that others "don't think DreamGuy was doing anything wrong" - which I have not seen from anyone, so you must be talking about some "others" with whom I am unaquainted. It is far more sad to me that you fail to acknowledge that in taking action against an establised editor, with a block log of whatever length, should be open to community review and that any questions or concerns raised should be met openly and civilly, without accusations of "biting" or other dismissals such as you gave Bishonen for her very well considered and civil constructive criticism. You again miss the point, and I finally understand what you meant by "easier" in saying that you should have posted and allowed another editor to make the block as what would have been "easier". You could have blocked: all that anyone is saying, and I repeat as you seem to have missed it, is that when you make a potentially controversial block you should post it so other admins are informed of the block and your reason. Please do this in the future. I'm guessing your emphasis on "easier" is part and parcel of your using drop downs and canned messages, and I offer as constructive criticism that what is "easier" is frequently not in the best interests of the project. While disagreement is fine, your rudeness and arrogance in discussing this situation is not fine, and your closing comments to me above display a basic confusion between questions and assertions. You state, and indeed tell me I should acknowledge, that I "stretched completely anything I had said". It seems that if I ask "did you mean A"? you see no error with the response "You are wrong! I didn't say A!" - please learn to differentiate between a question and an assertion. You will insult far fewer people, and make more sense if you do not respond so defensively to questions. You instructing me to acknowledge that which is conflating questions with assertions I reject, as your premise is on the face of it an error in understanding on your part. In your closing comments there is also a clear dismissal of me, condescendingly telling me not to "BITE" you again and basically to go away. I am unimpressed with your orders to not BITE, as if you are too unwilling, or immature, or not knowledgeable enough to discuss why you took any administrative actions I submit to you for consideration that you should never have accepted adminship; and should you again make a block or take any administrative actions which I find questionable or require explanation, I will indeed ask questions, as I would any administrator, and I sincerely hope you will have learned some measure of civility and respect for your fellow admins enough to allow you to not evade, or insult, but clearly and simply answer the questions put, and be open to discussion rather than reacting with defensiveness. Had you done so this time, this would already have been over long ago, with less ill-will and hostility on your part, and less time wasted on both our parts. My advice is meant sincerely, and I hope you have learned from this, and that from this rocky beginning you will move forward to become an exemplary and admirable admin. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)