Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Self taken Provocative Photos:

If the User:Publicgirluk stops uploading sexually charged photos of herself to Wikipedia, I have volunteered to start doing so myself. My boyfriend and I love to take sexy pics! We are thinking about making one to complement the Anal Sex article.

Also, User:Anchoress has also expressed interest in making photos for Wikipedia along those lines.

Thanks :)Courtney Akins 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are hopefully aware that you might be tripping up WP:POINT. Hbdragon88 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, WP:TROLL. Blocked indefinitely for disruption. El_C 04:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that her edits have been wise... but is an indefinite block really appropriate? Based on the user's contribution history, she seems interested in a) decreasing the Myspace-ness of the Wiki (using a few measures that have been proposed by others, a few not) and b) increasing Wikipedia's coverage of sexuality, particularly borderline practices. For that matter, the behavior you've mentioned hardly seems to come close to WP:BLOCK's description of disruption, and an indefinite block of a user with a couple hundred edits (many of which have been productive) without a community ban is highly irregular. As an admin of long standing, you've earned community trust... but is there something that I'm not seeing here? Would it not have been more productive to raise your concerns with the editor before blocking? Captainktainer * Talk 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely - this block seems very irregular. El C, please reconsider it. -- ChrisO 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify something - I think the editor was in the wrong with her proposal, and I think she was a little haughty and arrogant. But I don't feel that haughtiness and arrogance merit a complete and unilateral ban from the community. I think it might be helpful to talk to the user in question, warn her to spend more time in the community before making policy proposals - a very brief block to cool things off, if there was considerable disruption, I think might have been appropriate. She clearly has a lot to learn about Wikipedia policies. But, barring information that El_C has that I don't, I have to question the proportionality of the response. Captainktainer * Talk 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

While I have tried to mentor the above user, I feel that El C's block is pretty much in order. There were things that El C explained to me, via email, that gave me enough reason to believe the block was just. Sure, I tried to help Courtney out and gave her pointers and all of that stuff. But even with my advice, she is doing this, so I am not sure if in the long run if she will be a good contributor or I will be burned at the stake at some random RFAr. However, if this user is unblocked, I would still like to mentor her, but I need something with teeth, because I can admit that Courtney is a wild gal, I just need something to tame her. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay... I think there's something to be said for trust and respecting the long history of established admins in this matter. Perhaps ArbCom would be willing to place a temporary injunction on her, enjoining her not to make policy proposals until they can review her case? That way she can continue to edit while they consider her case. Alternatively, if she's willing to accept mediation, perhaps she could be talked into accepting that sort of remedy voluntarily. Maybe these ideas are farfetched... I just think that there might be ways to handle this situation that don't end in a block. Captainktainer * Talk 08:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There were things that El C explained to me, via email - how about it's explained to the rest of us - here? Wikipedia cannot have it both ways, yes THIS editor MIGHT be trying to make WP:POINT but as a general principle, if we don't have censorship here - then within the context set-up in the previous dicussions I have seen about this issue of people uploading pornography pictures of themselves, it seems entirely straightforward and reasonable for members to say "I see the scat article does not have a picture, do you want a picture of my girlfriend shitting on my face?". (I'm actually against pornography images on wikipedia but I bow to the community on the matter). --Charlesknight 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, real pictures are highly controversial. Even drawings of anal sex and other sexual poses have been somewhat contentious; real photos would be even more controversial. Wikipedia is not officially censored, but consensus dictates what goes into an article or not (like, for instance, whether the drawing in Missionary position should have the teddy bear or not). Hbdragon88 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This person is talking about what they might do. How is that "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point"? Not finding the word "troll" on WP:BP I am guessing this block is warranted under "exhausting the communitiy's patience" and I must admit to not being familiar with this editor's past but with only one block (this one) to her name I don't really see how the community's patience block applies here. Could someone spell out specifically which section of the blocking policy this block falls under? Thanks. (→Netscott) 09:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The commonsense part? Tyrenius 09:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a "common sense" clause in WP:BLOCK, for good reason; the blocking tool is powerful and can potentially cause great havoc, so all blocks should be done with care and forethought. The closest that comes is "Disruption," which has a 24-hour max for the first block. Captainktainer * Talk 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get everyone to look through all of this user's edits and then go for exhausting the community's patience. Tyrenius 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am so glad someone's had the initiative to indef block this blatant troll. A few hours ago I went through all of this user's edits, and it was unmistakable. This is not a novice. This person knows their way round all the nooks and crannies of wikipedia. Within the first two days they had not only created their first article on "Throat gaggers" oral sex porn film, but had proposed it as a featured article, describing it as a work of "pure genius". That is just such a wind-up. Then as a new user in their first two days they put up a bit of Florida for AfD.[1]. Also in this meteoric career, also in the first two days, they found their way to Categories for deletion on the Rouge Admins template. Day 3 sees our newbie placing a NPOV template on an article on Human rights in Brazil, saying it is "99% negative" and "not sourced" (sources are given), and then, before the day is out, nominating Gay rights in Brazil as an AfD. Need I go on? An extra worry is that this person was not female at all, and was not the subject in the photo. Seems par for the course. It would also be interesting to run Checkuser on this editor and the IP vandal that posted the sexual photos on the user page. Zscout370, I emailed you about this, but didn't get a reply. Did you get my email, or does the Foundation eat them or something? Tyrenius 09:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not recieve such email, go ahead and send again. If that doesn't work, my WP talk page should be fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at some of the poster's track record, and I can see why someone might conclude that she is mainly here to take the piss engage in satire and merry japes. That said, she still has a way to go before it's a question of community patience being exhausted. I suggest she be unblocked soon on the basis that it's been long enough on this occasion. Metamagician3000 09:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you explain that this so-called newbie finds "her" way around with a competence that takes most people weeks or months to develop, and yet, despite this obvious sophistication, manages to come out with actions that use all the right words to purport to help wikipedia and yet are all perfectly inappropriate. I've looked at every one of the edits. I suggest you do the same. It's actually highly amusing, but I don't think wikipedia's purpose is to cater for that kind of amusement. Tyrenius 09:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And if her edits continue to be mainly attempts (some moderately amusing, some not) at satirising Wikipedia, with attendant disruption, I'll probably support an indefinite block "next time". This is sort of like an RfA oppose in reverse. Metamagician3000 09:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To respond to user Tyrenius' post, if this user is an abusive/disruptive sockpuppet then indeed an indefinite block is warranted in this case. (→Netscott) 09:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should unblock "her" just to see what "she" does next. It's hilarious once you're in on it to see everyone take it so seriously. We could just keep it to ourselves. And watch. :) Tyrenius 09:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(Strike - it's not very nice that this person is exploiting people's kindness and generosity. Tyrenius 09:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

I don't take offence at Courtney bringing me into this conversation, although she slightly misrepresented me, but personally I have felt that she was on a road to inevitable blocking from the first posts I saw of her. I think she is a troll, I think she is probably a sock (I have some opinions of who but won't smear anyone), and while I don't have an opinion on a permanent block I think she'll eventually get one, one way or another. A third of her edits are great, a third are blatant - at the very least useless to the project and at worst inappropriate - attention-seeking, and a third are subtle trolling. In my interactions with her I AGF, but my opinion is that s/he's like a kid who shoots spit balls at the teacher when her back is turned, then sits there with an innocent smile the rest of the time. Anchoress 09:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bang on target. Tyrenius 09:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to read every single diff, but I looked at a few more, and it just confirms what a few of us have been saying: this user's career here is an elaborate piss-take. There may be some genuinely helpful edits somewhere, but if so they are hard to find.

I dunno. She's wasting a lot of our time, even if some of it is funny once you understand what she's up to. I suppose it's a question of whether there is any admin who is prepared to tell her that we got the joke and we'd now like to give her a chance to edit seriously. I'm not going to be that admin. Maybe someone else is more soft-hearted. If anyone does give her a second chance, I for one will watch her. If no one does, I guess that's the definition of a community ban. Either way, El_C made a good catch here. Metamagician3000 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I support an indef ban as the very first ban, for a user with a record, if that record includes productive edits. I'm inclined to agree with MM3K about the career so far but I do think someone ought to tell this user "we get the joke and here's your chance to edit seriously". So I'd give this user a second chance and watch carefully. I'm not seeing consensus either way yet though, and I'd like to hear from El C before I overturned his block, as I REALLY don't like to overturn other people's blocks. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Assume Good Faith" doesn't mean we have to act willfully stupid or credulous. I support El C's action, because this user smells like an obvious troll to me. Nandesuka 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as Lar is the one doing the watching, I'm with Lar here.(you did volunteer! ;-P) You will indef block if this person acts up again, right? Anybody strongly opposed? If not... good luck! Kim Bruning 15:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if I overturn the block I'll keep an eye on this user to the best of my ability (but welcome help). Perhaps a notice to the user to that effect by me is in order as well. Maybe even a mentorship. And yes, if something does transpire that is unacceptable, I would block indefinitely, I've blocked indefinitely before and have no issues with the concept, just didn't think it was warranted yet in this case. El C, is this acceptable to you? ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any warning related to the reasoning behind the ban, this seems out of order, and perhaps inspired by other events unrelated to the user being banned. I recently looked through this users contributions, and I see that other reasons may have been involved with the ban, however those reasons were not made clear. HighInBC 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I support the block. Based on looking at a few diffs, the user seems naive (e.g. lack of appreciation of copyright), but not dangerous. I also hope we're not blocking people just because they offer to upload pictures of anal sex. If we prefer to stick with illustrations of sexual techniques as opposed to photographs (I've no opinion on this), we can tell the user this rather than blocking them outright. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Courtney doesn't seem to be an overly disruptive user to begin with. Considering this is her first block ever and she was blocked for disrupton, seems a little suspicious. I think she would need to be mentored for Wikipedia civility, if anything. Her message above was inappropriate, yes, but blockworthy, maybe not so much. I would have tried to talk to the user about her actions, and block (for maybe 48 hours) if she continued to be disruptive, but indefblocked.. never.. for the above message. I don't know if her block was very justified in the sense of disruption, because no warnings were ever used and there doesn't seem to be many comments on her talk page about her conduct prior to her block. — The Future 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done the look-at-every diff thing. Somebody said a third of her edits are great; they aren't. Of her edits, I counted six which seemed OK, and only one, this human experimentation business she agitated about on AN/I, which truly helped the encyclopedia. My opinion is that Courtney couldn't troll us any harder if she had came back in time from the future with a cybernetic trolling machine with which to troll us. She's completely disruptive, but in a slow, methodical way that has been shy of producing any blocks. Should she be indefed? Sigh, I guess not. I suggest reducing the block to a week and letting this episode stand as a warning. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the sole purpose of this account is disruption, and I commend El_C for acting on that basis. However, it was a BOLD move and he has properly posted it here for discussion. Some other users have raised various doubts and opinion is divided. I think it is right to make sure that people are happy with admin actions. One objection is that a warning was not given for what could be seen as naivete, rather than deliberateness. I propose that this block to date should serve as that warning, and now be lifted. It is not going to do a great deal of harm now that Courtney Atkins is going to be closely watched. It won't take long to confirm things one way or the other, and it should at the very least provide some amusement. Has there ever previously been an article simultaneously a Featured Article Candidate and an Article for Deletion, I wonder? I propose also that any user should feel free to revert any action by Courtney Atkins, if they feel it is not appropriate, provided they leave an explanation on Courtney Atkins' talk page as to why they have done so, for educational purposes. Also, bearing in mind the pranks, we should not allow the uploading of any photos, unless it can be proved that these are the copyright of Courtney Atkins. Tyrenius 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That all seems reasonable to me. I'm not lifting unless 1) either I hear from El C or a clear consensus here develops, right now it's not clear to me yet, and 2) the user responds positively to my offer of mentorship. I note Zscout offered to help mentor as well. Others may choose differently but those are my criteria for lifting.++Lar: t/c 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I support Tyrenius' suggestion, upon hearing from El_C again. — The Future 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. My only fixed position is on the photos, which I feel otherwise could be a serious error. Tyrenius 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it could be. If she's unblocked, I think she should be allowed to upload Images as long as they aren't about the very pointy ones she expressed here about self-photos of her recieving anal sex. I would support of blocking of her is decided to post those Images. — The Future 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had encounters with Courtney, and I've read this post, and I'm stongly opposed to the unblocking of Courtney. She is a WP:Point troll in the worst sense of the term I kind of just made up. She is almost dilberately hypocritical in the sense she posts about Wikipedia becoming myspace, while she has a photo of herself plastered on her userpage and makes posts like these[2][3][4][5]. I'll confess I haven't read the book, but I doubt this. Also, I find these posts just really odd[6][7]. Also, it didn't help when she suggested a Stalinist system of maintaining user accounts. She has certainly exhausted my patience, demonstrates trollish behavior, and to be perfectly blunt is up to no good in my opinion. Yanksox 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm an outlier here, but when I contrast this user with other "exhausted our patience" users, I'm just not seeing that we're anywhere near that point yet. I think you guys know I think of myself as firm and intolerant of trolling (some of which I do definitely see here) but I'm not seeing the exhausted part yet. I expect typically to see a larger history here, or somewhere else, before I get to "exhausted my patience" state. You can count on me to mentor this user and if it's not working out, block, and block hard. But if the community doesn't agree, that's fine too. I'd like to get to a conclusion though, if possible. I wish El C would speak up again. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholly agree with Courtney Akins's proposal. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

unblocked

After hearing from El C that he has no objections, I have unblocked this user. See: User_talk:Courtney_Akins#Unblocked. What I would ask from the rest of you is twofold, give me the space to mentor this user and see if they can reform and fly right... don't expect me to jump on every little thing. But on the other hand, DO please bring things to my attention, issues, advice, anything you feel I need to know. My email and talk are always open to my fellow admins. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool with me. Metamagician3000 01:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to co-operate. Tyrenius 02:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A victory for the trolls. Again, natch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So what Jeffrey? Lar has volunteered to bear the burden so you don't have to. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, every single person has to deal with "her" trolling. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Beyond that message she left on your talk page, it's been you who has decided to reply to everyone one of her threads with WP:TROLL links. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to mentor this user, and I'd ask if there are new issues that arise (unless they are extremely urgent), please bring them to my attention first and I'll deal with them... this ensures a consistent message. There are those that think I'm on a fools errand, and I may well be, but I'd like to give it a fair try. If Courtney can't improve I'll cut the communities losses to be sure, so please let me try, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to "exhaust the community's patience" to be blocked indefinitely

Catching the tail end of this on returning from a break, I just want to protest the notion that an account needs to "exhaust the community's patience" before they can be blocked indefinitely. El C clearly didn't place an "exhausted patience" block but an "all edits trolling" block. Such blocks can with perfect appropriateness be set on an account's first day. Why ever not? We frequently invoke "All edits vandalism" as a reason for pretty much immediate indefinite blocks; is there a significant difference between that and this? No. Not even if the editor was savvy enough to technically make one or two non-trolling edits just to spike our guns. Lar's wasting his time, but it's his choice. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

Chiming in to point out that I've blocked a few accounts indef (see for yourself: Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) ) in some cases with just one edit (when that single edit was by an account with a bad username that was clearly vandalism) so it's not that an account NEEDS to have exhausted the community's patience. It's just that it was asserted (or felt to me like it was asserted) that this one had, and I'm not sure that's the case, as it hasn't yet exhausted mine and I think I'm part of the community (right? er, maybe don't answer that? :) ). Note also that I didn't unilaterally lift, I got El C's concurrance first... I could well be wasting my time, who knows, we shall see. (something you've suspected me of doing in the past in other contexts, mind you) Or maybe I have other motives, as I did those other times you thought I was wasting my time. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you weren't the one barking up the Exhausted Patience tree as if it was the only one in the forest. But several other users were. A metaphor of dogs, not monkeys. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

No one objected when I indef blocked User:General Tojo without warning, for ex. Perhaps he lacked the promise of sexy pics! ;) El_C 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the fact that User:General Tojo was banned indefinitely without warning. Perhaps you are a bit too trigger happy with your ban button? Dionyseus 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Awareness is good! El_C 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Did his sockpuppeting come before or after the block of the original account? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh Samsara. Let's just say he was using Wikipedia as an experiment for trolling, but a more pro-Nazi than anti. Luckily, everything he said was in English, so it was —and remains— actually readable to us on the En-Wiki. El_C 13:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the debate you are referring to was posted in German and carried over onto the English Wikipedia was not by my choosing. If you wish to criticise the translation I provided, I invited everyone to do so when the discussion was still happening. I note that you chose not to do so. The only person to comment felt that the translation was accurate. If you wish to continue to make insinuations about my political orientation, one of us will have to take this up the administrative chain. Yours faithfully, Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My review of General Tojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggests much more there to exhaust patience and I support the block. Note also that the indef was not the first block. Shorter blocks are a form of warning in my view. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Differential treatment for "I am an 18 year old hottie who wants you to see her body" accounts is a laughable constant on the Internet. You would think that Wikipedia would have enough folks with sufficient experience, or at least a sufficient number of "disinterested" people, to not fall for it. Courtny was one such. Publicgirluk may not have been. I did some research, and there is an account name by that handle very active in sex sites in the UK, but that doesn't confirm anything. Tojo was a troll who announced as much with his account name and then demonstrated it amply with his edits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean being a fool. Geogre 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You show an exemplary demonstration of AGF by accepting the user is indeed an "18 year old hottie". I must confess I have not found it possible to achieve the same standard. :) Tyrenius 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for an hour

based on a bad faith RfA self nom (130+ edits? probably not going to succeed) and a proposal/question on WP:AN by this user I blocked for an hour, with a reminder that we advocate article space edits rather than non when under mentorship and a request to talk. The user responded they couldn't think of any... ++Lar: t/c 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The RFA was deleted by me, and as the other mentor, I support said block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the "Forking off" thread on AN: [8] note that Werdna deleted it and moved it to User_talk:Courtney_Akins. Since it had a block notice I'm not sure I agree but whatever. This ANI thread is the place to discuss (not to get too process wonky). Admins can see the RfA (it's deleted) here: [9] ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there's some irony in the fact that this person is still here while publicgirluk isn't. I'm not saying Jimbo necessarily did the wrong thing with publicgirluk (I kept out of that argument and don't want to buy in now), but I do think that Courtney_Atkins is the more obvious troll. Metamagician3000 06:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The irony is certainly not lost on me. ++Lar: t/c 07:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So you want this user gone too? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty I've not seen any evidence at all that PublicgirlUK was a troll. Reasons for thinking she might be, yes, evidence no. --kingboyk 09:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to comment on that here, however much I may agree with you, as there are other threads/pages where it's discussed. I'd rather stay focused on this particular user instead of debating relative worth. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

From SledDogAC

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

Self identified underage user

While fixing move vandalism on Wikipedia pages today, I came across Meleh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This user identifies as being six years old. Should this user be blocked under the continually written WP:CHILD? Ryūlóng 00:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What precisely does the user have to do with WP:CHILD? ~ PseudoSudo 00:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be posting any personal information. What's the problem here? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-identifying at 6 may not be wise (and it might not hurt to say so) but, beyond perhaps putting the user's talk page on our watchlists, I see no reason to act. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CHILD is only a propsed poicly and I agree watching his talk page but should we tell him that there is a concern about him being only 6 years old?---Scott3 _{Talk Contributions Count: 950+} 01:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My observations:

• User hasn't revealed her identity yet.
• Is creating semi-useless, but valid redirects (i.e. obscure scientific name for animal species -> common name)
• Lack of communication (has yet to respond to anything on her talk page)
• Does not provide meaningful edit summaries
• Most worrying, does not have a good grasp of spelling or punctuation. eg: Assinus (misspelling of Asinus) and "(moved Acinonyx rex to King cheetah: because that,s it,s name"

I say she should be blocked for 3-4 years (might as well be indef). At her age, the quality of her contributions are dubious at best and trying to convey any notion of "policies" to her would be a futile exercise. --  Netsnipe  ►  00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, let's think about this one for a few seconds. Not to sound evil or anything, but what are the chances that this user is 6? I have members of my kin older than that and members that are adults but are afraid of editing Wikipedia and are unsure about it. This just seems too strange to be actually true. Yanksox 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that grasp of English and saying that "I'm 6 years old" is enough evidence for such a block. If this user is 37 and is saying he/she is six that is even worse. Ryūlóng 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems like as good as time as any to trot out my perennial complaint that WP:CHILD's directives are far too tame: I don't think underage persons should be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. That's largely unenforceable, of course, but at least Wikipedia can point to that policy and say, at least in principle, kids aren't allowed here. We don't really need the editorial input of children anyway, do we? Not only is it a sane public-image policy (in these times more than ever), but it's good for the quality of the encyclopedia. wikipediatrix 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you have a perennial complaint about a draft policy that is less than a week old? :) Thatcher131 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew someone would jump on that :) I've been making the perennial complaint about children editing Wikipedia since long before the advent of WP:CHILD, but I was condensing things for brevity's sake. wikipediatrix 00:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not serious, are you? We have several very capable administrators who are "underage" where I live... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm dead serious. What if one of the many editors who was flirting with User:Publicgirluk and begging her to email them more sperm-faced porn pics had turned out to be a child? What if she responded and did so? What if parents found out and went ballistic? What if it blew up into a very-bad-for-Wikipedia news story? Something like this IS going to happen, it's only a matter of time. It's not a matter of if, but when, and it will bring me no joy to be able to say "I told you so". wikipediatrix 13:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They blocked Publicgirduk?! Oh my god, what is going on? Lapinmies 16:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, man, I cannot disagree more; the absolute, complete, total, 100% wrong way to go about this is to ban all "underage" users (and, given that Wiki is a global encyclopedia, there is no one "underage" threshold). The absolute, complete, total, 100% right way to go about this is to educate our users, particularly among the youngest, of the potential that Wikipedia and/or any website holds (within our purview, of course, Wikipedia is not your parents). Until the necessary technology is sufficiently widespread to make age restrictions effective, any attempt to implement your "solution" would, if taken to its logical conclusion, shut down the Worldwide Web altogether (and, no, I'm not exaggerating). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This could be a bogus user identity, of course, but another possibility is that this is a precocious first- or second-grader who loves animals (the user's edits are all about animal species), sitting at the keyboard with Mom or Dad or older sibling doing the typing. No WP:CHILD issue here per lack of identifying information as noted above, but there may be other issues. There's no evidence that the user has ever noticed his/her talk page or the warnings on it. I disagree strongly with Wikipediatrix about excluding all "underage" (under what age??) persons from the project (though the strength of my opposition could depend on what age is meant), but this probably isn't the place for that discussion. Newyorkbrad 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing here seems to justify a block at this time. Just careful monitoring. If the user's spelling issues become more difficult or if some other issue (such as identifying information) crops up we should take action then. JoshuaZ 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then there were the massive amounts of double redirects and the minor page move vandalism created over this user's joining at Wikipedia. At least now we know that there may be a six year old editor out there and we can help her, if need be. Ryūlóng 02:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• It may eventually be a problem if she fails to respond to things on her talk page when we need to talk to her, but for now, we should just keep an eye on her. As noted above, a number of editors are underage, and that's generally not a problem if they behave well (same standards as adults). We should be careful how we try to bring her into the community, but we should at least make a good effort. Imagine what kind of an editor she'll be in 10 years if she grows up with our culture (provided things work out, of course). --Improv 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• It would totally be inappropriate to block just because of this person's listed age. If they aren't giving out personal information and aren't causing lots of problems, leave them alone. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. - FrancisTyers · 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree too. And has Meleh been made aware of this discussion? I would like ot avoid a situation like pguk's. »ctails!« =hello?= 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

posted on her talkpage about this »ctails!« =hello?= 18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• We (Wikipedia) should all wait on voicing opinions on such matters until WP:OFFICE responds. COPPA is very serious legislation; it is is essential that the Foundation's lawyer address this issue. Teke ^(talk) 04:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

COPPA doesn't even come near what Wikipedia does. COPPA only applies if you're taking personal information from a user (and we're not; the optional e-mail address is not personal info anyway). Even if COPPA applied to a user's posts, Wikipedia's common carrier status would keep us exempt in the same way that if a child were to use e-mail to reveal personal info, the e-mail and internet providers would not be liable. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I frequently act like one online). Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute to this discussion if I may. This individual would not be the only young editor on WP. My daughter is also an editor, and she is 7. This was her own idea after reading a book that she liked and asking me to look it up to see if it was on WP (she sees me editing WP frequently). She is well-versed in not revealing personal information, due to an online game at some kid's site (Disney or something like it) that she has been playing for years. She started using a computer when she was 2 - logging herself in on my Linux system and using Netscape/Mozilla to visit a selection of kids sites I put on the menu bar. When I switched her to a Mac before she could read, she complained that it was harder to use as several things like logging out had to be done on menus which assume the user could read :-) In any case, she has agreed only to edit WP with supervision, and I've helped her with a bit of wording and use of a template, but basicly the article A Moose for Jessica is her work. —Hanuman Das 01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

COPPA does address this. If the user provides personal information even if we don't ask for it, we need parental permission. I.e. if a user identifies as 6 years old and the email user function works, then we've collected personal informaiton and we know it. Last I read COPPA e-mail addresses are considered personal information. The moment the user provides any possible remotely identifying information they should be blocked for 7 years (until they'd turn 13).--Crossmr 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically COPPA is irrelevant since its terms explicitly apply only to websites operated for commercial purposes. However, I would agree that in many ways COPPA generally defines a good set of practices. I would support deleting any personal information provided by someone who self-identifies as under 13. I don't generally support blocking though, unless the user is being otherwise disruptive. Dragons flight 21:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again with the undiscussed page moves by Meleh (talk • contribs) again

1. 08:54, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Seal (moved Talk:Seal to Talk:Seal (disambiuguation): ?)
2. 08:54, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Seal (moved Seal to Seal (disambiuguation): ?)
3. 08:53, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Guanaco (moved Guanaco to Guanaco (disambiguation): ?)
4. 05:24, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Amphicyonidae (Redirecting to Amphicyonid) (top)
5. 00:49, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Biota (moved Talk:Biota to Talk:Biota (disambiguation): ?)
6. 00:49, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Biota (moved Biota to Biota (disambiguation): ?)

--  Netsnipe  ►  06:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I put a note on the User:Meleh page. They have edited it and thus are at least aware of its existence and may notice that message. I would suggest putting links to User talk:Meleh and/or the article talk page of edit summaries when reverting and otherwise trying to point them towards discussion. A minor dose of calm would not be out of order either. It isn't like we are dealing with thousands of page moves and massive disruption here. This is all minor stuff that can easily be set back if need be. --CBD 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT violations by Polaron (talk · contribs), massive page moves

Polaron (talk · contribs) has unilaterally moved dozens of pages, in violation of WP:POINT. Japanese cities in the form cityname, prefecturename were massively moved to cityname City. Polaron is claiming WP:NC(CN) should override WP:MOS-JA, but many users oppose this, and discussion/polling is now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Polaron has started a similar poll in Talk:New Orleans, Louisiana and Talk:Seattle, Washington to drop state names from the cities, so he is on a personal crusade to drop state (and prefecture) names from ALL cities in the world. Please advise if this IS, in fact, a violation of WP:POINT. Also, how can we reverse his massive changes?--Endroit 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If the redirect page has not been edited, non-admins can simply reverse the redirect without any trouble. Hbdragon88 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

His moves are clearly against consensus on the Japanese MOS. I have reverted all of them. Please let me know if he attempts a massive page move episode like this again. Thanks. pschemp | talk 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting and fixing everything. I think everything is back to normal, and we are having a civil discussion now.--Endroit 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out that this person is a highway editor, and has mass moved there too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw that but I am not familiar with the highway debate and what consensus is there. Someone involved with that needs to check those moves. pschemp | talk 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at his contribs and didn't see any recent highway moves, maybe I missed them. I can't be the blocker though as I'm involved. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott

For weeks now User:Netscott has been agitating concerning this image uploaded by SlimVirgin. He kept insisting that the image be as "Anti-Semitic", against the objections of SlimVirgin and other editors. Netscott then tried to have it deleted as a derivative image; though the photographer had released it, Netscott claimed the poster in the photograph itself hadn't been properly released. Jkelly then proposed that the photograph be used under the photographer's release, and the poster image on the photograph itself under Fair Use. Netscott then objected, saying that we couldn't claim Fair Use on the poster unless we knew the name of the artist. SlimVirgin then went and discovered the name of the artist, and added it on the image page. Netscott then claimed it wasn't Fair Use based on "Counterexample 4". When this was shot down, he complained about the name of the image, insisting it was making claims of anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin then uploaded the image under a new "neutral" name that didn't mention anti-Semitism. Netscott then kept trying to attach the new image to the old name which contained the name anti-Semitism, trying again to make that linkage. When this was reverted, Netscott then tried to associate the name of the artist with ANSWER, a controversial group, and continually kept associating the poster creator's name with anti-Semitism on all sorts of Talk: pages and message boards, trying to get the image deleted again, ostensibly out of concerns about WP:BLP, but in actuality excacerbating any BLP concerns, since it was Netscott alone who kept making this connection, in a dozen different places. SlimVirgin then removed the name of the poster creater from the image page; at this point Netscott then insisted on listing the image as a Copyright violation, claiming the artist was no longer attributed.

The image itself is quite famous; it's been reproduced and discussed on a number of famous blogs and websites, and has been discussed in the media. Netscott's purpose here seems to be to troll as much as possible, agitating in any way possible to get the image deleted, while possibly endangering Wikipedia itself by deliberately associating an individual's name with anti-Semitism. In his relatively brief Wikipedia career Netscott has been blocked 8 times already. In fact he would still be under his last block, for a week, if not for the fact that an admin involved in a content dispute on Netscott's side unblocked him and re-blocked for a day instead. I'm suggesting a 1 week block at this point, though I'm open to the idea of an indefinite block as well. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscott was blocked for a week on August 25 by User:Blnguyen for persistent 3RR violations, but unfortunately user:Bastique, who was involved in that particular content dispute with Netscott, reduced the block to 24 hours. Otherwise none of this trolling would have happened. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Was mildly involved in some of the early issues, but would also support a week long block for persistent trolling and disruption. Given the user's other productive edits I do not think an indefinite block is called for at this point. JoshuaZ 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Total misrepresentation of the facts here. My efforts relative to this image has been to properly establish neutral point of view relative to it. This is what my first edit relative to this issue consisted of. Without any discussion whatsoever SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) reverted my addition. Because Wikipedia is not a soapbox we're not to be making statements about what a given piece of content is (this is clearly spelled out in WP:NOR). On every turn my efforts in this direction have been thwarted. I even went so far as to make a guide illustrative of how a caption needs to read in order for Wikipedia to meet neutral point of view. Unfortunately User:SlimVirgin and to a lesser extent User:Jayjg have demonstrated ownership on this article to the point that virtually all of my good faith edits were reverted. SlimVirgin even went so far as to say that SHE had to verify my edits. ???? With that image as the lead for new anti-Semitism and with no in article text about reliable and verifiable sources statements included Wikipedia is seriously in jeapordy of libel relative to branding this artist's work anti-Semitic and in consequence the artist himself. A good number of editors have been supportive of my efforts including User:AYArktos, User:Bastique, User:Gmaxwell, User:Fastfission (in WikiEn-i) , User:Liftarn, User:Geni to name a few. A number of responses to an RfC I started also were supportive of my suggestions. All of the editing I've done has been in good faith. I've made quite a few efforts to discuss this matter to try to come to a consensus and I've been shut down on all sides by these two editors. Here is the BLP discussion wherein I expressed the very real case that Wikipedia is in libel relative to the artist by publishing his work as the lead image and thereby implying that it is an example of new anti-Semitism (particularly when there's no sources cited in the article as saying that). Both SlimVirgin [15] and Jayjg [16] have themselves expressed concern about libel by contravening Wikipedia:Fair use policy #10 in removing the artist's name from the image page itself (for an image to qualify for fair use an artist or copyright holder must be attributed). I'll have more to say on this but I need to step out for a bit. (→Netscott) 03:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense. Geni, Gmaxwell, and FastFission did not support Netscott, and in fact several people questioned why he was posting to the mailing list about it. (Geni's position was that we needed the name of the copyright holder, and we now have it.) Liftarn did support Netscott, because Liftarn also wants the image gone at any cost. The image has been discussed with Jkelly and the matter settled.

The issue is not the image now, but the trolling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are using the word "trolling" to discount my efforts (in a very propagandistic way). The reality is that I spent the better part of the day replacing deprecated templates and editing on the infrastructure of the WP:BLP/N (like that shortcut itself) noticeboard (and {{editabuselinks}} template). I even made an announcement about it. It was only when you didn't transfer the old image's talk page to the newly named image that a dispute arose. I even sought comments about that. (→Netscott) 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User's editing style appears disruptive and tendencious. El_C 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that such disruptive behavior should be stopped. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just asked Netscott to walk away from the article and image in question. Waiting for his response.--MONGO 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked him for 48 hrs. He still should be able to edit his Talk page. Please LMK if you feel it was inappropriate. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicted for the fifth time - I was the original blocker and was briefed about an IRC conversation which lead to the unblock after Netscott was unblocked. At no time was I informed that Bastique was himself involved in editing the part of the article in question let alone the general sphere of Jewish editing. I am quite unimpressed by the excessive levels of agitation which have been employed, in particular when he tags the pic as a copyvio of wikipedia. Leaning 1 week, definitely not indef, as Netscott is a serious contributor. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an indef block, but I take issue with the serious contributor thing. Looking through his contribs, the signal-to-noise ratio isn't good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely with El_C and Blnguyen. The editing style emplyed by Netscott was overly aggressive, and he has been disruptive in this matter. I also note that I have asked Humus that Netscott be unblocked in the interim so that he can fairly address issues raised here. -- Samir धर्म 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Samir, if he is unblocked to discuss it, he'll just use this as the latest plaftorm for the disruption. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Should he disrupt here, SlimVirgin, he will be blocked. But I think it is only fair for him to get a chance to say his side civilly -- Samir धर्म 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It should not take a village to upload an image to Wikipedia. That Netscott has made it so troubles me. I support a week block. Netscott, you can email me with your concerns and ideas about the image and I will follow up. FloNight 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Humus sapiens for unblocking me. I will not post outside of this thread for the next 48 hours out of respect for you and Samir (the scope) (obviously it's other's perogative if I'm to be re-blocked). Seriously if I had not been treated with such disregard and lack of dignity when I first started editing on this article things probably wouldn't have come to this. At every turn my edits have been reverted first discussed second. How does that foster a good collaborative environment? (→Netscott) 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, so you tried to get the image deleted under 5 different bogus rationales because you were treated with "disregard and lack of dignity"? Thank you for comfirming your WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's not much left for that image. Its not 'free', but its no longer tagged as such anymore anyways. Netscott tagging {{copyvio}} with the url point to a revision of the image page is a rather strange way to dispute the image, but only thing left is dispution of the fair use rationale. Kevin_b_er 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, is it improper to insist that images are in compliance with Fair use policy? Is it improper to insist that Wikipedia not defame an artist with poorly sourced statements about his art being "anti-Semitic" (particularly not including such statements in the article). When I came to the article there was virtually no relevant text in it's caption relative to the image. Here's what the caption read when I started to call for NPOV on it:

"A placard at a February 16, 2003, anti-war rally in San Francisco. Photograph by zombie of zombietime.com. [17]"

Essentially the image was "there" as the perfect example of new anti-Semitism. Then after my efforts and comments by User:Gimmetrow about WP:CAP SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) added some text to at least establish the image's relevance to the rest of the article like so:

Photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist and anti-globalization imagery with some classic anti-Semitic motifs. Photograph taken by zombie of zombietime.com. [8]

But where are the reliable sources in that caption? This sets up negative details relative to the artist and as such reliable and verifiable sources need to be written into the article in support of such negative details. (→Netscott) 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's determined here that I'm to be reblocked for any length of time then I would just recommend indef. blocking me with the {{indefblock}} tag and all. I probably spend too much time on the project as it is and an indef. block would just motivate me to fully step away from it. I've put too much effort into this project to be treated so disrespectfully and with a lack of dignity the way that I have been in this circumstance particularly by User:SlimVirgin. The funny thing is that you almost can't go anywhere now on Wikipedia and not see an example my work in one of my creations. (→Netscott) 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

These are some of the so-called anti-imperialists we have today. "A war for Israel." So ignorant of the nature of imperialist-dependence, always up for the instant counterfeit Jew gratification. Netscott, you are editing tendenciously because you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy. That caption does not need reliable sources, it highlights what the image evokes, and some interpretive leeway is afforded there. It's unrealistic to expect one to find a source which says these things about that image, which makes that line of reasoning tendencious. Similarly, invoking WP:BLP is also tendencious, as it was in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. El_C 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the above, I feel that Netscott has been editing in an escessively agitatory and diruptive manner unconducive to teh improvement and production of quality articles, so I have enacted a block of 7 days, as this has been exhibited previously in many 3RR blocks. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscott is also the hidden hand behind User:His excellency’s evidence against established editors in his case before the Arbitration Committee. Netscott has cynically encouraged and used His excellency to rid Wikipedia of Jewish and insufficiently anti-Jewish editors, who he claims are using “Wikipedia as a tool to spread propaganda.”.Postmonger 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Slim, did you really mean to revert to keep that disgusting allegation from an obvious sock on this page? And "Postmonger", nice work against a blocked editor who can't defend himself here. Haven't you been insisting that I'm that hidden hand, or don't you find that quite as safe? The same accusation against me has more substance, if anything [18] [19] (although please note that the arbcom seems rather strikingly far from endorsing it). Bishonen | talk 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

Hi Bish, I don't know either of the players. I only reverted an anon who was removing a post. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this. Netscott gets blocked for 48 hours, and then you block him for 7 days without additional cause? This is extremely bad administative behavior on our part, and goes many lengths to support the claims that we are acting as a Cabal. You're being excessively punitive, and acting on mob mentality. Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Bastique, it was you who triggered this. You reduced Netscott's last block in violation of WP:BLOCK even though you were involved in the content dispute on his side. It's clear to anyone looking at this that Netscott has developed an unhealthy obsession and needs a substantial cooldown period. It was to be hoped he'd realize that on this own, but he didn't, and therefore the 7-day block was a very good idea. If you hadn't undone it, this latest situation wouldn't have occurred. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim, it was you who triggered this. Persistent goading of users with insults and threats, knowing that they won't take any action against you, because going up against you means going up against your gang. And any remarks about your own misuse of admin powers will certainly get a user blocked (like out of process oversight, etc.) Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Blame me. I should have blocked him for a week. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be blocking anyone involved on those pages. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not, given that you abused your admin tools in relation to Netscott. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrite. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what he's supposed to have done wrong. He was spot on that the image was originally incorrectly tagged as if it were a free image. His fair use concerns have been reasonable. He has been civil. I think he should be unblocked unless some solid evidence of misbehaviour is presented. Saying that he "is trolling" is too vague. He has certainly pursued the matter with determination but so have those on the other side of the argument. Haukur 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Haukur, please inform yourself fully before commenting. This has been among the most disingenuous trolling I've encountered on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The civility bit is actually subject to debate, but regardless, the tendencious editing-style is a problem — see my comment directly above. El_C 01:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The users in question, the ones calling for Netscott's unwarrented ban, have a habit of distracting from the actual issues. Netscott behaved badly, but in response to other users behaving just as bad. Netscott wasn't warring with himself, unfortunately, he caught a throng of POV warriors who will not tolerate any page other than the way they say it. I actually am very neutral on the particular topics, and try to remain so when working on these pages.

Furthermore, when I was willing to offer a compromise, to try to come to a middle point, I am responded to within minutes with cacaphony of aggression and antagonism, as if there are users repeatedly refreshing their watchlists. How someone can respond within three minutes [20] with such an incredible surge of energy is beyond me, unless they're doing exactly that. Note that I soon got off that article, which most sensible people will do, when faced with such an onslaught of animosity. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not nonsense. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis is factually inaccurate, and you're basing decisions and opinions on limited information. If you were to read all the diffs (going back a couple of weeks), you'd see that Netscott has been massively disruptive around this issue, and that others have not. You'd also see that he has caused similar problems elsewhere, based on a failure to understand our edit policies. You're doing people a disservice by equating behaviors that you've only spent a short time examining. That's all I'm going to say on the matter, because the amount of time spent on this has been ridiculous. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are users who make it impossible to take a neutral side in their articles, to try and take a common ground to make the articles less POV and more encyclopedic. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bastique, I find it difficult to believe that you would still attempt to edit under the veil of neutrality on the subject. In every single instance that you have come into contact with an article that even remotely relates to the wider topic, you take the same position and always end up defending the same people, all the while insisting you are a standard of impartiality. Furthermore you do this in such a way that implies authority that must be listened to. Frankly I cannot see a signifigant difference between you and Netscott.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Prior to this article, I was responding to complaints at m:OTRS that you, and others, owned certain articles and wouldn't allow anyone else to edit who had a difference of opinion from yours. This has happened a number of times with you. If you can't see a significant difference between me and Netscott, its your head is so stuck in your own limited worldview that you can't see anything beyond that. You do have a knack of completely pissing people off, Moshe, and my responses to you might have been tainted with a bit of rage at your accusations and insinuations.

Because I'm an admin, I don't edit articles in which I have a strong opinion, or haven't in a considerable time. I have a blog, that's linked from my user page. Try to find anything remotely connected with a pro-Israel or anti-Israel policy. I do have strong opinions. I try to remain objective, and that's why I don't edit articles in which I have strong opinions.

My opinion is that you guys are POV-pushing in a most nasty manner. When someone trolls and disagrees with your point of view, like Netscott, you get him blocked. When someone trolls and agrees with your point of view, you call him or her a contributor. There is a very large double standard on articles in which Slim Virgin and Jayjg have an opinion. People don't want to edit them if they have a Neutral point of view, because POV pushers like yourself will gather together and eat them alive.

Prior to this entire incident, I had at least a positive opinion of SlimVirgin. The incessant harping about my actions regarding Netscott, however, are hypocritical to say the least. Netscott deserved unblocking, because the actions should be applied unversally, not just to people whose opinions are not of your own. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I apoligize for how condescending this may sound, but I actually find it funny that you have chosen to take such a tone in your response. You couldn't have shown a better example of the false authority mixed in with inappropriate personal remarks and irrelevant commentary that I pointed to in my previous comment here. Furthermore it is utter nonsense- to add some backround for people who do not know, the "people" I have "pissed off" that Bastique is referring to is User:Alienus on the IRmep article. I seriously invite anyone to look at the record of that user, as he is currently banned for a year after a whole wiki-career of bad behavior. Bastique not only found himself on the same side of the above user, but he rigiously defended his actions while belittling and disrespecting me for not agreeing with him.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Bastique, who is supposed to be an administrator, directed Netscott to Wikipedia Review. [21] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Bastique meant that as ironic commentary. I hope that's the case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It was. I'm sure Netscott is more than aware of Wikipedia Review. Oddly enough, there are people who are "supposed to be administrators" that regularly comment at Wikipedia Review. At least Slim Virgin reads it. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're quite wrong there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny.. if you don't read it, why is it that every time they linked to an old edit of yours that Jay would turn around and oversight it?

I've had no more involvement in the issue since I realized that you and Jay had decided to be WP:OWNers of the article and I realized that the group there would soon be accusing me of being anti-jewish if I continued to push for NPOV in the article. ... But I must correct you above, I did support netscotts basic actions if not quite the level of haste and aggressiveness he's carried them with. If it were my call, I'd say the lot of you should be blocked, and the the article should be blanked until you can learn to behave like adults... but I tend towards the draconian like that.--Gmaxwell 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I came off too harsh here and it's not fair to the parties involved. To me it would appear to me that in some subject areas we have a group of dedicated and hardworking users who spending a huge amount of effort protecting the articles against outside bigots and POV pushers. The problem is real, and much of the work they do is good. However, it appears that the stress of this work is causing paranoia... where we see a lurking POV pusher behind every action, even actions by topically disinterested but hard working Wikipedias. This results in a situation where some editors, myself included, are honestly afraid that if they wade in again and argue for neutralizing edits on such articles that they will be cast as some sort of bigot by people who are trying to protect the articles from the actual bigots. This fear translates into frustration and results in a break down of cooperation and communication. So even in the absence of establish article protectors who are themselves POVpushing (which I do believe, from JayJG's unfortunate comments WRT NPOV not applying to images on the enwiki thread that we do have as well) we've still got an environment which is not friendly to cooperation. I don't know how to solve it, but my barb above certainly wouldn't help things. I apologize for that. --Gmaxwell 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I am sorry if some see Moshe, Jayjg or SlimVirgin as part of the problem, because IMHO they are a part of a solution. Not sure where is the right place to address this, but it would be hard to find an article related to Jews that is not under daily attacks: from subtle POV to blatant vandalism. WP's openness and popularity are great but someone needs to keep repairing and NPOVifying it. If you see this process as some kind of conspiracy, too bad. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

59% = consensus?

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --SPUI (T - C) 05:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait since you lost? 41% isn't consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With more discussion, perhaps a clearer result could ensue - perhaps for a better policy not discussed yet. Stephen B Streater 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You got it right first time. Consensus descisions are strongly non-zero sum. In a debate with only rational agents, nobody actually loses. (though some might not be perfectly happy, of course).

If you think that a majority vote is the only solution to resolving this particular dispute, well ... I don't know... but ok, I'll grant you that point for the sake of conversation today. I'm not going to argue with your actions.

But let's agree that it definately isn't consensus! :-)

Kim Bruning 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On many issues, it doesn't matter in the end which decision is made as long as a decision is made. This applies especially to trivial matters. If you check the principles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways, you'll see that this is exactly the tack taken by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 09:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted an attempt to close that as "no consensus", since the admins in question appear to still be discussing it... For the record, my opinion is that consensus is a goal, not an absolute requirement; when something has come to a boil (as with the hint from arbcom) and we count heads on it, a clear majority is acceptable if it'll just stop the arguing. Shimgray | talk | 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've warned SPUI (User_talk:SPUI#State_route_naming_conventions_poll) about his try to close and he has replied with an interpretation of ArbCom's directives in this matter that I do not think is supported. If he reverts back to that "rejected" template, I will consider it disruption and will issue a block. His contributions throughout this matter have, in my view, attempted to stymie the functioning of the process to get to an outcome, any outcome so that this trivial matter can be put to bed. ++Lar: t/c 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Could the remainder of the page be locked from editing to prevent any future vandalism or unwanted editing? I don't think anymore discussion is needed on Part 1 until after the admins cast all of their votes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is that that page and proper wikipedia policymaking don't really have much correlation with each other.

Now as to achieving consensus, I wonder if the arbcom ever looked into King Solomon for ideas?

Well, whatever the case... as a start, I propose deletion of all highwaycruft. That'll end the situation swiftly. <looks innocent> Kim Bruning 12:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Arbcom, an arbitrary decision is better than no decision, and per common sense, 59% is better than arbitrary. Accept it, or get banned. Sorry. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote the relevant passage that says I'll be banned please! :-) Kim Bruning 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI is one of several Wikipedians who takes the tack that "It ain't a consensus unless it agrees with me!" *Dan T.* 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also the only person ever blocked for successfully violating WP:IAR ;-) Kim Bruning 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Ed Poor get blocked for deleting AfD? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, as Angela suggested on Wikien-l, we ought to try consensus polling. --bainer (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a solution to this issue: Block anyone who isn't a highway expert. Block anyone who's ever named a highway article wrong. Block anyone who's ever gotten frustrated and made bad edits in the middle of a highway naming dispute. Block anyone who's part of the 59%. The reasoning? Anyone who's made mistakes in the past is likely to make mistakes again, and that constitutes disruption.

Yes, this may be an extreme viewpoint to take. I don't care -- this whole thing is frustrating. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Relax, SPUI, it's just some non-binding poll. Right?

“ Decisions which are made about articles or policies should not be regarded as binding. ... everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later date. Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding. — Wikipedia:No binding decisions ”

That's official policy for you, and a pretty good description of reality around here too. This has annoyed me often enough in the past, it's just about impossible to just make a decision and move on. Someone will always show up and say: "Hey! I wasn't a part of that 'consensus', it's utterly wrong - let's do things another way." Haukur 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Its supporters are treating it as fully binding, and plan to move all the highway pages once the details are hammered out. --SPUI (T - C) 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI: Perhaps if you (and to a lesser extent, others) had collegially worked with everyone else to reach a consensus prior to this, instead of having it have to go to ArbCom, it wouldn't have come to this. It certainly would have wasted far less time on everyone's part. But you and others did not and ArbCom acted. What I see here is disruptive wikilawyering on your part after the fact, trying to block implementation. You need to accept that this is how it's going to play out.

Note that one way to achieve consensus is to block or ban those who are disruptively interfering with the attempt to reach it, until only reasonable people remain. Your contributions to the encyclopedia are enormous. Yet, no less a personage than Jimbo himself has asked you to change your disruptive, contentious ways, remember? No one person is indispensible to this project and if the project has to get along without your positive contributions in order to also get along without your negative contributions, so be it. There are a number of admins who are prepared to block anyone who is contentiously and tendentiously disrupting this process. I suggest you internalise that and move on. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree emphatically with Lar here. This bloody stupid dispute keeps popping up on WP:AN, AN/I, RfC, and now RfArb. Pick one convention – any convention that's not patent nonsense will do – and get on with all your lives. (It seems that the ArbCom-imposed process has generated such a result. I haven't looked at the poll to see what that result is, but from previous exposure to this issue I know that both of the favoured alternatives were reasonable.) Please add me to the list of admins who are sick and tired of this, and who are likely to block any editors who are responsible for this utterly pointless fight returning to WP:AN or any of its subpages. There are lots of useful things to do on Wikipedia. Pick one of them and stop bothering the rest of us with this issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe it even made it this far. I'm sorry to say that, as a result of this naming mess, we have loss a great number of contributors to the highway projects because of edit warring, mass page renames, and attacks on character as a result of only one or two people on Wikipedia. It's very sad that these warring individuals spend so much time worrying about something so trivial that it devolves the quality of the encylopedia, through contributors leaving, rather than improve upon it. As a result, many articles are no longer being formed or created out of fear that their contributions will be made meaningless as a result of a shift in the page, or a renaming that makes it inaccessible, or whatever is their reason.

I am sick of this as well and would like to see a consensus made once and for all, even if it upsets one or two heavy contributors. These same opposers to this legitimate vote are also the most vocal, sadly, but they are merely editors as we are all. And as such, I will agree with Lar, that no one person is indispensible to the highway project (or editing on Wikipedia in general), that any disruption in the process of this vote, or disruption after a consensus has been reached (through edit warring) should be blocked and that this nightmare be put behind us. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the poll is 59/41 shows there is considerable support for SPUI's position and we shouldn't belittle him for that. However it is important to consider the Arbcom ruling (which seems to me common sense) that sometimes a decision has to be made and in those cases an arbitrary decision is better than no decision. Of course no decision is final but that does not mean continually fighting over it. To me it means accepting a decision, living with it for a few months, and then revisiting the issue. At this point the only viable options are to close as no decision, meaning the highways articles will remain at status quo ante and perpetuating the argument indefinitely, or closing as decided, resulting in a plausible solution that may nevertheless disappoint or even infuriate one editor. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would have accepted a 59/41 had it gone the other way. We have a definite majority that while not quite 66% generally used for consensus, it is damn close. And it is definitely the clearest will ever expressed in the highway argument and probably the clearest there will ever be. There was nothing uncouth about the vote, it was performed fairly, there was discussion involved and a decision has been reached as arbcom demanded. This should put an end to it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know SPUI and I don't know the long and horrid background, but is there a reason SPUI has not yet exhausted the community's patience? He's got a block log as long as your arm, and he seems to acting in an intentionally disruptive manner today. Friday (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I find myself asking that same question regularly. I think Wikipedia would be more credible and attract better writers if we dropped our bad habit of coddling and enabling sociopathic behavior. You can't blame SPUI - he hasn't been sent the message that disruptive behavior is actually uncacceptable. At least, that's how it looks from where I'm standing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the bottom line here is that some admin (not already involved) needs to be bold, close the poll per Arbcom ruling that a plausible decision is better than none at all, and be prepared to back up the decision with blocks. SPUI will either accept the result or contest the page moves, in which case he should be blocked. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the process currently in effect. The poll is closed and admins are weighing in. Ashibaka tock 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Benefit to the project. Disruptiveness and stubbornness aside, most of us are extremely reluctant to lose his expertise on highway topics. Powers ^T 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of us? Should we run a poll? I'm thoroughly fed up with this endless conflict over something so utterly trivial, all caused by SPUI refusing to accept that he could ever have to compromise about anything, that he has to work with others, and that he doesn't have unlimited licence to do whatever the hell he wants. I fully support Lar's block, and if SPUI persists in this sort of behaviour after the block expires, I'd support making it permanent. I see very little benefit to the project in keeping him around. --ajn (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI Blocked

I'm exhausted. I warned him and he argued about what the meaning of the warning is about. Blocked for 31 hours. I invite review of my actions. I assume this needs to go on the ArbCom case page too... I'm not ready for a permanent block at this time, I still hope this valuable contributor can be convinced to not be so abrasively tendentious. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should he? We keep making it abundantly clear that he can do anyting he wants, and it will all be accepted. Would you change? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He won't. As you stated above, no one person is indispensible to this project. If that means SPUI must be blocked, even if temporairly, to gain some ground on this project and hopefully keep some editors from bailing ship, then by all means, go ahead and do it. I'm sick and tired of going on this merry-go-round of a chase to get SPUI to conform to policy, because it hasn't worked since day one. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reduced the block to 5 hours saying "Block shortened to 5 hours out of consideration that you are engaged in a number of important discussions, but when you look at the sort of forest fire you tried to start I think it is pretty necessary. Ashibaka tock 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)". That's fine by me, but if when I get home late tonite, it hasn't worked and SPUI is back at it, I'm reblocking. For longer. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd support the next block being indefinite- I've no idea what his credentials are as a highway expert but it's blatantly obvious that he's been a very disruptive editor for a very long time. Friday (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No user is indispensible - Wik showed us that. SPUI is very similar to Wik, in both his disruptive abilities and the high quality of his many edits. It would be sad to see SPUI go - then again, it was sad to see Wik go, too. I hope things can be worked out. --Golbez 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While SPUI has contributed much to the highway article system at Wikipedia, other users can fill his shoes. The amount of people that we have lost as a result of this debate, SPUI's edit warring, and general mess should tell you there are obvious trade-offs for keeping him on here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't shed any tears over SPUI's self-inflicted travails. But, you know, he does have at least a small point. That naming convention poll was vague and confusingly constructed and garnered a weak majority - it should in no way be taken as license to run rough-shod over any remaining objections. But despite my reservations about the actual poll, SPUI has proven time and again to be a real PITA. older ≠ wiser 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I second all of the above. I happen to largely agree with SPUI on the poll: it's confused as to its scope (started off as being on "US state routes", then wandered into Canada and US territories after the first round of voting), its process (is a non-consensus outcome on the first part binding on the options for the second part? are some states exceptions on the basis of having unique common names that contradict the part one majority, while other common names are precluded by it?), and its basic mandate (is it to determine the common name, or pick a naming convention that's able to override that principle? is there a consensus to accept a non-consensus? has arbcom mandated picking an NC, regardless of consensus? do the judging admins in fact determine if there's consensus?). But let's face it, SPUI has gotten away with murder in the past (industrial-scale incivility, rampant WP:POINT -- including nomination of deletion processes for deletion, signature-spamming campaigns against a certain Wikiproject, and doubtless much else I've blocked out of my mind), so it's hard to argue that he's being done a huge injustice if he's for the time being out of "community patience". Alai 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The poll was more than vague and confusingly constructed... it was written almost entirely by SPUI's primary adversary in all this, that user's preferred format was listed first, when SPUI objected to some of the judging admins the requirement that they be accepted by all participants mysteriously vanished, one of the people supporting SPUI's proposal was badgered into withdrawing his vote by a mob over a minor point of protocol, et cetera. The poll has been atrocious. However, a solution which is preferred by a significant majority, at least acceptable to most others, and strongly opposed by only a handful is a consensus... and that appears to be the case here. I think it could have been a much stronger decision if either side had been a bit more willing to work towards overcoming the concerns of the other, but as it stands it seems a disputed consensus is the best we are likely to get. --CBD 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So what would you have proposed, moving Principle II to the top? Oh wait, that would seem like favouritism towards that principle and then we would all be complaining about that, right? Give me a break, I can't even believe you are complaining about the order. People were given clear instructions in a suitable format, agreed upon by admins, that stated what each principle was and what it stood for. If you had such objections to it at first, you should have voiced it then, and not now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

People were given clear instructions in a suitable format, agreed upon by admins, that stated what each principle was and what it stood for. I suppose "clear instructions" are a matter of perspective. I've been around a lot of straw polls and this ranks near the bottom in terms of clarity. older ≠ wiser 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer, I did not "object then" as you say because I wasn't aware of the problems. The poll specifically asked for admins who were not involved in the highway debate. I wasn't. And hence I did not know who the major players were, what positions they supported, et cetera. After having read the poll discussion, past discussions, the ArbCom case, various Wikiproject debates on the issue, past policy proposals, et cetera in order to make an informed decision I am now sadly far more familiar with the issues and participants than I would like to be. :] As to the rest of your intemperate rant... it is behaviour like that which led to this being a debacle rather than a reasoned discussion. Though one of the more minor problems here, order of options is routinely considered for possible bias in professional polling and, while something must go first, it would have been better if the one which did hadn't been the one preferred by the person who designed the poll. For instance, I doubt many people would have objected to listing 'Principle III' first... if it had been listed at all initially. --CBD 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if Principle II would have been listed first, would it not be out of line to say that it was biased towards Principle II and not Principle I or III because of order? There is no easy way to go about this, but since it is clearly defined in the table of contents, all one has to do is read and find out. That's not being "intemperate", thats being reasonable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:TwinsMetsFan got their first, hence he put Principle I first. Did you look at the diffs below? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I constructed that poll to be as fair as possible. The reason Principle I was listed first was that they were the first ones to see the poll (check the history [22] if you doubt me.) The person who was "badgered" into changing their vote left comments next to their vote, and when a judging admin removed it, he reverted many times. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Check the discussion if you don't believe me. Judging admin problems? We were reluctant to remove any admin since we were originally short, and the objections seemed to not be well-supported. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

All true, but somewhat missing the point. I wasn't saying that anyone 'set out' to bias the poll, but that there were definite problems with the way it was done. As someone heavily involved in the dispute you really shouldn't have been the one setting up the poll... and rather than stepping back you have subsequently made comments about you deciding how it should be run since you did set it up. Yes, getting enough admins is a reasonable argument... but can you really look at the fact that you were the one waiving the requirement that admins be accepted by participants after SPUI objected to some of them and say that looked 'fair'? You, of all people, getting to say that SPUI's objections "seemed not to be well-supported" and 'changing the rules' after the fact to ignore them? Then insisting 'we must follow the rules' (which you wrote) when a supporter of the other position wanted to include a one line comment with their vote? There's just an inherent conflict of interest which ought to have been avoided because no matter how fair you tried to be you're the wrong person with the wrong history on this issue. Until I read up on the background I had assumed you were an uninvolved party... because that's the only sort of person who should have had so much control over the process. But, water under the bridge. We are where we are... and I think we can construe a weak consensus from the result. Just don't say that this was 'the best that could be hoped for' or that SPUI and others who share his viewpoint (Polaron, Rory096, et cetera) have no grounds for complaint on the way it was handled. Because they do... and the 'we do not have to work towards consensus, we have a majority' attitude openly stated by some really isn't helping matters. We should all ALWAYS be trying to develop a true consensus. Of course, this is not to say that there weren't (or aren't still) problems on the other side as well. --CBD 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, we had developed a consensus against including comments when voting. You seem to be missing that point. Also, if you examine the discussion closely, I was not involved in that at all. I just logged on to Wikipedia one day and found out that all of that happened. I didn't revert any comments or anything. With the judging admins, I was not sure what to do at that point. Noone else seemed to agree with SPUI or have any objections, so I let it slide. And as to my creating the poll in the first place, noone was doing crap about the issue. We had users like User:Northenglish leaving over the indecisiveness. So I figured that we needed to do something. Noone else was. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have to admit that it was better than what was going on. SPUI's alternative was mass page-move warring, using {{cleanup-title}}, etc. This way actually got something done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Something being better than move-warring doesn't mean much. How about we come to a decision that everyone can actually agree on. Discussing, rather than banning comments and just voting then saying we have a consensus, would be a great alternative to this debacle. --Rory096 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Try discussing with someone who doesn't believe in compromise. Try discussing someone who doesn't believe that there are alternatives. Try discussing with someone who believes that he is right and everyone else should just shut the hell up and listen to him. I'm sorry, we tried discussion, and the result led to animosity on both sides. I'm not belittling your alternative; it's just that there is this harsh reality that cordial discussion won't work well, if it will ever exist in this debate. --physicq210 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't say that's not true of both sides. When SPUI refuses to give in to the non-parentheses side, they don't make counterarguments to his arguments, they just call a vote, and when SPUI complains that the vote isn't valid, they just push to have him banned. Both sides should sit down and discuss the merits of their sides, and whether their arguments do make sense and are better than the other side's. --Rory096 22:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We kindly asked him many times to stop so we could discuss. We started a mediation case. Then an RFC. Then ArbCom. We gave him many chances. You can read about my and others' attempts here. But he was not willing to compromise, saying "I'm right." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So now, ArbCom has succeeded in making him stop move-warring, and he agrees to discuss it. Why won't you discuss it with him? You ask him to "Please stop now"^[1] when he finally makes an attempt to understand your position, rather than explaining it to him and hopefully convincing him you're right. It just doesn't make sense to me. --Rory096 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because we discussed it ad nauseum for months upon end. Continuing to do so is beyond my sanity. And, pardon my lack of good faith (for good reason), he is most likely only trying to start another "discussion" about the decided-upon principle. --physicq210 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, then why don't you just link him to where it was explained why this decision was reached, instead of just giving links to how? Of course he's trying to start a discussion; just because the designated time period for discussing the method of disambiguating is over doesn't mean discussion is banned, he still wants to know the reasoning behind the other method so he can better cope with its being used. --Rory096 00:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I did. Instead of reading it superficially, maybe try reading the linked articles I provided more thoroughly. And no, discussion is not banned, but repeating the same discussion ad infinitum is pointless. --physicq210 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not the same discussion. The difference is that this time SPUI is willing to listen. --Rory096 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he finally wants to discuss, the answer to his question is surely within the links I gave him. --physicq210 03:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious fact here is that very few Wikipedians really give a toss about parentheses or roads, we just want an end to this ridiculous edit warring and the Arbitration Committee does too and it has provided us with the means to resolve the problem. SPUI himself is under Wikipedia:probation, as are all other parties to the Highways arbitration case, and as a contribution to resolving the problem I hereby ban all of those involved from editing or moving those articles until we have all agreed on a policy . What, you say that's a bridge too far? Too bad. That is precisely what the arbitration committee said in the Highways case. The only reason these people are arguing now is that they think it's more important for their argument to continue than it is to permit Wikipedia to reach a conclusive decision on an utterly trivial issue. Let's tell them that it's time to recognise that "I am" is not the rule on Wikipedia. Let's tell them to get back to work or fuck off.. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --physicq210 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing any highway article? Or just those controversial edits? --Rschen7754

(talk - contribs) 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For now, just say all. This needs to end, now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It may not be ideal, but I'll support this and do it myself out of the community spirit. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we need to alert people somehow? How far does this extend? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That goes too far. My highway edits are constructive and do not involve mass page renames, adding unwarranted tags, or bickering endlessly on how a highway should be named. To ban any highway edits would involve a great deal of work on your part, to which is not justified nor approperiate. Let's get off the emotion bandwagon and let's talk facts:

*Only one or two users in the entire highway project are involved in the mass page renames and adding unwarranted tags. Namely SPUI.

*Only two or three users are continuously complaining about the entire system. To them, if it is not done in their way, its not to be done at all. After the mass page renames and mass tagging of articles (e.g. such as Ohio state highways), SPUI was asked to stop and discuss. After that failed, a mediation case was started. And then RFC, and now ArbCom. Per what Rschen7754 noted.

To be clear, let's keep a watch out on the articles, not ban constructive editors from doing constructive edits. I have yet to do anything wrong in this case, therefore I should not be punished for waging a vote in a legitimate process judged by several admins. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what Tony Sidaway meant were the article renamings. --physicq210 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. My profuse apologies to all involved. I overstepped the remit by saying "editing" and did not intend to limit or hamper normal editing. It was only moving, renaming that I intended to limit, and I tried rhetorically to point out that my supposed order was in fact an enforcement of the status quo. I fucked up hugely. I apologise, again, to all involved. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody's not happy

[32] [33] --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And this: [34]. --physicq210 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's SPUI, who made near identical comments earlier about the same topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We know that. Hence the sarcasm. --physicq210 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Add unsigned comment or delete comment until he can sign it so it doesn't appear to be "anonymous"? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What comment? --physicq210 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I had too many windows open and got confused in the page histories for various pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

linkspammer from yamourdotcom

After exchanging some comments on the user talk pages, I believe this dispute is settled and may be archived. See [35] and [36]. --5ko 00:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this curious case of linkspamming (search engine optimization): Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#yamour.com; watch for linkspamming particularly in the article "Wikipedia" or "wiki", and similar places in other language versions of Wikipedia. – Kaihsu 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

in response to these accusation i say that the link that was introduced was relevent to the subject , but due to the hypocracy of some editors and admins the links were removed .... it's plain simple hypocracy (it's like saying : we are willing to eat bread but we won't eat the cake because on this cake was given as a form of adds)... Newww 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

this user 5ko apparently does not understand that revealing personal infomations his documentare both against the law and against wikipedia rules. please note that this user has many faces (even some others like Петко ,....) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newww (talk • contribs)

Note that Newww is the same linkspammer as mentioned in the incident above. See the link provided there for the whole story. JoshuaZ 15:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry i forgot to sign , actually i am not the same person that added the link , but i am a member of the concerned site developping team , and i simply found it pure hypocrisy that my collegue be called spammer for adding a very imformative link, by someone (5ko) that is using anyway possible on wikipedia wikibooks and all the other projects to link to his site , this user under the name of 5ko(he has many other) has hundreds and hundreds of user profiles linking to his personal homepage .

while my collegue (who often removed spam and irrelivant links from wikipedia)
was banned  and was unable to access wikiedia by  his established personal profile 

(because his IP was blocked too) just because he insisted on his right on adding this informative link that is more relevant to the subject than many other. further more another collegue (overall admin) tried to contact 5ko and know why is he so focussing on removing the link , so the concerned user (5ko) publicly revealed the message in wikipedia (without any translation ) and the email address of my collegue , i then personally informed my collegue that sent him an email asking him to remove the email , so 5ko simply gave a link and said that the complete information can be found on this link , giving a link to the complete registration information that contain the email of the current admin (and the address of the original domain owner) Newww 16:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Whios information is publically viewable to anyone who cares to look. Wikipedia sites are copied multiple times en mass. The userpages are frequently copied. Do a search for my name and you will see multiple links to my website too, but I didn't put them all there. Adding likns to your website onto wikipedia articles is considered spam and will not be tolerated. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No-one has any "right" to add links to Wikipedia, informative or otherwise. Shimgray | talk | 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

there are 3 small details:

1- 5ko has hundreds of user profiles in different languages in wikipedia plus he has also used the same strategy (douzens of profiles in different douzens of languages) in wikibooks ,wikiquotes and every other wikimedia project. this is defenatly a SEO spammer

2- 5ko claims that the documment is SEO driven ,in other words it was made for the whole purpose of being put on wikipedia - my answer : what is the problem with that ? if it is informative and bringing something new there is no harm , if it can helps the average non computer skilled wikipedian then there is no harm in having it. from these 2 points we can sense the hypocrisy of 5ko Newww 17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

3- 5ko is giving a link to the whois information and that is agaisnt the law , the information are public but to be exploited privately.

Someone might want to inform 5ko that all external links in userspace are rel="nofollow" and hence will be ignored by Google. Dragons flight 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The person's statements are not true: the only user profile pages that link to my homepage are here, and on :bg:. I have no ads, very few visitors and don't care about SEO. On the pictures' pages that I created for bg.Wikipedia, there is a ("nofollow") link to an information page on my site on how to update/modify the picture. --5ko 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Replying to each in turm

1) Userpages and pages not in the article space are set to have links no follow so your argument completely fails. 2)As I said before we will not tolerate you spamming us. Especially as your copyright claim on the page is downright bloody offensive to people who actually write wikipedia. 3)What law would that be. Why do you even care if people are encoraged to whois you? What are you trying to hide? I suppose he could delink it though. If that's what it takes to make a spammer go away I'll do it now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I am involved here is that the person(s) posted a link on :bg:Wikipedia where I stay most of the time, I reported this at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#yamour.com, then the person (wrongly believing that I was Kaihsu) sent me some funny threatening letters in French and I posted my replies here (summarized in English here). See also bg:User talk:83.214.15.96. Please do what you need to do, I cannot come to en.Wikipedia very often. --5ko 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Obvious from your attitude that you consider my friend the spammer and not 5ko

1) the first argument was to show you who is the real spammer , wether the no follow tag is used or not ,it is not the subject , the subject is that this 5ko guy is a professional spammer that have been spamming wikiprojects since years , in other words it is a major vandal not like those who add a link or 2 , this guy had added hundreds . it does not concern me , but when he pretends to be honnest and full of virtue he should think twice before commenting as he did ,it is plain hypocisy.

2)again i tell you , i had nothing to do with the link ,it was my collegue , having said so i think the link he provided is more informative than the majority of bull**it links that were on the page , but then it is up to you guys if you prefer that unless links are added by completly neutral editors (and i doubt it).

3)nothing to hide personally , but the email of my collegue is in public plus he already asked the guy to remove it,

i think we should find a way to defuse the tension instead of making it grow ... Newww 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

again 5ko is giving misleading information the french letters sent by my colleage are not threatening at all on the contrary , you can check it with google translator Newww 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear sir. The person who wrote me threatened me that he and his dozens of SEO experts will vandalize (again) my profile page and even my website if I remove your SEO link again. Then he made legal threats asking to remove his e-mail address. Which I did : his address is no longer on the page with my letters. Greetings and cool off. --5ko 18:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I insisted on my collegue to give me complete translation of the letters that were exchanged with the [multiface vandal 5ko , i wanted to present to for those that did not do the google translation of the document what was in these letters:

the 1st letter: sent by my collegue : sir we are noticed that you are focusing on the link we provided on wikipedia and that you are insisting on removing the link , your claim that it may have a relation with seo is true ,but you are forgetting the essence of wikipedia (that is to present usefull , understandable information) and the link that we provided has high informative value, higher than many links.

so when you pretend removing this link because it is a SEO it is dishonest and fishy. sir we have done our job to investigate your link to wikipedia and we were surprised to notice that you are a spammer of the biggest importance ,you have profiles in dozens of languages and in different wikimedia projects with links to your webpage hidden everywhere on wikipedia. (5ko answer here was that his page does not contain ads)

sir we are a team of 12 administrator , eventhough i often insist that they should never spam, many do not listen , but in this particular case the guys have done nothing wrong

i'm not telling you that my admins can behave like you are doing now and report every single spam link you have to administrators but i am telling you that SEO fighting is stupid and not constructive,

i noticed that you are from bulgaria and we do not have any developper for bulgare language , so if you are interesrted send me an email with your competence and CV...

This letter contain no threat , it is friendly and even offering a job .... again 5ko giving misleading infomations.

the 2nd letter: sent by my collegue after i informed him that 5ko is putting his email publicly : Sir i have many other things to do than try to resolve this problem between you and my admins , solve it on your owns between you and them. i was informed sir that you are displaying my email , i inform you sir that such actions are against the law and the rule of wikipedia (such issues have been known to lead to lawsuits)

5ko answer here was to present the whole whois info , adding to the previous infaction, the address of the domain seller and his info.

the problem is that my collegue 0T0 has his user/ip blocked so he can not have access to his main profile either and all this because of a spammer [multiface vandal that is being disonest in his arguments Newww 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny guy, I believe at least some administrators here understand French (for the others I added emphasis and translation on the page). What do you want me to do to stop your spamming Wikipedia and waisting everyone's time? Remove your e-mail address (I did it)? Remove the publicly available Whois search for your domain (Theresa did it)? Allow your irrelevant link on the article Wikipedia (won't happen)? --5ko 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the main issue is still unresolved : 0T0 and his IP are still blocked .

furthermore i want to know why old spammers like you are not punished ? Newww 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because we never spam anybody, as our websites[37] are ad-free and more importantly: seo-"experts"-free (unlike yamour.com) . Before insulting Wikipedia editors, you should start by learning what is an encyclopedia, then do some contributions (at least one). --5ko 06:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Think At Least Twice is a sockpuppet of Zen-master

Think At Least Twice (talk · contribs · count) is a sockpuppet of Zen-master (talk · contribs · count). obvious connection based on new account, behavior, comments. --Rikurzhen 02:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of such. Old TI-89 02:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the user was created, then went straight to Talk:Race and intelligence and commented with the exact same ideal, and manner of converstation, as Zen-master would be enough for me. Daniel.Bryant 03:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's it. Please block. --Rikurzhen 04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's Zen-master. Blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the {{blockedsock|Zen-master}} tag. Daniel.Bryant 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate userbox deleted

I've just deleted a userbox created by John Reid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The text "This user sleeps poorly when German Solutions are imposed." was complemented by a picture of an eagle reminiscent of the Eagle atop swastika, a symbol of Nazi Germany. I consided this to be in extremely poor taste. --kingboyk 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think your action was appropriate. While I think a userbox expressing concern over the German Userbox Solution is appropriate (and I think I would want one for myself), this particular userbox was in poor taste and could be easily construed as an attack on our German friends. EDIT: Thinking about it, I think it might be a good idea to let John Reid know about the deletion and ask him to explain the userbox. It's somewhat troubling and deserves discussion. Captainktainer * Talk 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Highly inappropriate IMHO. Putting our guidelines/policies next to the Swastika is distasteful, to say the least. — The Future 14:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. Metamagician3000 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I must point out that it wasn't the swastika, it was the eagle and I've been told it's actually the current German symbol. I unreservedly apologise for that mistake. Nonetheless I have declined to restore the userbox because I consider the phrases "sleepless nights" and "German solutions", plus the aforementioned eagle flag, to be too close in connotation to the "final solution". This doesn't detract from my apology regarding my mistake over German iconography. --kingboyk 09:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been in template space anyway per T2 and GUS, but perhaps the user concerned would be unimpressed by that line of reasoning! If it had just been coded on his own userpage, it might have been a trickier issue. The question in my mind would be whether it was a disreputable box stereotyping Germans as Nazis. I find it hard to be sure about that one way or the other, but I didn't even have to reach that issue. Metamagician3000 11:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

HehEXE

User HehEXE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HehEXE) continues to add a link to a non-notable site (thegshi.org) which contributes nothing to the articles in question (GameShark, Game Genie, and Action Replay); The site in question simply continues a repository of codes which (despite their claims to the contrary) are available on other sites already linked to. Since the link contributes nothing, I can only conclude that it is simply being added for advertisement (The user even has the linked to on his page, making it appear to be a conflict of interest) and thus is spam. However, all my attempts to remove it have been reverted. In order to avoid violating the 3 Revert rule, I am leaving the page as it currently is and would like to request that the user in question be blocked. Dlong 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In future, please use the {{spam[1-4]-n|article}} template warnings because your warnings to HehEXE did not refer to the Wikipedia:External Links policy. Not everyone knows that Wikipedia's definition of spam includes the self-promotion of sites that do not complement articles. --  Netsnipe  ►  21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Having investigated the situation more closely at HehEXE's behest, the truth is a bit more unsettling. Both Dlong (talk • contribs) and HehEXE (talk • contribs) and quite possibly along with members from their respective forums have actually been linkspam-warring by adding and removing external links to their own respective and rival cheat code forums: gscentral.org and thegshi.org. Both sides have been sternly warned for link spamming, sockpuppetry and edit warring. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bobblewik (Special:Contributions/Bobblewik) - dates and units

I realise Bobblewik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has previously been blocked countless times for date delinking. Was an agreement ever reached on that? The user's recent edits to various USS articles include year delinking. Secondly, this user has been embarking on seemingly bot-like edits that change the units in various articles (like from "hectares" to "km²"), when it's really unnecessary. Would like an opinion if his edits are becoming disruptive. – Chacor 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Units are questionable in my opinion; there are some cases where non-metric units are preferable (or at the very least, both should be included). The only thing that's ever really come up is his date-delinking, which I would support a block for if he continues. Ral315 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

His changing of the units seems to be mainly consistent with WP:MOS. JoshuaZ 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong in particular with his unit changes. The more consistency the better. He actually seems to have a script to do some of this (User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js), but I havn't noticed it malfunctioning. Some of the edits I've seen also retain the old units while adding metric ones, and he seems from a cursory look to do this in places where it's most appropriate. The date delinking is another matter. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally see a need for changing properly sourced information given in hectares to square kilometres. – Chacor 03:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Diff? If the source cites it in hectares, it would probably be better as: 989 hectares (9.89 square kilometres). Depends on the context. The MoS seems to like SI units, but it also says that the source's units should go first, with conversions after. So yeah, you have a very good point. This is likely a side effect of his automating this :/ -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This for one. Source says 6,000 hectares. If his complaint was really the precision of conversion, 3 s.f. works, he could easily change it. I'm not sure what he waas trying to accomplish. Another one here I didn't touch as the source requires registration and I can't be bothered to check, although it is likely it's in the source. – Chacor 06:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, it's stickier now. What Thebainer says below is it. He needs to check his changes instead of whipping through articles. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hectares are a metric unit, albeit from older forms of the metric system and not from the International System of Units. Square kilometres are an SI derived unit, and so are probably preferable in most cases. However where a hectares value has been drawn from a cited source, it ought not to be replaced with the equivalent square metres value, rather both values should be shown. Fact-checkers should not have to do unit conversions in order to verify statements in articles. I would advise Bobblewik to check every change of units to make sure that where a value is cited it is not replaced.

Aside from this, as long as the edits are not done at bot-like speed I see no other problems. --bainer (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible sneaky copyvio images from User:NorbertArthur

NorbertArthur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a large number of images, mostly of places in Romania, with names of the form "*.750px.jpg". At first he marked these images as being taken from websites, even providing the source URLs. Later, he seems to have switched to giving no summary at all, leading to the images being tagged as having no source. (But at least one image I just deleted had the text "© mielu.ro" on the image itself.) Now he's tagging his uploads as {{PD-self}}, and vehemently defending them, but they images don't seem any different from the earlier ones. I can't prove he didn't really take these later images himself, but it sure seems suspicious. I wonder how far I should go in assuming good faith here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't. He's exhausted all good faith by having 5 blocks against his name. He's now on a 1 month block until September 24. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl's Conduct Regarding Prime minister Move Request

I made a comment at Talk:Prime minister#Jtdirl's Comments on User talk Pages regarding actions by Jtdirl that I find highly inappropriate, especially for an admin. A copy of the post is below:

I was originally going to let one of Jtdirl's comments on the Irish Wikipedians' notice board go, but seeing some of his other contributions, I must say something:

• 02:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC) - User talk:Danbarnesdavies - Jt comments, Some ill-informed individuals have moved Prime Minister to Prime minister
• 02:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC) - User talk:Deb - Jt says, I don't know whether you'll laugh or cringe at this but three users voted to rename Prime Minister to Prime minister
• 03:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC) - User talk:Bastun - Jt states, the illiterates seem to be queuing to endorse such a crazy move
• 03:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC) - Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board - (half upper-case, half lower case!) removes neutrality from the move request advertisement and voices Jtdirl's shock at the naming
• 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC) - User talk:Jonto - Once again, Jt states, the illiterates seem to be queuing to endorse such a crazy move
• 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC) - User talk:172 - Jtdirl states that constitutional illiterates are championing the illiterate form
• 03:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC) - User talk:Adam Carr - Jt says, a "vote" (i.e., 3 constitutional illiterates) moved Prime Minister to the ridiculous Prime minister
• 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC) - User talk:Ardfern - Jt states, Some users with a chronic lack of understanding of English moved the page to the ludicrous Prime minister
• 14:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC) - User talk:Setanta747 - Mal thanks Jt for notifying him of the move request, and Jt responds saying No problem. It really is crazy. He adds The contribution on the talk page show that most of those contributing don't know either the requirements in the MoS and NC or indeed the basic rules of English. and even welcomes Mal to point out the requested move to other users, saying Feel free to mention this case to others if you wish. Jt, interestingly enough, also adds Be careful however not to tell people how to vote. That is against WP rules.

I interpret this as Jtdirl vote stacking and being incivil at the same time. Comments from others, and Jt, are of course welcome. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See also some of Jt's other comments on Talk:Prime minister, as well as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Prime Minister Move, for further information. I suppose discussion should remain in one location, but I'd thought I'd just put the message in two places, and let the forum for discussion be chosen at a later point in time. -- tariqabjotu 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Posting incivil, biased vote alerts to multiple user talk pages is not on. There is dissonance between "Some users with a chronic lack of understanding of English moved the page to the ludicrous Prime minister..." and "Be careful however not to tell people how to vote. That is against WP rules." When you tell people that "illiterates" are supporting a "ridiculous" title I'd say that's a pretty strong hint that you'd like them to vote the other way. Haukur 08:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bogus Typo Inserted by 132.241.246.111

132.241.246.111 has deliberately inserted a typo into a comment by another editor:

attack

See also “Bogus Sprotect Tags Posted by Vandal” and “Another Bogus Sprotect Tag Posted by 132.241.246.111”. —12.72.69.54 00:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:SheneI

Will someone please block this account as an imposter of User:Shanel? The account was created yesterday, but apparently it wasn't blocked. — The Future 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked -- Samir धर्म 01:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've struck his vote in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JPD, where he signed as Shanel. --Rory096 01:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryodox

Ryodox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Constant revision David Duke article, along with history of Propagating racist material. 69.167.100.155 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Weird vandalism on news organization articles

There's a vandalism spree, evidently originating mostly from open proxies (sample edit [38] on the talk pages of Reuters, Fox News, CNBC, and a bunch of others. See the contributions for:

• Powerfuluser (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Theonlyboss (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Knowernumberone (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Allpower1 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Thenumberone (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (see a pattern yet? lol)

and a bunch of others. He doesn't like me very much (there's a couple love letters on my talk page of the usual type), but alas, I have to sign off for the night. He's introducing a strange sort of spam, and substituting a Yahoo link for the actual organization home web site. I've sprotected Reuters and its talk page, but can someone else take over watching these? Thanks everyone. Antandrus (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Backslashing proxies can be listed at Requests for checkuser for blocking (new section at the bottom of the page) Thatcher131 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: good to know. Looks like this person went away just as I signed off last night anyway, but he's a persistent pest, so will likely return. Antandrus (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Protecting Matthew Shepard

Could another admin take a look at Matthew Shepard? User:SpinyNorman has been singlehandedly blocking an overwhelming consensus of opinion that the article belongs in Category:Hate crime or one of its subcategories. I first got involved in this as a mediator, but have been reverting Spiny as well. I'm an admin, but as I am now involved, I'd like an outsider to take a look. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 07:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think his argument is inappropriately (for our purposes) legalistic. I could elaborate, but it would take a long screed, which might not be required. Metamagician3000 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another self-identified underage editor

While I can see that the last time I brought this up on this board, it wasn't really seen as necessary, but Kyereh Mireku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) states he is 7, claims he has "the world`s largest publishing company," and has recently tried to restart User:Kingbot, as seen at Wikipedia:Bot requests and his edits at Kingbot's page. I do not really see any positive contributions this editor is providing to the encyclopedia right now. Ryūlóng 10:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Underage in what sense? the only WP:AGE I'm aware of, isn't exactly a serious policy page. The fact that the reference desk is frequently inundated by questions from people who are clearly in either high school or younger, should reinforce this fact. In fact, the very idea that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, relies on the idea that there are in fact minors. Besides. When you say "underage" do you mean a US centric age of consent? UK? EU? How about Canada?--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 11:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• That's extremely bizarre! I blocked the account User:Kingbot only recently as it was an old account with hardly any edits, and being used by a human not a bot. I thought the similarity to my own bot account Kingbotk (talk · contribs) could present difficulties for that user if they ever come back. I'll see if I can grab the User:KingBot account as it seems the young editor in question has their eyes on using that name too. --kingboyk 11:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I would assume that even the UK and Canada have a cut off age at ten, especially when this user wants to use a bot and his account is less than a month or so old. Ryūlóng 11:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • 10 isn't the age of consent in any country or municipality that I'm aware of, 16, 18, or 21 come to mind--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Our own article suggests 18 in the US--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I think what the "underage" part of the issue is related to our newly favroite accronym, COPPA (which is 13). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Age notwithstanding, the editor has received a number of warning message with respect to his edits and has not heeded them. I've blocked the user for 48 hours. User:Ryulong has left the editor a "welcome" message with reading material for newcomers; hopefully, he'll take the time to read it during the 48 hours away from editing. — ERcheck (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick scan also showed a number of possibly deleteable article, images and templates that might need looking at. Agathoclea 12:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If he is making bad-faith edits, block him for vandalism. If he is making good-faith edits, then slowly guide him through correcting his mistakes; set him up with a mentor if you don't have the time. I see dozens upon dozens of vandalism warning templates on his talk page which I can't possibly imagine could breed any consequences other than scaring him away, which is unacceptable. Most importantly, do not attach derogatory adjectives to users such as 'underage'; I wasn't aware Wikipedia was ever tolerant of adultism. ~ PseudoSudo 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• He has made some apparently good faith edits to articles about children's television shows. — ERcheck (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  Thus making him ineligible for blocks for those edits. ~ PseudoSudo 13:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is substantial personal identifying information on this 7-year-old user's userpage. Are we enforcing WP:CHILD? Probably someone should delete the identifying information and place an strong but gentle warning on the userpage. Newyorkbrad 13:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Got to go through an MfD. ~ PseudoSudo 13:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that the whole page be deleted, just whether the last name and e-mail address should be removed. I'm totally against imposing a "minimum age" on users, but I think the idea of not allowing the youngest users to post identifying information had broad consensus support. Newyorkbrad 14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No mfd is needed to remove the personal details of a 7 year old. I have gone ahead and done so. pschemp | talk 14:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CHILD is indicated as a proposed policy; any attempt to enforce it now is more an instance of WP:IAR than an enforcement of a rule. *Dan T.* 14:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing that information is the correct thing to do. WP:DENY is a proposed policy too, but people are still using it. Are you saying we should let pedophiles get this information while we debate policy? pschemp | talk 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WTF is this constant refrain of 'it isn't policy yet'??? Policy is just what we do, it emerges, it is not adopted. It isn't frigg'n legislation that needs a vote and then gets put on the statute book by royal assent. If it is a good idea, do it. If lots of people start doing it - then it has become policy. If folk do't do it - then we've rejected it. As simple as that. --Doc 14:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And what if 50% of the community doesn't approve of what you're doing? Do you still do it? ~ PseudoSudo 14:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can. But if your arguments are so weak that most people are unconvinced, you will be reverted anyway. That's a wiki for you.--Doc 15:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please show me one person here who thinks leaving information for pedophiles is a good idea. pschemp | talk 15:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification, my comment above was in direct response to Doc glasgow's. ~ PseudoSudo 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have oversighted all revisions of this user's userpage which contain personally-identifiable information. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that is the proper course of action here. I don't see the need of hiding the information from the eyes of our administrators. ~ PseudoSudo 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, we have 1000 admins. I think oversighting these away is prudent and that's not a violatoin of assuming good faith. it's just wise... ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Tyrenius 17:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

think that it is not mandatory that this info be removed, necessarily, if there is good reason to believe the user isn't actually 7, or if the information looks like it was given voluntarily with parental consent. But, policy or not, if another admin whose judgement I respect removed it, that's good enough for me and I'd prefer not to war about it. In general there just seems to be way too much "but it isn't policy" going around these days. Even for policy wonks like me. I repeat... I respect the judgement of my fellow admins. more than "50% of the community" whatever that means, this ain't no democracy ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a very bad idea to have 7 year olds identifying themselves — for more than one reason. To protect the user and the project, it would be prudent to not allow anything that identifies anyone under a certain age, 16 if you want to be on the safe side. MySpace has an automatic privacy setting for anyone under 14. Tyrenius 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but we need to be quite clear about what the reasons are and what Wikipedia is required to do - legally, morally, practically - about it. Before we have a policy we need to discuss what the good reasons are. The Land 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and let me mention one of the other reasons since most folks are too politically correct to mention it: "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia written by seven year old kids". Doesn't sound too great does it? --kingboyk 16:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There's two immediately obvious reasons. 1) to protect young people from being contacted inappropriately 2) to prevent any very unsavoury media stories. The legal aspect is hardly our remit, unless there are any specialist lawyers here. There's no point in an amateur approach to that. It would be better if this discussion were moved to a dedicated page. Tyrenius 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Or if we just involved Danny and Brad and let them make a call. But in the meantime, I think prudence is better than asserting "it's not policy". I support the actions of admins to be conservative, and prudent. ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is sometimes better with the Foundation's status as the "Carrier", if they're not involved. I'm sure they will be, if they want to be. A simple exercise of due diligence for us is to not allow age identification of under-16s (which was the cause of a recent debacle). This should be stated on the new user/log in page. If necessary young users may be required to change to a new user name, something which should be explained kindly to them. Tyrenius 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this person's User name their full name? If so, we have an underage-claiming editor revealing their last name. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't their full name, but it does include their last name. Though he isn't claiming underage-ness now since the age was removed, certainly its easy to find due to this thread. A username change is probably in order, however I'm not sure how to go about it in this case. pschemp | talk 18:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A note should be placed on the user's talk page, explaining the community's concern. Presumably this might be seen by the user's parent or whoever is assisting with the editing (I respect our younger Wikipedians but I assume a 7 y/o is having some assistance). I would draft the note myself but I'm not familiar with the protocol for name changes, etc. Newyorkbrad 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Rockets

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thanks

See the following links:

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

Inapropreit UserName?

Would User:Yuckfoo's name be considered inapropreit? (Switching the Y and F makes it "Fuckyoo") This might not be the best place, but I was recomended by an administraitor to come here.--KojiDude 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-standing, relatively good-faith editor. I personally see no problem. – Chacor 17:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem. Even if it is a deliberate play on words (and it probably isn't) so what? Let's not go OTT on the offensive username idea. If no one actually finds it offensive then it isn't. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I just wanted to get some outside opinions from administraitors. I guess I jump to conclusions a little too fast. Like when I thought my Uncle was an alien from planet lasagnia when I was 5...--KojiDude 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Spammer with changing IP address (UK)

I've got rid of around 30 links in the last 30 minutes (some from last night) to this address (link search) bmd-certificates. Each post is from a different IP so warnings don't seem useful. At the time of posting this there are none around but every few minutes another one appears. Any way to tackle this effectively? Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick pgkbot whois check with the IRC bot returns [01:38am] pgkbot: ADSL Dynamic IP address pool (ar2.he1) PIPEX Communications (Country: GB) 85.210.15.0/24 (No list match) - perhaps contact the abuse person-in-charge. – Chacor 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You could put the link on the spam blacklist. Hbdragon88 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Point me to a link for the blacklist - they are still at it? Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've called in Mark Ryan from meta to blacklist it now. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - was getting boring! --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mark and Pathoschild! meta:Spam blacklist --  Netsnipe  ►  17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that - many thanks. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User moving articles to subpage titles

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=EccentricRichard ... I tried to revert his pagemoves but some of them can't be undone without admin help, so I posted it here. — CharlotteWebb 18:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• No warning had yet been posted on the user page. (I've left one.) For now he seems to have stopped. I'm reviewing the moves. — ERcheck (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've fixed all of them except for the organ article, which needs checking. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Zoe. I fixed the Organ and all the extra talk pages. I think it is done now. — ERcheck (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

He has continued and, interestingly, accused me of vandalism [39]. — CharlotteWebb 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This user seriously needs to be blocked for a short period. He did this way back in June, unilaterally moving Train station to railway station, as well as other moves. Looks like he's back in move page vandalism. Hbdragon88 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This user has shown a blatant disregard for process and warning messages. After his first round of redirects today(which were repaired), he received a clear warning. He then returned less than 3 hours later to do the same thing, laying claim to the articles. Considering his long history of vandalism, disruption, etc., I've blocked him indefinitely. — ERcheck (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of his contribtuiosn are funny though, like this one about telling vandals to knock it off [40], claiming that common sense overrides WP naming policy [[41]], and his claim that he is the biggest contributor so he can renmae it to the subpage style [42]. Hbdragon88 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

New user, claims to be WoW meatpuppet

HorizontalDoors (talk · contribs) has just joined wikipedia. Has two edits: the first edit is adding a pagemove vandalism block template to his userpage, the second shows him claiming to be a WoW-meatpuppet. Is this wrong behaviour? And if so, what are the consequences for him? Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 20:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that this is "wrong behaviour" and the first admin to read this should block indef. Newyorkbrad 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad.--KojiDude 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Consequences? An immediate block by User:Naconkantari, evidently ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The account also needs to be checkusered, as it is operating through an open proxy [43]. Naconkantari 21:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Juggalo

Known vandal pattern of User:YaR GnitS and associated socks. [44][45][46]

May need to be semi-protected as Insane Clown Posse was last time this vandal struck.--Rosicrucian 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also vandalism of archived AFD [47] similar to vandalism pattern on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay ICP. Would suggest sprotect of this as well.--Rosicrucian 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Assistance with unblocking collateral damage from IP block for User:Sca

Last week I blocked User:207.200.116.138 for one week for persistent vandalism. User:Sca has e-mailed me to say that he is affected by the block as collateral damage. Can someone assist me in getting him unblocked but leaving the IP address block in place for the duration, please? It is currently 2245 GMT here, so I will be offline for a few hours from now on. (aeropagitica) 22:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone review this block please?

I wonder whether someone can review the block used by User:InShaneee against User:Juro. I am not sure to what extent this was a real personal attack. Since both users are involved in an ongoing personal dispute (Juro disputed his previous block, placed after what Inshaneee called "disruptive behavior", see User talk:Juro), perhaps someone more objective should look at it again. I would say that Juro's style of communication is often on the edge, but he is one of the most prolific and valuable contributors in Central Europe. Moreover, the original "disruptive behavior" (after which InShaneee intervened) included reaction to nationalist personal attacks (as I explained here) and charges of sockpuppetry that are not completely unfounded in my opinion. Tankred 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dave Schools

Several anons have been posting absolute nonsense to the Dave Schools article over the span of the last month without being caught. I've reverted back to the August 4 version. I don't know if this is one person doing the vandalism or if there's some sort of concerted attack, but it might be a good idea to keep an eye out. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Billsonator (talk · contribs)

This user keeps trying to recreate Talk about spyro, which was speedied twice (G3 and G4). He's removing speedy tags and posting copyvio images on Talk About Spyro, and has an extensive history of vandalism and trying to turn various Spyro the Dragon articles into discussion forums. He also has a history of posting linkspam in these articles. Probably needs a block, since he's been ignoring warnings for a while now. I would have reported him to AIV, but his vandalism is spread out over a period of several months. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Duke53 and 2nd Piston Honda

Moved from WP:AIV--Konstable 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Duke53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I made and honest mistake while cutting and pasting one of his comments in a discussion page (just so i could edit it and reply in similar manner) and forgot to remove his signature. He responded in a fury about someone posting under his name, and then i saw what happened, and immediately corrected the problem, said it was a mistake, and apologized. Well, because i guess of our edit warring before hand, he seized the opportunity and threatened to report me for impersonating him, and has been vandalizing my talk page with threats ever since. This guy is out of control. 2nd Piston Honda 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• 2nd Piston Honda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After he posted to a talk page he deleted my posts commenting on his behavior. He then attacked me personally, calling me 'douche',' asshole' and 'ass' at various times. I put up warnings at his user talk page (as per Wikipedia policy) which he promptly deleted; while at his talk page I noticed another editor had previously admonished him for deleting material elsewhere.

A brand new administrator took up this case and 'compromised' by deleting everything. He said that 2nd Piston Honda had 'made 2 mistakes' but (apparently) 'no harm, no foul'.

Everything he says that I did, he did. He must be taught that he has no right to be impersonating other editors and that it isn't his right to delete materials, which he now has a history of doing. I feel that he should be suspended for a while to think about his actions at Wikipedia. Thank You"Duke53 | Talk" 00:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I was the administrator involved. Here's a link to the talk pages of both Duke53 and 2nd Piston Honda before I blanked their warning warring.

My take of the situation: 2nd Piston Honda made a mistake and forgets to remove Duke53's signature after cutting and pasting on Talk:George W. Bush [48] for which he apologises for at [49]. Duke53 refuses to accept Honda's apology and takes further offense when Honda tries to return the thread back on topic [50] and begins "WikiLawyering" accusing Honda of impersonation, talk page vandalism and starts issuing warnings on Honda's talk page. Honda loses his cool and calls Duke53 an "asshole" [51] for refusing his apology.

Both users then proceed to war over issuing warnings to each other for vandalising each other's talk pages and for removing each other's warnings from their respective talk pages. Honda then makes the above report to WP:AIV requesting that Duke53 be blocked. I refuse to block either of them citing that they were both "making mountains out of molehills." In attempt to de-escalate the situation, I offer both of them the chance to remove all the warnings that they've given to each other over this whole incident so that they can both walk away like nothing ever happened. KojiDude (talk • contribs) recommends that both users accept my compromise. Neither takes the opportunity to do so, so I intervene and remove all warnings issued related to this conflict stating that it was over and signalling that I was to take no disciplinary action against either. Honda agrees, but Duke53 disagreed with my handling of the situation and now we are here. What an "eventful" first day as an administrator I have to say. *sigh* --  Netsnipe  ►  01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You got part of it right, but I never removed a single thing he wrote on my talk page. The truth about that puts some things into a different light, don't you think? Little details about the truth matter to some of us. "Duke53 | Talk" 04:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Ever consider the fact that the reason that "Honda agrees" is that he's the one who made the personal attacks and broke Wikipedia policies at will? Just a thought. "Duke53 | Talk" 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I commend Netsnipe for a careful investigation and a cool-headed mediation (especially in the face of sniping criticism from one of the parties). Good job for a first day. — ERcheck (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Duke53, you've said a few times that 2nd Piston Honda has never apologized - is it possible that you missed the apology he made in the edit summary of this early edit? If so, that would explain your adamant pursual of the topic on the GWB talk page, which Honda in turn interpreted as belligerence, and which then spun the situation out of control. I think Netsnipe has done a fine job here, and was right on the money when he said "mountains out of molehills." Just my two cents. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting quite ridiculous. Duke53 needs to read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA, especially for the comment [52] that Netsnipe has much to learn about being an admin and "dropped the ball" on this issue, apparently for not punishing Honda to his liking. Yes, very nice, insulting the person who's trying to mediate the conflict in the first place. Don't be dense about it, Duke53. Hbdragon88 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I will answer Peruvianllama and Hbdragon88 both in this paragraph. The apology for calling me a 'douche', an 'asshole' and an 'ass' is still forthcoming. I believe that those names could be considered a personal attack under Wikipedia policy. Deleting items from a talk page is also against Wikipedia policy; he did it repeatedly. I followed Wikipedia policy. As for insulting the administrator, well, it's not my fault that he's new at it. I'm not about to put a 'class' of people here on a pedestal, simply because they have a title. If that administrator thinks he did a good job then he's got low expectations of how Wikipedia should be administered... ignoring numerous instances of Wikipedia policy being broken is not good administrating, no matter what your friends may tell you. If I were to be banned I would hope it is for breaking policy, not for telling the truth about a situation that arises (or for someone's 'interpretation' of my words). "Duke53 | Talk" 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. I am civil when treated civilly; after that, all bets are off.

Nowhere on WP:CIVIL does it say you can be uncivil to others if they are uncivil with you first. Danny Lilithborne 06:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting items from a Talk Page is not always strictly against Wikipedia policy. The first time Honda deleted items, it was to keep the discussion moving as s/he thought the issue had been resolved. The subsequent times were (I presume) because Honda interpreted your persistence on the matter as a sign of belligerence. Honda shouldn't have called you names - that was out of line, and there are channels of dispute resolution that can be followed if you still feel slighted. For your part however, the better strategy would have been to try communicating with Honda instead of repeatedly posting templated warnings on her/his talk page. The warnings are there to standardize our (the Community's) message to those new to Wikipedia, or to those who don't yet understand the basic policies. Once you grab their attention with the warnings, it's almost always better to then engage the other party in more dynamic discourse to resolve the issue if there's been a misunderstanding. You both handled things poorly near the end by calling every edit made by the other party "vandalism", and responding only with template warnings and alerts to WP:AIV. Initially, it was you that forced the issue with your persistent posts; later, it was Honda that stepped over the line with the foul language. They might not have been equal transgressions, but I agree with Netsnipe that for now, there isn't much more to be gained from pursuing the matter. If you'd like formal mediation, I think you know where to go, but if you'd like something more informal, if there's anything I can do, I'd be happy to help. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:The truth hurts?.jpg certainly does not promote a positive wiki-environment. -- tariqabjotu 06:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, sauce for the goose and all that. It's easy to talk about all these ideals & policies, but here is proof that those ideals & policies can be ignored to fit one guy's version of that individual situation. I really, really don't appreciate getting lied to, and that has happened a few times in this incident. Duke53 06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are "beating a dead horse". There is nothing more you can say or do to get 2nd Piston Honda blocked. What happened has happened and my decision has now been reviewed by other administrators as you've requested. So far, I haven't received any criticism over my handling of this incident by anybody else. You've been so caught up in your own self-righteousness that you haven't even realised that it could have easily gone the other way and you could have been blocked instead if I hadn't exercised self-restraint and accepted Honda's WP:AIV report at his word. Instead, I tried mediation and neither of you got blocked as a result. By wasting more of our time here with you incessant complaining you are now entering Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point territory. Move on and get back to writing an encyclopedia. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would liked to have heard it from those 'other' administrators' myself; not that I don't believe you, but .... Yeah, I was deathly afraid of getting blocked for following Wikipedia policies. Move on, and start learning how to administrate. "Duke53 | Talk" 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

...wow. Just, wow. Danny Lilithborne 07:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Netsnipe, on your sensitive handling of this. --Guinnog 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the matter has been handled very effectively by Netsnipe. Metamagician3000 08:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

You all probally know me form Wikinews. Well we have a problem there. It has been confirmed, via checkuser, that wikinews:User:RadioKirk shares the same ip adress as wikinews:User:MyName. I just wanted to share this with you so you can figure out where to go from there. PVJ 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the IP? ForestH2 t/c 01:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

216.164.203.90 PVJ 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. I seem to remember a similar incident a few days ago where a troll came on WP:AN or WP:AN/I and claimed RadioKirk was vandalizing on another wiki. Turns out he wasn't. — The Future 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Disregard that, it seems as if the account was created to impersonate RadioKirk, was discovered and then transfered over, thats why the ip's matched. I still have my resrvations though :) 65.78.87.120 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PVJ's blocked. Exactly what I thought.. — The Future 02:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See here and here; this is the same person who has repeatedly impersonated me and now is trying to claim I'm somehow behind the whole thing. I've indef-blocked PVJ as yet another sock of 216.164.203.90. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, there is no n:User:PVJ. Big surprise, eh? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Per continued harassment by this user and the decided lack of valuable edits (even most of the seeming good edits are interrelated), I have blocked 216.164.203.0/24 for 6 months. Review is appreciated. Please. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> The only problem I see is that you commented and replied to yourself three times above </sarcasm> :) No problems otherwise. — The Future 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL okay, remove indent ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better :) — The Future 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with talking to yourself? NoSeptember 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. NoSeptember 13:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. NoSeptember 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, please see this RFCU and the oh-my-God-I'm-stunned-NOT! revelation that my block of PVJ affected 65.78.87.120 (see above) and Old TI-89 (see my talk page history and the users' contribs). The sock farm continues... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yea, that was shocking *sigh* Well, at least if he creates any sockpuppets, this IP range (static?) will be blocked from editing. — The Future 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* indeed. I'm trying to maintain a sense of humor through all this but, you know, sometimes a fucktard will always be a fucktard and a little boy will always be a little boy. The trick is to keep laughing at the pathos that is this prime example of herd-thinning, lest it think it's "winning" somehow... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Old TI-89? I was under the impression that he was a good faith contributor. I encountered him last night on vandalism patrol, and I contacted him on his talk to congratulate him on his vandal reverting efforts and ask him about his username. He seemed a pretty civil user. I think the only strike against him is that he has a similar sig as RadioKirk. Just my 2¢. »ctails!« =hello?= 03:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And the fact he was picked up as collateral damage after a block RadioKirk gave out to a recurring vandal, nope no other strikes against him :) — The Future 04:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This vandal has a history of appearing to be a good-faith contributor and then "turning"; I fully intended to WP:AGF until the "coincidences" became too much to ignore. The fact that PVJ and Old TI-89 "share" an IP (all IPs in this case return to RCN Corporation and resolve to [IP#].atw-ubr1.atw.pa.cable.rcn.com), and that all "editors" in this case share certain idiosyncrasies which I would ask others to investigate, demonstrate a commonality that is beyond question. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: despite the active {{unblock}} request on his talk page, Old TI-89 wants this known, including the call into question of my competence (invoking the incorrect block of Ferick [an innocent user targeted by this vandal], which was a specific block, not a user caught in an IP block designed to stop in-progress trolling, as in this case). This vandal has attempted several different paths toward what he hopes is my desysopping: impersonating me and asking to be desysopped, impersonating me and vandalizing other Wikis, reporting "me" here, self-identifying as Ferick to affect that user (the vandal since registered TheFerick—I blocked under WP:USERNAME), and generally calling my abilities into question. Note also that Old TI-89 asks of someone else is "goeing to look at this, besides this RadioKirk, who blocked me for no reason in the first place" in identical language to other such requests by other established socks, and as if he's never heard of me before despite admittedly copying my signature and monobook.js file. If indeed this user is not yet another reincarnation of this excessive vandal/troll, then he sure seems to be going to a lot of trouble to look/sound like it... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we were contacted on freenode, in #wikipedia, by User:Old TI-89, who claims that he has nothing to do with User:PVJ. After checking the vandal's past contribs, I really don't know what to do with this. If I had to suggest, I would say to go ahead and unblock the user, then keep a careful eye on them. It's really the only thing we can do right now, seeing as PVJ has a history of acting civil, then turning around to vandalize. Shadow1 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just been advised that there's a RadioKirk on the Polish Wiki; registered 25 August if "sie" is the abbreviation of "sierpnia", this is the user's only contribution as I type this. I have no clue at this point if there's a relationship to these goings-on. Meantime, I will unblock Old TI-89 as a show of good faith, which has been extremely difficult under these circumstances. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh this is nice, thank you! I was pretty disapointed in this incident, and I HOPE it won't happen again. I would like to thank shadow1 for helping me out. Feel free to keep a close eye on me, you can be assured I seek no trouble. Old TI-89 (u|t|c) 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Given PVJ's use of the same IP, would you have an objection to my attempting an anon-only, stop-account-creation block on that IP? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If that means I can just edit if I logon; no, that won't be a problem. Old TI-89 (u|t|c) 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what it's supposed to do. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Be advised of Essjay's comments regarding this IP address at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nookdog. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see two comments by Essjay, and neither addresses 65.78.87.120 (the IP in this specific case). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maru bot edit

Hey there. It seems that Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · count) is running a bot through his main user account yet again.[53] He currently has an open request for arbitration for just this sort of behavior. Do we need to warn him/block him? I don't claim to be the leading expert on bots at the moment, but this certainly does not seem proper. Grandmasterka 03:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No judgement on Maru's overall actions, but offhand this looks like just software-aided human editting, fixing links to disambiguation pages (a common task). See a few seconds after your diff: [54], the work being done in the last batch of edits almost certainly was done with human judgement. --W.marsh 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh... Okay, I didn't see that one, the ones I looked at all looked the same to me. Still seems like a pretty poor time to be running any kind of "robot" edits through the main account, when it's part of the subject of his open RFAR. Grandmasterka 06:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of these changes are occurring as fast as 10 per minute. Is this really a human-assisted bot? I would certainly add this to the evidence page in the arbitration case. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, glancing at about 10 of them, they all made the correct decision, and this is the kind of stuff an AI would not be able to do (making decisions based purely on context). So I think it's reasonable that it was just human-assisted. I've heard people on IRC claim speeds about that fast with the python disambiguation solver. Most edits do seem to have been at a more reasonable 3-5/minute pace. --W.marsh 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Currently almost an hour's backlog. »ctails!« =hello?= 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's mostly cleared up at the moment. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Masssiveego has posted his RfA and I have blocked him for it

Hello. I have blocked Masssiveego for his antics on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Masssiveego which seems like a clear attempt to draw fire from people bitter with his own antics on RfA, with a minimalist nomination and tongue-in-cheek answers to the questions. He seems to have induced a bite from Pschemp at least. This lasts for a week. I previously did this for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Mad Bomber for trolling his own RfA. Please review and feel free to protest on my talk page. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. --Cyde Weys 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call -- Samir धर्म 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with this block. Pure WP:POINT. Can we close the RfA? (Or does it need to be a 'crat?) alphaChimp ^laudare 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of blocking him myself, so obviously I endorse the block. It's rather obvious that he's trolling for attention with all this RfA stuff... let's just not feed him and move on. --W.marsh 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA has been closed. Support block. – Chacor 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey should I close it then? It's already WP:SNOWballing with opposes and he is blocked after all. - Glen 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) - shit - 4 edit conflicts later its been done :S

Sheesh, if you use the shortcut at least shorten the verb to WP:SNOWing. I want snow! :P – Chacor 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I added an extra day to the block for [55] and [56]. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Exhausting community patience?

Once again, it's time to bring this up. He's coming close to exhausting the community's patience, in my view. Thoughts? – Chacor 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. I would not have blocked him at all for starting the RfA. In fact i think SNOWing this RfA was a bad idea. Rather I would have let it run the full 7 days. Having 100+ opposes might have finally gotten through to this editor that he needs to reconsider his approach. But with the RfA snowed, he's got ammo to say we aren't treating him right, etc. ++Lar: t/c 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there just isn't a reason to let trolls stay. – Chacor 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this user a flat out troll? Sure, close the book right away... Or, is he rescuable? if rescuable is it worth the effort? that's how I evaluate the question of whether community patience is exhausted. I don't think ME is a flat out troll. His contributions are light so not a LOT of effort is justified but I'm not convinced he is not rescuable. Contrast with Tobias, next thread. CLEARLY not a troll, has a big contribution record, therefore worth a fair bit of effort, but I'm starting to think... not rescuable. Make sense? ++Lar: t/c 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would we simply be gratifying him by letting the RfA run? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. I'm not too sussed either way but I did want to throw out that on balance, gratified or not, this is one time that SNOW isn't the right thing to do. In my view anyway. ++Lar: t/c 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think closing it was the right thing to do to avoid disruption. Blocking him... I don't know whether he's a good faith user or not, and I suspect probably not, but I'm generally upset by the level of blocking going on in Wikipedia at the moment. The Land 13:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the Masssiveego's RFA voting is a problem and unhelpful, but I think imposing blocks for it is a rather drastic measure. A much better "penalty" would be for the RFA closing bureaucrats to systematically disregard his votes. Regarding the RFA, I agree with Lar that I would not have blocked him for that either, and that a hundred "oppose"s on what is in effect an editor peer review might convey the message far more clearly than a block ever will. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Lar and Sjakkalle. Haukur 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Users are allowed to use whatever criteria they like in RfAs. His are high and somewhat arbitrary, but that's his perogative. He feels that there are problems with some admins and thus that the process should be more strict/changed. He has a right to that opinion and should not be persecuted for it. Obviously his RFA self-nom wasn't meant to be a serious attempt, but I also don't see where it caused any significant disruption justifying a block. --CBD 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• It was obvious trolling. I think it's really not good as a community if we just let people do that. I really don't think I'd mind if someone opposed every RfA, at least I wouldn't want to block them for it, if I felt they were doing it in good faith. With his comments... it just seems like he's clammoring for attention most of the time. As a community we need to be aware of situations like that, and stop them. --W.marsh 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) He hasn't been opposing RfAs on the basis that he thinks the candiates will be bad admins, he's been opposing them to annoy people. The whole "Masssiveego is allowed to vote using his own critera" is what has allowed him to continue trolling for so long. -- Steel 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The above look like assumptions of bad faith. It seems clear to me that Massiveego votes the way he does because he legitimately believes there are problems with admins and the process for appointing them. He has repeatedly said that is the case. These claims that he is 'lying' seem wholly unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the history IMO. --CBD 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's bad to assume bad faith, but that absolutely does not mean that I can't conclude bad faith, and this is a situation where I'll do it. This defense of an obvious troll is kind of sad. Let's go work on writing the encyclopedia. --W.marsh 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought he was acting in good faith as well until this latest RfA. CBD have you read his statement and answers? Given how many of his edits are to the RfA pages he would know that suich an RfA would merit automatic opposes no matter who it was from and he himself has opposed before per people saying the answers to the questions are too short. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. JoshuaZ 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's talk about AGF. Blnguyen blocked Massiveego, for a week, for posting that RFA. Blnguyen also told him to post that RFA. Can I really be the only person who has a problem with that? If it were such a terrible thing to do then the same people damning him here should not have been telling him to do it. --CBD 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Masssive has also shown here and here that he considers RfA a joke (I realise those RfA's are from a while ago, though). -- Steel 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I find this recent thing of many editors who should know better interpreting "Assume good faith" to mean "turn off all of your critical facilities and never act against people who are acting in bad faith" to be a somewhat disturbing trend. Nandesuka 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the needless insult. Personally, I find the inability of many admins to behave in a remotely civil fashion a "somewhat disturbing trend". --CBD 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked

Okay, I reblocked him. If you look at his RfA (where someone tells people not to encourage him, then he replies flippantly "Please vote, your opinion counts!" this is just classic "Pay attention to my trolling!" stuff. Then after his comments on his talk page after the block... I mean come on, this guy is clearly playing us for attention and shows no sign of stopping, and the block was widely endorsed. Let's not keep feeding him. --W.marsh 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like an improper block and wheel warring to me. The user has been saying that he was going to run for RFA (following suggestions that he do so) and preparing the form for about a week. Nothing surprising here. Nobody told him 'no do not do that'... nor should they have. Someone should not be banned from submitting an RfA just because they often vote against other users. --CBD 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but if the RfA is obvious trolling... it's not good that we sit around and give him so much attention, it's exactly what he wants. --W.marsh 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a good block. He's not being banned for "submitting an RFA." He's being blocked for trolling. Nandesuka 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Semantic flim-flammery. If this was such a heinous thing then someone should have said so when he announced, repeatedly, that he was going to do it. Not waited until it happened and then blocked him for doing what others had encouraged him to do. --CBD 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the people on WT:RFA and whatnot may have assumed his RfA was going to be a serious attempt at adminship, rather than the attempt to troll which it turned out to be. -- Steel 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts, reply to CBD) Uh, I didn't know he was talking about doing it, so the accusation that I waited until it happened is just untrue. I don't see every edit on Wikipedia... I can only respond to what I do see, when I see it. If someone does something bad, the fact that they quietly talked about it somewhere a week ago and no one objected is absolutely not a "get out of jail free" card. That's just not how things operate. --W.marsh 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

He didn't 'quietly talk about it'. He said it several times and was encouraged to do it. See User:Masssiveego/votingsurvey. While you were (as you say) unaware of it note that the person who originally blocked him was not... because they told him to do it. And then blocked him for doing so. Indeed, both prior blockers, Blnguyen and CanadianCaesar, told him to put up an RFA. --CBD 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is not that Masssive put up an RfA. Rather, the issue is that the RfA he did put up was a joke RfA attempting to annoy people. Nobody would have blocked him if his RfA had been a serious attempt at adminship. -- Steel 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Steel - your description is semantic flim-flammery. The relevant metaphor would be if someone asked you "Can I go to the bathroom?" and you said "Sure!" and they yanked down their pants and went on the floor. Nandesuka 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then tell me... does anyone seriously claim that there was ever any possibility of a 'Massiveego RfA' PASSING? Anyone? No? Does anyone think that he didn't know that? I'm sorry, but the 'oh it was bad because it was not a serious attempt to get adminship' excuse doesn't wash. Everyone knew when they encouraged him to do it that it wasn't going to be a 'serious attempt to get adminship'... because that was completely impossible. Anyone who didn't know what his RfA was going to be like when they encouraged him to do it must have been completely ignoring their critical thinking faculties... because it was obvious. --CBD 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Now who, exactly, isn't assuming good faith? In my time at Wikipedia, I have seen many RfA's brought by people whom, six months previously, you would have said had no chance at passing (off the very top of my head, Aaron Brenneman, who was blocked and publically castigated for vandalism but whom through hard work redeemed himself in the eyes of the community). The only person responsible for the contents of Masssiveego's RFA is masssive himself. I absolutely believe that had he brought an RfA that's wasn't an obvious troll, he would not have been blocked. Would he have passed? Well, maybe not this time. But a serious attempt might have laid the groundwork for the future. Trying to pin the blame for his trolling on other people for not psychically predicting it and then talking him out of it ahead of time is ludicrous. Nandesuka 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course everyone knew an RfA from Masssive would never pass. The fact is, if Masssive had written a serious nomination and provided serious answers to the questions, which I for one was expecting him to do, he would have received 100+ oppose votes, but no block. Comments such as AmiDaniel's on that voting survey page suggest that I wasn't the only one who was expecting a serious request. -- Steel 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I don't know about other users but if it had been a serious request I for one at least would have considered it. I think his behavior in regard to RfAs indicates an inability to work well with others and I might oppose or neutral for that reason. But the assumption that a serious RfA would have been 100 oppose votes and nothing else is unwarranted. JoshuaZ 16:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, he's blocked for a non-serious RFA? Sounds like your punishing him, unless you think he's going to disrupt Wikipedia by constantly making non-serious RFA's. I think both blocks are a little inappropriate. Rx StrangeLove 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the RfA actually caused little to no disruption. It doesn't matter that he was encouraged to file it by the very people (save W.marsh) who blocked him. It doesn't matter that it was entirely predictable that any current RfA from him would not be serious given the obvious fact that it would not pass. He's unpopular and there is a pretext... so hey, block for a week. Which sadly does more to make the case he has been saying about the actions of some admins than anything else he might have ever accomplished. Oh well. 'The admin community has spoken'. --CBD 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, he does very little but troll for attention, the RfA was an obvious example of that. That's disruptive, in my opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't exist to ammuse trolls. --W.marsh 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

By blocking Massiveego you gave him that attention he actually may have wanted ;-). I don't see how an RfA should warrant a block. Blocking won't help here. A bit oppose piling and then everything would have been done. Now you guys and girls are blowing up the whole thing here. Not very intelligent. --Ligulem 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree at least in so far as Strangelove is right that he isn't going to repeat this presumably. However, given his past behavior we may have a serious worry that he will find some other way of trolling. As of now however the block does seem more punitive than preventative. JoshuaZ 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The trolls have figured out that they can always count on some admin to be a dissenter and argue in favor of even the worst trolls, thus creating the disruption they wanted in the first place. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The block is preventative because he showed no signs of slowing his trolling efforts. Ideally the community could just ignore them, but this thread is a sad testament that we're ignorant of trolling 101 here. Well said Cyde. --W.marsh 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who needs to 'argue in defense of trolls'. Some of us just argue against admins engaging in incivility (e.g. calling anyone a troll), excessive blocks (e.g. one week with no warning and no preventative basis), bias (e.g. this user is unpopular so it is ok), et cetera. Doesn't matter who the target of the abuse is... just that this isn't the way admins are supposed to act. --CBD 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi redux

Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) persists in assuming bad faith, accusing other editors of lying, disregarding warnings and in general unacceptably incollegiate behaviour, despite multiple warnings, and multiple blocks. Here is just one example [57] I ( Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have blocked him for one week because I am thinking he still, despite much warning, counsel, outreach, discussion, and general expenditure of time and effort, does not get it. Please do not unblock or shorten without seeking consensus here first. My next block of this editor is likely to be indefinite as I think he's getting close to exhausting the communities patience. As always I welcome review or feedback on my actions. ++Lar: t/c 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, to me this looks more and more like harassment of the user. Yes, Tobias Conradi reacts very badly when he is treated in an unfair and/or abusive manner. Perhaps various admins ought to stop doing that? Maybe Chairboy and Pschemp could not improperly delete perfectly valid stubs ([58] [59] right after he creates them? Maybe Pschemp could not place an unwarranted block on him for trying to move a discussion about the 'Kayah Li' article to the Talk:Kayah Li page? Where exactly is that proscribed by policy? Or a block for it remotely proper? Maybe you, Lar, could stop warning him on civility every few days while saying nothing about your fellow admins making incivil comments and personal attacks ([60] [61]), to him? You badger this user constantly with threats of blocks, telling him that he has to keep your warnings displayed on his talk page or you will block him for removing them, and insisting that he should not complain about admin actions... even though many of those admin actions were in fact improper or mistakes. Then you act surprised when the user accuses admins of stalking and abusing him. I can't imagine that it would look like anything else from his perspective. It looks rather alot like that from mine. This user has been blocked for 3RR by the admin who was edit warring with him, mistakenly blocked for user page vandalism that turned out not to be, blocked for complaining about that mistaken block, blocked longer for complaining about that block, et cetera. He has reason to feel abused by admins. It is absolutely true that Tobias Conradi should do a much better job of responding to such things politely and moving on... but I for one get tired of watching a pack of admins harass and abuse a user and then point and say, 'look how angry and incivil he is being'. Stop harassing him and the problem would end. You say that you want to help him be a positive contributor, but it seems obvious that he is only not such when he is fighting with admins whom he thinks (often correctly) have mistreated him. Stop mistreating and/or fighting with him and the problem goes away. --CBD 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, would it be accurate to sum up your above as "if you stopped enforcing policy, Tobias would stop breaking it"? That sounds like a circular argument. I deleted a sub-stub (Kayah Li) that all the other admins I consulted agreed met CSD-A1 because it lacked sufficient context. That's the extent of my action, but then Tobias instantly jumped to calling the deletion admin-abuse. In fact, the first thing he did was add me to his admin abuse page, THEN he left me a message telling me to undelete it. The fact that I ended up on his 'abusive admins' list before he even talked to me is significant. As far as I know, I've never interacted with him before this, but he jumped straight to abuse. For your argument to work, he would have needed to have been 'persecuted' by me previously. Instead, we've got an editor that jumps straight to assuming bad faith. I immediately copied the content of the deleted article to his userspace with the encouragement that he expand and repost it. Instead, he planted his heels in the ground and just kept calling me an abusive admin. I've been polite, civil, and encouraging to him the entire time, but he has not returned the favor. He has alternately called me a liar, stupid, and malicious. He has accused me of vandalism and deleted my responses on his talk page. Finally, he has a page with a list of abusive admins that have attacked him. CBD, ask yourself if it seems at all unusual that he's had soooo many run-ins with evil administrators. At what point do you start to examine the claims critically? I've offered to help Tobias with setting up an RfC against me (in light of his continuing claims that I've maliciously abused my "powers") but every time he backs off. His persecution complex does not, it appears, seem to extend a formal airing of issues. I am beginning to have a difficult time assuming good faith on his behalf based on what appears to be an almost pathological victim complex. I feel that if he were really interested in the Kayah Li article that started this whole thing, he would have spent the 30 seconds needed to add context to the userfied content I sent him and reposted it. Instead, he has attempted to turn this into some sort of circus. He has created a page called the 2006 Kayah Li incident, a grand name for a sub-stub that was appropriately deleted under WP:CSD. He is a prolific editor that has amassed a tremendous number of edits, but that edit history does not appear to have come with a commensurate maturity, understanding of WP policy, and civility to other users. I endorse Lar's block and hope he will come back a productive user who does not choose picking fights over contributing to the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer your first question, no, obviously that is not anything remotely like an accurate description of my position. Say rather, 'if admins would stop violating policy Tobias would stop responding in kind'. The fact that other admins supported your deletion of this does not change the fact that it was not a proper use of CSD A1... as many people have since affirmed. Indeed, admin support of a plainly out of process deletion rather proves his complaint. It was a valid stub which provided complete context of what the subject was. Yes, he reacted very badly to the deletion... see above where I've said this repeatedly. You call his reaction a "persecution complex" (demonstrating some of that 'perfect civility' with which you have treated him)... but generally those only come into existence following actual persecution. No, he doesn't have past history with you... but as I demonstrated he does with other admins. Consider that maybe he isn't 'acting in bad faith' as you suggest above, but legitimately feels 'persecuted'. Because he has been. --CBD 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, CBD, I think we're going to have to disagree about this. I welcome scrutiny of my actions, and if there's an RfC, I'll be there. Please find an example of incivility in my dealings with Tobias during this, you just implied that I've been rude to him and I'd like a diff please. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... look up. You don't see anything 'rude' about, "almost pathological victim complex"? I don't think you've committed any heinous incivility (his has been notably worse), but no... you haven't been perfectly nice either. I'm sorry you don't agree about the nature of A1, but there really just isn't any question about it. That was not a valid A1. The context of the article was absolutely clear. --CBD 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I said that I felt he had a victim complex, and I said that above. You said "demonstrating some of that 'perfect civility' with which you have treated him" in reference to that. When I asked for an example, you pointed right back at the same text. That's self referential. You implied that I had been anything less than civil with him when talking to him, and I've asked for a diff. Please provide it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since saying he has a "persecution complex" and an "almost pathological victim complex" are somehow not incivil how 'bout the condescending, "I'll accept your apology now." Again, I'm not saying you were horrifically mean, but this tenacious 'no I was right' reaction is just the sort of thing I was talking about. You weren't right. You haven't been acting "with nothing but civilness". Congratulations, you're human. So is he. Cut the guy some slack and consider, 'hey maybe me deleting his article like that might have been annoying'. --CBD 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well CBD, I sometimes find you annoying but i don't respond with immediate, constant blatant incivility. Stop making excuses for Tobias's bad behaviour. Annoyance doesn't excuse his actions, especially considering chairboy never interacted with him before. pschemp | talk 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Me? Annoying? Impossible. :] No, I don't 'make excuses' for him. I have said (over and over and over again) that his reaction was wrong.... but that isn't the only problem here. The actions against him were wrong too... and until people start addressing that it seems obvious that the problems will continue. Yes, we should try to get him to be less hostile to admins. Step one - stop giving him reasons to be hostile. Seems better for everyone. Constantly harping on him... how's that working out thus far? Anyone think it's sure to work if we just keep at it? --CBD 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi is either performance art or someone who doesn't get it, I agree, but let's escalate from week to months rather than indefinite, please. Geogre 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think indefinite is warranted here, as Tobias is a productive contributor as long as no one disagrees with him. The attempt to paint him as the victim is laughable though. Tobias has been yelling admin abuse from day one, before he was ever blocked for his quite uncivil responses and rants. CBD is also ignoring Tobias's use of IP sockpuppets and meantpuppets to get around his blocks, and the fact that even the people who try to be nice to the man get lambasted by him. Aditionally, moving an irrelevant personal argument about speedy deletions to the talk page of a deleted article is not appropriate. Chairboy has acted with nothing but civilness here, has no hostory with Tobias, and yet has met with incivilty at every comment. He even userfied the deletion so Tobias could work on it. I'm sorry but Tobias has shown that he in incapable of dealing with even the smallest disagreement in a civil fashion (even before the alleged mistreatment) and as such deserves blocks until he can learn to play nice. Excusing incivilty because Tobias has an admin abuse chip on his shoulder is unfair to those editors who do remain civil in conflicts. pschemp | talk 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

I just blocked Mike Garcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely following this edit to his talk page, where he seems to admit being behind "Johnny the Vandal". the wub "?!" 08:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mike has a troubled history, but do other people see that admission as being a little vague? Geogre 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Abso-fragging-lutely. What that diff actually says is "anybody trying to create an account with email <john@freeq.com> is 'Johnny the Vandal'…". Try reading it again. HTH HAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Boswell (talk • contribs)

• • Well, if it's true, it certainly doesn't surprise me at all. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Hmmm, now you mention it, it could be read another way. However I think the reference to Jimbo allowing the account back in means he is referring to his own account, since it was Jimbo's personal intervention that got User:Mike Garcia unblocked in the first place. Notice that Mike's recent edits have been almost solely tagging supposed sockpuppets of JtV. The way I see it, this admission could have something to do with the increasing appliance of WP:DENY and the recent deletion of {{Johnny the Vandal}} and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Johnny the Vandal. I have informed Jimbo on his talk page anyways. the wub "?!" 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I've never had any good fortune dealing with Mike, and I was trying to not refer to his distant past, but, because of the ambiguity, I'd recommend lifting the block, or at least shortening it, until this is hashed out a bit more. (Again, Mike has been a ball of frustration for me, but I don't see him quite admitting to being JtV, and it's within Mike's personality to start on something like catching JtV and then following through to the exclusion of everything else, so that's no evidence, one way or the other.) Geogre 14:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies from 'Mr.Pelican Shit'

Hi, I am specifically one of the people involved in Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mr.Pelican Shit. I want to apologise for our misdeeds which we actually stopped doing a long time ago - about late 2005. The pelican shit thing began as a joke after a night out when we came back from a club in Stockton-on-Tees and we ended up covered in white stuff (actually foam, but one Australian guy said "bugger all, that's pelican shit!" and we found Wikipedia when researching info on Middlesbrough for coursework in college.

Anyhow, we hope we can be forgiven for it, we want to contribute positively. Can you recover the deleted Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mr.Pelican Shit page and move it to my userspace for posterity.

We want to make encyclopedic contributions on North-East England and Teesside-related topics.

Hopefully all can be forgiven. BTW, those on Wiktionary and Commons were imitators, and not us. --Langwath 09:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If one would really want to keep the past behind them, why would they want a page on their past vandalisms moved to their own userspace? RN 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is for transfer to a MediaWiki installation I run - which is sort of like a 'Best of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense' extended version - for our local area network! Anyhow, no more 'pelican shit/bluxo/asspus' stuff! --Langwath 09:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone could just e-mail it to you? RN 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have email working from this account soon enough. Also see if the WoW/Communism/Johnny the Vandal/ncv/marmot pages can be recovered, the GFDL doesn't stop us from using them, does it?? I can say that at college the hits for the WoW and Communism pages resulted in them getting blocked by sysadmins in college!

But anyhow, is there a WikiProject on North East England I could get involved in?? --Langwath 09:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:WolfStar2

User:WolfStar2 is apparently a bot operated by the banned user User:Thewolfstar. None of the edits it has made seem to be productive, and it reverts attempts to undo its edits. --Stemonitis 10:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone please ban this immediately indefinately as a sockpuppet. See diff [62] for example. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your post ate mine[63]. I have blocked indefinitely. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 10:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And I edit conflucted with you... —Xyrael / 10:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I literally waited 3 and a half minutes for my edit to go through due to a routing error on my end. I figured something like that would happen. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And now we have WolfStar3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AnnH ♫ 10:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh> Let's all sing: "I ain't gonna tolerate Maggie's farm no more." (And, of course, we still have her arguing and disrupting, just one heading below.) Geogre 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that there is no RFCU filed on WhiskeyRebellion; it could merely be another editor interested in anarchism and human rights. Until that suspicion is cleared up (which I hope it will be; hence posting the reminder about the previous AN/I discussion), we should try to assume some good faith. Captainktainer * Talk 12:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International article

First off, I work for Amnesty International, but I'm here in a personal capacity. However, I've been told it's a Conflict of Interest to edit the page. Fine, but someone else should look at User:Whiskey Rebellion's edits. He's been seriously pushing an anti-Arms Control position on the article, he's even admitted to writing a POV piece. Donnacha 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Donnacha, I said my first edit included a sentence that was written in a pov fashion. I was being honest and changed it completely. My edits are neutral and sourced. You object to my and other editors' edits constantly because they get in the way of your apparant Amnesty International public relations job here at Wikipedia. You work for them. You are making and reverting in a biased way. Also, you continually attack other editors rather than commenting on their edits. You made 10 reverts yesterday, too. You should simply not be editing this article. Whiskey Rebellion 10:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Amnesty International I don't see anything drastically point-of-view. Can you explain what in particular you are concerned about? Equally I would ask both of you to calm down and go and find something else to do than edit these articles for a few days. The Land 11:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Look back at the history. Mr Whiskey posted a personal criticism of the Control Arms Campaign, then linked to a cite that didn't criticise AI (in fact, it quoted them in support of the author's argument) and now, having failed to find a proper cite as asked, has, instead, decided to expand the Control Arms piece of the History out of proportion with the other campaigns, despite me starting an article on the Campaign (the link to which he's removed), and removed it from the criticism section. He's consistently tried, as someone who opposes arms control, to push his point of view and now, with increasing attention on the piece, he's hiding behind factual quotes - the lack of proportionality and balance in the history section is now the POV problem. There's also a typo in it - "It's stated intent". Anyway, I'm not going to edit it anymore, so it's up to others now. Donnacha 13:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As a reminder, one of the users involved in this particular content dispute (which it is) has been brought up on ANI recently. To be honest, WP:3O or one of the other steps in the dispute resolution process would be a better place to go. Alternatively, if there's a problem with excessive reverts, there's the 3RR board. The best step, of course, would be to step back, smile at each other, and work out your differences calmly and keeping in mind Wikipedia policies first and foremost. It's a freaking free encyclopedia, guys. Not worth yelling at each other over. Captainktainer * Talk 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that quite a few people volunteer for AI and even more are sympathetic, so I'm not sure that working for them is anything like a bar to editing the article. AI has thousands of volunteers and contributors and members, so we have to look at what's written and not the personal life of the authors. Geogre 11:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry / D Sanchez / R Lopez

There is strangeness going on here, and I'm hoping someone can sort it out.

I've blocked SN for 3RR. SN says he was reverting socks of R Lopez (). User:T Turner says [64] that SN may well be RL. But T Turner is indef blocked as an attack account. Meanwhile D Sanchez [65] is going around adding SN to the list of RL socks...

William M. Connolley 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked D Sanchez indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet and I've reverted his edits about Stirling. I have no idea about the Lopez sockpuppet tags he added, so I've left them in place until I can work out what's going on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're both right--there is something strange going on here, and I've been having trouble figuring out exactly what is going on. There is at least one abusive user who is certainly at work making sockpuppets to attack and harass Stirling (User:T Turner is an obvious example, and Ray Lopez (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) himself is an obvious impostor/sockpuppet (this delightful edit [66] says it all). Here's another fine user Coqsportif (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who might be involved, since "Ray Lopez" became active shortly after he was blocked. On some of the most recent stuff -- such as 87.19.140.175 (talk • contribs) -- who is in Italy and doesn't appear to be an open proxy -- I dunno. I think there's more than one person harassing Stirling.

I think a checkuser on the Stirling-harassers, at least the recent ones, might be in order. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK... on this basis I'm going to unblock SN for 3RR, whilst reminding him to be a bit more cautious William M. Connolley 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Marudubshinki running a bot again

Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously blocked on a number of occasions and currently has an arbitration case being considered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki for use of an unapproved bot against WP:BOT policy. He now appears to be running an unapproved python bot - [67]. As an involved party in the RFAR, I would prefer not to get any more involved at this time. Could someone deal with this please. -- I@n 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marudubshinki/Workshop#Proposed_temporary_injunctions That section is empty, perhaps a temp AC inj. needs to be seeked. – Chacor 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a thread about this on this page already, scroll up a bit. I'm not aware that you need approval to run a script that requires human approval to make each edit, which seems to be what he was doing this time (see the other thread for my explanation of why this almost certainly wasn't an unattended bot). (after edit conflict) As Chacor mentions, seek an injunction if you want him to be stopped from using any kind of special assistance to edit. --W.marsh 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't see that thread above, and your response there makes sense to me, although I would have thought that running the bot (human-assisted or not) has a sniff of arrogance given the RFAR. I withdraw this request. -- I@n 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding page protection of Muhammad

An edit war has been ongoing concerning the into of the Muhammad article. Some editors have been changing the longstanding intro (which achieved a concensus some time ago) to a new version. (I'll hold my opinion on this affair.) It appears FayssalF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has locked the page due to the edit war. While I have no problem with this, I am concerned about the specific administrator who locked the page. The page lock states, "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version." However, FayssalF himself was involved in the revert war, reverting at least twice from the previous consensus version. And rather than locking the page outright, he reverted once more to his desired version before full-protecting the page. I think this is a clear endorsement of a version and another example of administrator abuse from a user who has himself been involved in multiple revert wars on this very article. —Aiden 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the article should indeed have been protected, I object to FayssalF's use of the rollback tool to revert non-vandalism, as well as his revert prior to protection. He definitely should not have performed the protection himself, and the tone used by FayssalF on User talk:62.25.96.105 in response to the IP's comprably polite (and correct) statements on FayssalF's talk page is unnecessarily harsh. -- tariqabjotu 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Ian Pitchford Removing warnings from his Talk page

According to WP:V, users may not remove legitimate warnigns from their Talk pages. User:Ian Pitchford has received numerous warnings - for 3RR, for misuse of anit-vandal tools etc.. - which he keeps removing from his Talk page. he has been warned not to do this, yes keeps one doing it, and claiming he is "archiving" - though no archive exists on his page Isarig 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Stingray

A user requested Stingray to be fully protected here.

Apparently, the request was denied by Admin YankSox, but they have failed to take in consideration the constant vandalism that the article has been hit with. In the last hour alone, it has been edited over 100 times, most of the edits coming from vandalism and vandalism revertions.

I would like for an admin(s) to re-consider protecting this page. (I already made a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but I don't think my request will be heard.

--Nishkid64 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, protection policy means that it shouldn't be protected due to it being on the main page. – Chacor 16:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But I was still hoping it would be re-considered. The vandalism to this page is pretty serious. --Nishkid64 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• An S-protect wouldn't be out of line, given the Steve Irwin stuff. Geogre 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)