Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please feel free to leave a message.

Note: Reporting violations of the three revert rule should be done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

If you do post, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. (The page archivers really need the time information.)

If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both.

Please be aware that this page isn't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. If you bring such disputes here, we will usually advise you to take them elsewhere, such as mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration.

See also:

• Arbitrators' requests for admin enforcement
• Blocking policy
• Controversial blocks
• Block user
• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
• Block log

Snowspinner's block of John-1107

User:Snowspinner blocked User:John-1107 again today. This time, it was for one month, with a confusing reason of "Claiming non-existant judicial legitimacy". I don't see any cause for this, and Snowspinner has neither given any warning to this user nor sufficiently explained exactly what this block is regarding.

Can someone please look into this? Snowspinner has rejected my request for an explanation, maybe someone else will have better luck. If this user is such a problem, why can't Snowspinner file a RFC? One month blocks shouldn't be given lightly. -- Netoholic @ 02:57, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

RfCs are not an essential part of the blocking policy for disruption, which is the criteria employed. The edit in question involved making inaccurate statements about the rulings of the arbcom and several other groups. This is on top of two prior blocks for disruption, which seem to provide prior warning. And, contrary to Netoholic's account of things, I explained everything I'm saying here to him on his talk page when he asked. Curious. [1] is the edit I blocked for, incidentally, though his resistance to the idea of not adding copyvio material would have worked too. Snowspinner 03:02, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

You posted something on my talk page, but I wouldn't call it an explanation. -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

The block seems fine to me. --Neutrality^talk 03:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

John-1107 is a problem user with a history of posting nonsense as fact. He has been doing so since November (beginning as an anonymous user with a focus on Halo). If he didn't seem so completely out of touch with reality, I'd consider him a vandal. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of his history, and can't sympathize too much, but a one month block for a confusing talk page post isn't appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Unfortunately, questionable blocks by Snowspinner are par for the course. Why does he have to do things like this? Why can't he come to deliberate here before acting? Being an admin isn't intended to make anyone a miniature dictator; it's janitorial work, and if the powers are going to be used aggressively rather than cautiously, they just shouldn't be used at all. Everyking 20:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of Everyking's comments regarding the nature of the administrative role. There are very few policies under which an administrator is empowered to block an established user for a month. Which one was it in this case? Claiming non-existant judicial legitimacy doesn't call to mind any obvious policy that would support a one month block. --BM 01:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cyrius' comment is most relevant here. The issue isn't Snowspinner's block, it's about John-1107's edits that led to his blocking. John-1107 does not appear to be able to edit Wikipedia in any positive way; Snowspinner has done both him and Wikipedia a favour. Protestations of "admin abuse" against Snowspinner would have more weight if the people he was "abusing" didn't so consistently turn out to be trolls, vandals, or people who end up being sanctioned by ArbCom. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What sort of things does John do that are so negative? He writes nonsense? What does that mean? He writes things that are patently absurd? He writes things that are POV? He writes things that have a basis in truth but are questionable in the details? I have no familiarity with him, but I do have enough familarity with Snowspinner that I can make a reasonable guess that he probably overreacted, and probably used provocative threats in lieu of honest discussion in dealing with him. Everyking 06:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He writes:

" Wikimedia Arbitration Bureaucratic Administrative Coordinator:
 John V - one of the leading members of the UNWFAACBAMA-LPTISDSCSEASF."

"Committee Arbitration Bureaucratic Coordination Adminship:
I became the first Wikimedia Arbitration Bureaucratic Administrative Coordinator 
of the Wikipedia:Committee of Wikipedians on March 19, 2005." 

 "On the orders of me and the Wikimedian Committee of Members' Advocates
 and Bureaucratic Administrators and Arbitration Committee" 

"Now that i have finally rose to power as the Committee's
first AC Bureaucratic Administrative Coordinator"

"In times of crisis, i will be granted emergency powers until the Martial
State of Emergency is over."

Basically he gave himself a made up title, and then tried to use that made up title to imply that he had authority. Now he certainly wouldn't fool any of us but he may well fool a newbie into thinking that Wikipedia is run by a bunch of nutters. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's what he was blocked for? He just sounds like a kid. I'd say ask him to remove the proclamation of authority or at least make it clear that it's a joke. A one month block for that is ridiculous. We can't expect total maturity out of everybody. Everyking 08:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Theresa, administrators do not have the authority to block other members, except under very specific circumstances that are spelled out in the policies. These are, briefly:

1. short blocks for violation of the 3RR rule
2. vandalism
3. violations of various specific injunctions against specific users arising out of Arb Comm cases
4. a few situations described in Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The only one of these that is at all generic is "disruption".

There is no policy that gives administrators the authority to block people who they think it would be a good idea to block. Even behaviour that would result in the ArbComm blocking or banning someone is not behaviour that administrators can act against as individul administrators. Individual administrators are not cops or enforcers, except in a very few cases. Now, someone giving himself a "made up title" is not a grounds for blocking BY AN ADMINISTRATOR. If the Arb Comm would like to block someone for this, then they have the authority from Jimbo to do so, the arbitrators being people who have been elected by the community specifically for that role. Individual administrators should not be blocking people. When people vote on administrators (unlike Arbitrator), they are looking at whether the prospective administrator can be trusted with the elevated privileges needed for custodial functions. Nobody elected Snowspinner, or any other administrator, to be a moderator who can unilaterally block people, except for a few very well dilineated reasons. Even individual arbitrators are just administrators the same as the others -- that is, janitors -- except when they operate as the Arbitration Committee. If all of this is too cumbersome, then somebody should say so, and we should change the policies and the messages around administrators' roles. For example, we should stop saying that administrators are just the "mop and bucket" brigade, because Snowspinner, for one, is obviously carrying more than a mop and bucket around. --BM 14:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the block seems fine to me too. if this sort of nonsense isn't disruption, I don't know what is. WP isn't a kids' hosting space. Assuming good faith is important, but we need to stop fooling around with every random kid who wants to waste our time. Fine, so administrators are janitors and doorkeepers. If you walked into an office building with a made-up uniform and started shouting orders, I am sure the security staff would show you the door, without first considering that you may just be a kid who wanted to have some fun. dab (ᛏ) 09:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:CPS deleting other people's comments

CPS is repeatedly deleting other people's comments from VfD and Talk pages. I have warned him in the past that he should refrain, but instead, he deleted my comments from his Talk page, and returned to his old behavior. I have blocked him for 24 hours, and have warned him that if he continues with this behavior, he will be blocked for 48 hours the next time, etc. RickK 05:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing this user probably had some sort of reason for wanting to delete other people's comments. On the surface, it sounds terrible, but I would like to know what sort of justification he or she would have. Everyking 05:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well there is no way of finding that out if someone deletes warnings on their talk page instead of talking :-( Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theoretically, he or she might be deleting personal attacks, for all I know, or he or she might not be deleting comments at all, but simply moving them around, refactoring, or something of that sort. Anyway, I'm sure if he or she was asked nicely, he or she would stop. Everyking 08:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is RickK's warning [2] it's firm but not rude.

This is what was deleted:[3] it's critism but not a personal attack.

But I'm willing to give dialog a go. I'll go do it now. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was his first Talk page deletion. RickK 10:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is a "semi-policy" which says that it is advisable to delete personal attacks on Talk pages. I don't know what a "semi-policy" is, but clearly it countenances the deletion of comments on Talk pages. As soon as you have a policy that sanctions the deletion of personal attacks, it opens the question as to what is a "personal attack". When is a personal attack just "criticism"? Who decides what is a personal attack and which personal attacks to delete? The person who feels attacked? Some neutral third-party? Also, again I ask: what policy gives RickK the authority to block somebody for this reason? The policies give administrators authority to block people in a limited number of situations. This is not one of them. We have an Arbitration Committee for dealing with behaviour that might require sanction that falls outside those specific situations. --BM 14:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The policy that gives RickK the authority to block somebody is vandalism. CPS is deleting other user's comments on article talk pages (ie, not the user talk page). This can be construed as vandalism, and IMO, is a blockable offense. --Deathphoenix 15:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well deleting user's comments on article talk pages is not prime facie vandalism since, as I said, there is a "semi-policy" that actually advises people to do this in the case of personal attacks; namely Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. There might be some debate about whether something is a personal attack, but the consequence of getting that wrong should not be that one is summarily found guilty of "vandalism" and blocked forthwith. Moreover, assuming the behaviour in question is vandalism, with respect to vandalism, Wikipedia:Blocking policy states: Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner. Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism. In other words, even if this behaviour is "vandalism", which is debatable, administrators are not authorized to block a logged-in user for vandalism, unless the account is only be used for vandalism. What do these policies mean if administrators can make up the rules as they go along? Do administrators blocking people actually pay any attention to these policies, or are they all doing what they consider to be "the right thing", reckoning that they will be backed up by the consensus? Are administrators actually expected to read and comply with these policies? If the administrators aren't expected to read and comply with them, why should anybody be expected to? --BM 16:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obviously trying to apply Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks and getting it wrong is not a reason to be blocked. But that's not what happened here, so what is your argument? The key thing that you don't understand BM is that administrators are trusted members of the community and are supposed to use thier judgement. RickK warned the user that he'd block if he removed anymore comments.This is not a well meaning but misguided user trying to apply policy. This is someone who deleted comments from a vfd debate because they critisised his behaviour. I for one fully support the 24 hour block. (I wouldn't support a permenant block). Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 18:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've occasionally (and probably more than anyone else) employed Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, and I can confirm that it's rather tricky and easy to get wrong. If applied widely it might well make a Wiki unusable because it could become infested with trolls determined to take offense at the least negative statement. It can be a very effective tool, however, for keeping a discussion on track where one or two participants get into flame war mode, or where one obnoxious person is trying to bait you with insults. My rule of thumb is that if a sentence or fragment is solely intended to draw a negative inference concerning another editor it can be removed without changing the salient facts conveyed. "There is no evidence to support X's claim--he's clearly lying" can be reduced to "There is no evidence to support X's claim." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This user seems to have taken any comment that was slightly negative as a personal attack. In this case I think Rick was right to block CPS. Mgm|^(talk) 18:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

As do I. CPS aapears to be happy to use personal attacks a plenty himself though: you pathetic wiki-cop keep trying, dimwit look it up yourself dimwit get a life you jackass Republican scumbag remove personal attack: this is the chickenshit hillbilly's idea of an insult Note that last one was a removal of someone elses vote on a vfd debate. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 18:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether the behaviour is appropriate or not, neither Mgm nor Theresa is addressing the fundamental point. The main question is not whether this behaviour is appropriate or not, it is WHO DECIDES and WHO APPLIES THE SANCTION for misbehaviour. The project has policies. What do those policies mean? In this case, one can argue about whether the behaviour was permitted under Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. But even if it was inappropriate behaviour, it is not VANDALISM, and even if it were, administrators cannot block logged-in users for VANDALISM under the blocking policy. Whenever this type of topic comes up, people always dodge the basic question as to administrator powers and conformity with policy, and try to focus on the behaviour that prompted the admin action. The presumption seems to be that if the behaviour was inappropriate (even if there is no policy against it), then any administrator has power to deal with it. It is like trying to excuse a cop for roughting someone up by arguing: "Well anyway he was guilty, and look, besides that, he isn't a very nice guy". My point is that in general ADMINISTRATORS HAVE NO POWERS to discipline logged-in regular members for misbehaviour, except in certain specific situations defined by policy. This isn't one of those situations. The only people with power to deal with it are JIMBO and the ARBITRATION COMMITTEE (as a group). That is the issue here. If you want to tell me I'm wrong and that admins have greater powers than I think, please point me to where it says that. --BM 21:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could someone block this guy for excessive lawyering? ;-) This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy. --Carnildo 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't me who is excessively legalistic. The whole ethos of the Wikipedia is legalistic -- what with its extensive "policies" and "semi-policies" (good grief!), and a quasi-judicial "arbitration committee", with "petitioners", "respondents", "evidence", etc. However, it is all a bit of a sham, in my opinion, because there seems to be a group of administrators who basically discipline other members as they see fit, and the fact that there is no policy which authorizes their actions doesn't seem to slow them down much. I really don't even object to this, since I'm the God-King on my own web-site, and on my own site if the Terms of Use stop me from keeping things running smoothly, I just change the Terms of Use. If Jimbo wanted to designate "super-administrators" with greater discretion than others to block other users, etc, regardless of policy, I wouldn't object. The only thing I object to, really, is the intellectual dishonesty of the current situation -- the fact that administrators are described as "janitors", etc, subject to the same policies and consensus as everyone else, but that it is not really so. I think the actual system should be made clear. It would be kind of nice to know who those super-administrators are, too, and how and why they were chosen. Either that, or maybe people should be doing what the policies say they are supposed to be doing (and not doing what the policies say they shouldn't be doing.) --BM 22:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly blocking someone for 24 hours from editing a website is nothing like a cop roughing someone up. Please let's keep things in perspective. Really BM you need to pick your fights mate. Yeah you're right administrators are more than janitors. They are trusted members of the community. trusted that is not to abuse their powers. RickK did not abuse his powers in this case. We are all here for the same reason. Namely to build an encylopedia. Our policies are here to help us do that, and to prevent admins from abusing their power. Policies are not laws, and they are not straight jackets. This is a clear case of someone who was being disruptive, they were warned not do do something, and that warning was reasonable, yet they persisted. Note that we have no policy that states admins should use a measure of common sense. The power that RickK, and other admins have comes from the community. If you think he shouldn't have blocked CPS you are going to have to go to the community on it. Start a rfc. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a problem in that admins tend to make reference to their powers too often. When asking someone to stop doing something, one need only ask; there isn't necessarily any need to threaten: most people will stop even if they have no idea you're an admin. But an arrogant pretense of authority is enough to goad some people into continuing whatever behavior they shouldn't have been doing. A person should really have to be causing some problems to warrant a block. Page move vandalism, uploading vandalistic images, repeatedly blanking pages, etc. Blocking people is serious business: if a revert is a slap in the face, then a block breaks a nose and knocks out some teeth. It's not something one should do without a very clear and indisputable reason. A block does two very serious things: it prevents a person from contributing, when they could be doing a lot of good work, and it marginalizes the person and fills the person with animosity, and turns them off from the project. So we need to be more careful. If you can reasonably expect some people to dispute the block, don't do it. Everyking 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that blocking should not be undertaken lightly. And I agree that polite warnings should be given not heavy handed ones. But I support RickK's block in this instance. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa, I appreciate the advice, but in fact I am picking my fights. If I chose to protest cases where everybody was protesting -- where everybody thought that the admin had been unreasonable and the outcome unjust -- the issue would be buried. Nobody argues that administrators should be able to abuse their powers in order to achieve an unreasonable result. Everybody will be saying the administrator abused his powers in those cases. Those are not the interesting cases. I am saying it is an abuse of powers, EVEN WHEN THE OUTCOME IS REASONABLE. It is only when the result is reasonable that there is an issue about the process. My argument is that Wikipedia cannot have 400+ administrators all exercising their "judgement" about what is reasonable. If the policies are getting in the way of administrators dealing efficiently with problems, then we should fix the policies. The blocking policy SAYS, very clearly, with no latitude for interpretation, that administrators are not supposed to block logged-in users for vandalism unless the account has been, in essence, used exclusively for vandalism. If that is not the consensus of the community, and administrators are not obliged to follow the policy when in their "judgement" it shouldn't be applicable, then why does the policy state that? The policy could easily state what you say is the de-facto consensus: "Administrators can block logged-in members for vandalism after a warning for up to 24 hours. But it doesn't state that. Why not? If you think it should, then why not try to get consensus for a change in the policy. If the de facto consensus is already there, it shouldn't be hard. What is the meaning of these policies if any administrator can substitute his or her own opinion as to what the policies should be? Why bother having written policies that contradict what you claim is the unwritten consensus? --BM 00:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at the blocking policy:

"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. (emphasis mine)

Now does removing people's signed comments from a vfd debate disrupt the functioning of vfd? Of course it does! When the admin who has to decide whether to delete a page or not comes to the page they need to be able to read through what everyone has said. If you don't agree that this user should have been blocked you really should start a rfc and see what the community thinks Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, now you a shifting to another pretext for the action. The disruption policy. Which is it, disruption or vandalism? And you've dodged my basic point and your previous answer, and are now arguing about policy again. So does that mean you have conceded my point that administrators should follow policy? By the way, the sentence you quoted refers to IP addresses. User:CPS isn't an IP address. --BM 01:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course administrators should follow policy. But no policy can cover all situations. Here is where we have a difference of opinion - I'm saying that administrators have to use thier judgement sometimes, whereas you are arguing that they shouldn't. We can argue this all day but we won't get anywhere. I feel admins are there to serve the community by making descisions and exercising good judgement. They shouldn't abuse thier powers, but they shouldn't be afraid to use them when doing so is the right thing to do. You are not going to change my mind on that. BTW I never claimed he was blocked for vandalism and neither did RickK, and we are not arguing pretexts we are giving reasons.

Theresa Knott  (ask the rotten) 01:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that it wasn't RickK that claimed this block was under the rubric of vandalism. He didn't bother to mention which policy sanctioned it, and I dare say he was not detained much by the need to find one, since he was exercising his "judgement" and that, according to you, is sufficient.

Yep, you'll notice how he also posted his actions here for review.

So lets look at "disruption". If you actually look at User:CPS' edit history, you find only two cases where CPS edited Talk pages or VfD and removed comments, going all the way back into February. One of these was on Mar 24, where he twice removed the same Megan1964 comment from a VfD vote that was referenced above. This was not a vote, but a comment critical of CPS' vote on VfD. One can argue about whether it was a personal attack,

It clearly isn't and he was warned not to do it a second time but he went ahead and did it anyway.

but as we discussed above, there is a policy allowing removal of personal attacks,

No there isn't.

and if there is a (semi-)policy allowing for their removal, then it should not be deemed a blockable disruption if someone somewhat oversteps consensus about what constitutes a personal attack.

Yes it should in a clear case like this one

The other case was on Mar 21, where CPS blanked User_talk:198.82.71.55. This was his own Talk page from before he registered as User:CPS, and the comments he removed were all in Nov-Dec, 2004.

Irrelavent. The block was for the above two removals of other people's comments from a vfd page.

So, removing one marginal comment on VfD, and blanking the Talk page he had as an anon before registering. Still think this was sufficient disruption of Wikipedia to warrant being blocked, Theresa? To me it doesn't look disruptive at all. --BM 02:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know exactly what he did, i read through his past contributions before commenting here. I even posted a link further up the page where he removed a vote from a vfd listing. So yes I still think he warrents a block. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, IMO, it was vandalism, and my opinion only, no-one else's. BM, I think I mentioned this before, but if every admin did things the way you suggest, they'd be looking up policy 2.3, section A, paragraph 32, subparagraph C "Woops, better check another section", while bad faith editors are hammering away at Wikipedia and laughing at us for being so slow to react. Sometimes, police, customs agents, detectives act on instinct honed from experience. I think admins are trusted members of the community who are experienced enough to spot a bad faith editor when they see it. If they're wrong, there are many other admins who can revert. I've read this board long enough to know that other admins can and will revert when they think the action is wrong. --Deathphoenix 03:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia:Blocking policy is short. So are the other policies. An admin can be reasonably expected to know these policies. You'd think before an admin blocked somebody, he might concern himself with whether he is allowed to do that. Nobody compelled them to become admins, and since the community is trusting them to follow policy and comply with consensus, they had better know what the policies and consensus are. Besides, the policies are simple. For example Wikipedia:Blocking policy gives admins wide latitude to deal with vandalism by blocking anonymous IP's. That is the "mop and bucket brigade" part of the job. It cautions admins to be very circumspect and conservative when blocking logged-in users. Admin's don't have to carry and thick law books. It is simple: when dealing with other established members of Wikipedia, you have very little weight to throw around, so don't. That is why we have the Arbitration Committee. Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of admins who won't accept this. --BM 03:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa so we are down to whether removing one comment on VFD was "disruptive". Note that RickK's justification above is "repeatedly deleting other people's comments on VFD and Talk pages". "Repeated" turns out to be one comment deleted twice. Let us look at the edit histories.

1. At 6:21 21 Mar, he blanked his old User_talk page from when he was an anon.
2. At 6:24 21 Mar, RickK asked him on his Talk page why he had done this. CPS doesn't seem to have replied.
3. At 10:26 21 Mar, Megan1964 made the following comment on VfD/List of dead rappers: Well I guess your plea is better than simply blanking/removing/censoring other people's votes you dont agree with which you have a previous record of doing btw. Thank goodness you don't run a democracy. P.S. I seriously doubt there is a pro-Libertarian bias on Wikipedia. Megan1967 10:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) This seems like a personal attack to me, although in fairness, it is in response to an ad hominem comment by CPS concerning Megan's vote. Whether it is a personal attack or not, I can see someone reasonably considering it to be one. Incidentally, I'm not sure where Megan1967 found evidence for this accusation; certainly it wasn't recent behaviour.
4. At 10:47 21 Mar, he reverted the comment, with the edit summary was rv immature and irrelevant remarks.
5. At 20:34 21 Mar, RickK restored the deleted comment, with the edit summary restoring Megan's comments improperly deleted by CPS
6. At 20:36 21 Mar, RickK wrote on his Talk page: PLEASE stop removing other people's comments from Talk and VfD pages. This is vandalism, and will result in your being blocked from editing. RickK 20:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
7. Three days later, at 3:15, 24 Mar he reverted the Megan1967 comment in the VfD again, this time with the edit summary, these are personal attacks meant to distract from the actual issue at hand...please Megan1967, grow up. This makes it clear that he considered the comment to be a personal attack, the removal of which is allowed by the "semi-" policy, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.
8. A few minutes later at 3:21, 24 Mar he removed the two edits by RickK from his Talk page.
9. At 5:43, RickK blocked him for repeatedly deleting other people's comments on VfD and Talk pages. Has been cautioned before).

From this sequence, it is clear to me that CPS thought he was removing personal attacks from a VFD, and the User Talk pages he was editing were his own. Also, RickK warned him about vandalism, but these edits were not vandalism, and anyway as we discussed above, administrators don't have the authority to block logged-in users for vandalism. As for whether it was disruption, I don't see how removing one comment from a VfD vote, especially the one in question, could be construed as disruption of the Wikipedia rising to the level of blocking. Nor can I see it being disruption justifying a block to edit your own Talk pages. --BM 03:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if any admin agrees with you, they will unblock CPS. FWIW (not being an admin), I don't think RickK was in the wrong here. --Deathphoenix 03:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. The consensus (among the people who read this page) is that the block is appropriate. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The amount of time spent in pointless, wasteful, inane wiki-lawyering here boggles my mind. Get a life, and use that energy doing something which actually contributes to the real point of this project - produce some content.

Having said that, one comment, about the claim that "administrators don't have the authority to block logged-in users for vandalism". If that were true, all vandals would have to do is sign up for a user-name, and we'd have to resort to the ArbComm to get rid of them. People block vandals with user-names every day. The policy says something rather different. Noel (talk) 14:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Why do we have these policies if it is "inane wiki-lawyering" to actually read them? Have you not read the blocking policy? What it actually says is that a logged-in user cannot be banned for vandalism unless the account is used "effectively" only for vandalism. So, yes, what you put forward as obviously stupid is precisely what the policy states: if someone intent on vandalism creates an account and makes some number of reasonable-looking edits, then according to the policy he cannot be blocked for vandalism by an administrator. It also says that a logged-in user cannot be blocked for "isolated vandalism". Presumably the vandal can still be blocked by Jimbo or the ArbComm. I would not argue that this policy is especially logical, but that is what it clearly states. (Really. Read it.) So what is the solution? (1) all the administrators just ignore the policy and try to follow the "unwritten consensus" about when they can block people, whatever they might think that consensus is; or (2) we revise the policy so that it reflects the de facto consensus. It is obvious that most admins have decided on option (1). Since few people seem to care what the policies really state, option (2) is just too much trouble. This is basically my point: the policies are more or less shams and nobody pays much attention to them except when they happen to support his pre-conceived position. When they don't support what someone wants to do -- well too bad for the policy and any "inane wiki-lawyers" with the poor taste and lack of common sense to mention the policies. --BM 14:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BM, I think you may be slightly misinterpreting the blocking policy. You have repeatedly quoted the following line: "Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner." Taken out of context, it appears that logged-in users should not be blocked, but if you notice, the phrase "the same time periods" and "in this manner" refers to the earlier sentences. I recently became an administrator and I have read through the relevant policies very carefully; this is how I interpret the Vandalism section: Dynamic IPs should be blocked for 24 hours. Static IPs should initially be blocked for 24 hours; repeat violators for increasing amounts of time up to one month; and that there are various rules of thumb for the schedule of increases. Then comes "Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner." (emphasis mine) I interpret this to mean that if a logged-in user is only vandalizing, he may be blocked for the same time periods, that is, up to a month for repeated vandalism. However, an account that is performing a mixture of edits should not be blocked in this manner; that is, not using the same increasing block lengths. However, it does not say that logged-in users who have good and bad edits should not be blocked at all. This seems the most logical interpretation to me, but perhaps we can reword it if you feel it is ambiguous. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blocking by User:Neutrality of User:24.18.59.229 for "Vandalism"

Neutrality blocked an anonymous user for "vandalism" for 1 week. The person has protested the blocking on the wikien-l mailing list, claiming, in effect, that it was not vandalism, but a content dispute with Neutrality regarding the Terri Schiavo article; specifically he claims that it is a dispute concerning whether the article should mention suspicions about the authenticity of the Republican "talking points" memo. Could Neutrality please provide some links to the vandalistic edits of this user which warranted the one week ban? --BM 21:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea about the topic but the anons edits don't look like simple vandalism to me. Since Neutrality didn't (as far as I can see) even warn the user, I've undone the block. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd really like to hear from Neutrality about what he thought the justification was. This seems worse than just an honest mistake, based on a reasonable, but erroneous, interpretation of events. In examining the edit history, it looks like just straight abuse of authority: Neutrality blocked somebody for "vandalism" merely for having a different POV on an article they were both editing. This is especially disheartening considering Neutrality is an arbitrator. --BM 13:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try asking him on his talk page. Not all admins have this page on their watchlist. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 13:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Wareware - blatant racism, profanity.

I posted the following in the Request for Comments section, along with specific examples of the kind of posts to which my complaint refers -- but so far have gotten no meaningful response. I would appreciate this receiving prompt attention from someone.

Thanks. deeceevoice 23:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

The subject has been stalking me from forum to forum since long before these discussion threads represent. I've warned him repeatedly and simply finally decided to report him. There should be absolutely no place on Wikipedia for this kind of blatantly racist vitriol. In the past, I have at times lost patience with him and responded angrily. In the last several weeks, however, I have maintained my composure, admonishing him to stop such behavior -- without success. Interestingly, when I've lost my temper with him (or with other Wikipedians who have engaged in unfortunate behavior directed toward me) other Wikipedians have admonished only me. Keep in mind that the posts that follow are only some of exchanges that have taken place between this user and me. Not once has anyone in these forums reproached this person about his behavior -- not once. This kind of selective treatment and the repeated overlooking of such despicable behavior on the part of a member of the Wiki community is unacceptable. I can only interpret such behavior as racism. It's time for Wikipedia to do something about this individual, and it's time for other Wikipedia members to clean up their act as well in this regard. deeceevoice 13:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admins cannot ban for personal attacks; this power has been proposed more than once, but never gained acceptance. The RfC is the way to go; if the problem doesn't stop, then the next step is mediation or arbitration. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admins can block users for being annoying but not blatantly racist? What a peculiar dividing line. As for whether admins can block for personal attacks, a look at the Block Log since January 1st indicates otherwise:

• 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 Chris 73 blocked "User:Martin2000" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attack http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith&diff=11006426&oldid=11005950)
• 05:52, 9 Mar 2005 Mustafaa blocked "User:RICKKSUCKS!" with an expiry time of 24 hours (his/her name is a personal attack, so is his only edit.)
• 22:27, 27 Feb 2005 David Gerard blocked "User:..-.." with an expiry time of infinite (acct only used for personal attacks and trolling)
• 15:26, 27 Feb 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:Osmanoglou" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks, disruption, etc.)
• 09:49, 17 Feb 2005 172 blocked "User:24.150.168.211" with an expiry time of 96 hours (personal attacks, disruption, ranting)
• 21:52, 16 Feb 2005 Eloquence blocked "User:202.175.234.162" with an expiry time of 7 days (personal attacks)
• 03:51, 16 Feb 2005 172 blocked "User:24.150.168.211" with an expiry time of 1 week (personal attacks in edit summary, disruption)
• 00:55, 16 Feb 2005 David Gerard blocked "User:24.150.168.211" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks in edit summaries)
• 21:27, 15 Feb 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:Xed" with an expiry time of 72 hours (profanity and insults on Prof. Rubenstein's talk page)
• 22:26, 14 Feb 2005 Ahoerstemeier blocked "User:66.210.60.166" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks and vandalism)
• 18:01, 14 Feb 2005 CryptoDerk blocked "User:Keetoowah" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks)
• 01:05, 14 Feb 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:User:PSYCH" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Repeated personal attacks after warning/Disruptive user.)
• 22:40, 11 Feb 2005 Postdlf blocked "User:Dnagod" with an expiry time of indefinite (repeated racist attacks on VfD voters)
• 22:40, 11 Feb 2005 Postdlf blocked "User:User:Dnagod" with an expiry time of indefinite (repeated racist attacks on VfD voters)
• 05:26, 11 Feb 2005 RickK blocked "User:Borderer" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks, disgusting invective)
• 07:47, 5 Feb 2005 RickK blocked "User:Amir1" with an expiry time of 24 hours (attacks on other people's religion)
• 18:29, 28 Jan 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:The Number" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks, repeated warnings, second block)
• 22:46, 27 Jan 2005 172 blocked "User:195.70.48.242" with an expiry time of 5 days (Fred Bauder, I was not and I am not in a dispute with this editor. That is a lie. I blocked this user for personal attacks directed at Everyking and causing disruption on Talk:Joseph Stalin while I was UNINVOLVED in the conversation on the page)
• 19:22, 27 Jan 2005 172 blocked "User:195.70.48.242" with an expiry time of 1 week (NO ONE is entitled to cause disruption, troll, and personally attack users on Wikipedia.)
• 22:22, 26 Jan 2005 Violetriga blocked "User:208.62.7.133" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism and offensive attacks)
• 20:41, 26 Jan 2005 172 blocked "User:195.70.48.242" with an expiry time of 1 week (Trolling, personal attacks, ranting)
• 06:07, 26 Jan 2005 RickK blocked "User:63.70.62.84" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks)
• 21:00, 24 Jan 2005 Fvw blocked "User:Jimjo" with an expiry time of 12 hours (repeated personal attacks)
• 17:53, 19 Jan 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:The Number" with an expiry time of 12 hours (personal attacks on Talk:Sollog, was repeatedly warned)
• 15:41, 18 Jan 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:222.126.68.128" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disrupting vfd, attacks, was warned)
• 18:11, 14 Jan 2005 Infrogmation blocked "User:Bleedy" with an expiry time of 48 hours (personal attacks, was warned, has been blocked before)

I also counted 30 other blocks whose edit summaries cited personal attacks as part of their rationale -- which, if you're correct, they shouldn't be using. --Calton | Talk 00:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg is correct that the personal attack policy does not empower admins to enforce it by blocking. There has even been an attempt to gain consensus to revise the policy to allow admins to block people who make personal attacks. This failed. However, this does not stop administrators from blocking people for personal attacks anyway. As you see from Calton's post, in reality it happens all the time. Basically, many of the administrators don't bother too much with policies. They assume authority that they think the policies SHOULD give them, and for which they think there should be consensus, without too much regard for what the policies actually say and what the consensus has proved to be when actually tested by votes, etc. Accordingly, it really shouldn't be hard for deeceevoice to find some admin willing to block wareware for his racist comments. Nevertheless, I would suggest that deeceevoice bring this case to the Arbitration Committee. Because when there are 400+ administrators all deciding for themselves what the policies and consensus are, it might be easy to find an admin to block someone, but it is just as easy to find another admin who will unblock him. It is better to go to the Arbitration Committee so that the block will stick. --BM 01:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Not once has anyone in these forums reproached this person about his behavior -- not once. This kind of selective treatment and the repeated overlooking of such despicable behavior on the part of a member of the Wiki community is unacceptable. I can only speak for myself, but I just check VIP and similar sources to see if someone needs blocking, then I investigate and block if I agree with the complaint. If you think this user is being overlooked, you can simply try to get more attention for the issue. But I doubt anyone is being purposely selective. -- Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, MacGyver. Thanks for your comment. But, yes, editors indeed have been purposely selective. Certainly, some of those participating in the pertinent discussion threads have been. Wareware's racism is precisely that blatant; you can't not notice it. There is one particular instance where I actually call someone out for criticizing me for what he sees as subject-matter bias on my part and refusing to comment at all on Wareware's repeated use of simian references (I am an African-American) and other such slurs. I ask for an explanation, and the editor simply refuses to respond. deeceevoice 12:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, everyone needs to be careful with this complaint until we hear from User:Wareware. If you look at Talk:Afrocentrism you will note strongly conflicting viewpoints between these two people on a refractory topic, and that (and similar topics) may be what's behind this. Noel (talk) 14:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wareware, WW has made a series of comments (which I hadn't seen before looking at that page) in which they have completely lost it. Alas, admins don't have the power to deal with this, it'll have to go to the ArbComm. Noel (talk) 15:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are any number of subjects on Wikipedia on which Wareware and I have differed. Afrocentrism is by no means the genesis of this. With regard to what is "behind this" ugly, little situation, ideological disputes and differences of opinion are no excuse for this kind of conduct. See the RfC page on Wareware for more information. deeceevoice 14:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The blocking policy allows for blocks in certain cases based on "disruption". Personal attacks are disruptive. When I see personal attacks as a justification for a block, I treat it as this type of block - basically, the admin is trying to explain exactly what type of disruption was involved. It may be possible to question whether some of these blocks were acceptable based on the policy. However, I don't think that a block reason that mentions personal attacks is automatically invalid. --Michael Snow 00:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner

Despite a straw poll showing an approx. 2:1 ratio against his WP:RFDA policy proposal, Netoholic has initiated a proposal to have Snowspinner stripped of his broom. See link in this section header. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could say I was surprised. First Netoholic tried to insist his new policy didn't need to be voted on. Then when he actually solicited a vote, and it went 2-1 against the policy, he decided to implement anyway. Is he taking advice from User:Iasson? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators" - Tony's post is not in scope for this page. This is a petition to measure opinion on this subject of Snowspinner's continued adminship - nothing more. -- Netoholic @ 00:44, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I see one form of administrator intervention that could be applied here: speedy-deleting the page as a personal attack. --Carnildo 00:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What basis do you say this is a personal attack? I think you need to go read the policy page; you'll see that true personal attacks are quite serious and accusations should not be given out lightly. This petition certainly is critical of him, but not a personal attack. -- Netoholic @ 01:07, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

It feels like a personal crusade against Snowspinner, an RfC apparently didn't get enough support, the arbcom (incidentally doens't that sound rather Orwellian?) have rejected more than one request. This doesn't seem to suggest to you that the problem isn't as widespread as you think, and so you use a subpage of a proposed policy that was overwhelmingly rejected to launch a "petition" against him that apparently has nothing to do with that policy. I fail to see what this is if it isn't a personal attack. Thryduulf 12:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no, it isn't a personal attack. We are, however, crossing into WP:POINT territory now. If all available procedures don't yield the desired result, keep inventing new procedures? This will lead nowhere. Let him have his petition, somewhere appropriate, either on RfC, or in his user space, no harm done. dab (ᛏ) 12:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a personal attack to me. There are a very few places on Wikipedia where criticism of another Wikipedian is not a personal attack. For example, RFC, RFA, and the Administrator noticeboard and its sub-pages are among the few places where a criticism of another member is not a personal attack, and only if it factual and civil. The RFDA process does not have the consensus of the community behind it. Despite the official sounding title, it is just another Wikipedia namespace article started by Netoholic. Therefore it is not a safe harbour for mounting a criticism/attack of another person. It should simply be deleted. --BM 22:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

criticism should be allowed. sure, netoholics criticism is condemning and repetitive, but saying "snowspinner is doing a terrible job as an admin" should not be considered a personal in the same category with "snowspinner is an ugly, bad man who likes to crucify kittens". it's just pointless to keep aiming potshots at him when nobody else seems to be eager to de-admin him, and of course personality is involved, but that doesn't make it a personal attack in my book. dab (ᛏ) 08:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huh. You'd have thought, you know, someone might notify you when they're requesting you be stripped of your admin status. Snowspinner 22:46, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Requesting lift of protection on redirect-target-000.txt

Earlier today, Michael Hardy has unilaterally protected redirect-target-000.txt, which is part of the Wiki Syntax cleanup effort, due to a disagreement over redirect deletion policy. This was done without adding the required template, without adding the page to the list, and despite the fact that he was directly involved in the argument. I'd like to request a lift of that protection, on the basis that it was applied counter to policy.

(For those who are interested, I've posted a link to a summary of the original argument over at the policy pump.)

--Fbriere 06:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected it with the following clarification: Page was protected for a reason not covered by Protection policy. Besides, "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." The debate on Michael Hardy's Talk does indicate that he is involved in a dispute over this page. — mark ✎ 09:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tempest in a tea-pot. I can't speak for others who may be doing deletions, of course, but I am trying to exercise a considerable amount of care there. As you can see from my note here about this batch, I'm going through this list carefully, and not simply bulk-deleting them. (I even found an article that had been mistakenly deleted!) Having said that, if anyone else is working on this, I hope they take equal care - there are as many mistakes, etc, here as there are things truly worthy of deletion. Noel (talk) 13:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The protection of this page was terribly inappropriate, and quite frankly, one of the very few things I've seen that qualify as "administrator abuse" rather than "mistake". -- Cyrius|✎ 15:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cyrius. dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for IP lookup for KingOfAllPaperboys and 172

I have reported to the arbcom, my suspicion that User:KingOfAllPaperboys is User:172 or some other administrator who has left. I suspect that the committee will be requesting this because I documented my evidence and suspicions here [4]. Since the information needed will be time sensitive, I am giving y'all a heads up here. It may not be appropriate to reveal the IPs to me? but the results should be sent to the arbcom committee. --Silverback 14:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I guess it's always possible, but why would a leaving admin return under a different name? Mgm|^(talk) 14:58, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • A fresh start, because old identity has too much baggage? Revenge? Gaming sanctions? This KingOfAllPaperboys has taken an interest in harassing Netoholic.--Silverback 15:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whoever he may be, KingOfAllPaperboys is not 172. I'm not aware that 172 ever used sockpuppets for any purpose, and this behavior is not at all 172's style. --Michael Snow 22:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • What made me suspect 172 was the KingOfAllPaperboys claim that he was not a sockpuppet and challenge to Netoholic to prove that he was. Since 172 had just left wikipedia, once again, earlier in the day, he could technically make that claim. However, 172s return with a different nom de plume, would be a serious breech of trust based on the good faith the arbcom is showing in his representations. KingOfAllPaperboys is merely suggestive and circumstantial. The evidence against 172 being Such as serious possible offense should at least be investigated. Of course another admin using a sockpuppet to harrass would also be a serious offense.--Silverback 08:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lots of people don't like NetoholicGeni 00:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's an understatement. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you both happy now that you've gotten that off your chest? -- Netoholic @ 09:15, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

User:Albanau

User:Albanau moved the Origin of Albanians article to Testttttttttttt and then wrote "delate" all over it. He then wrote on User talk:RedWolf asking RedWolf to delete it, since it was Albanau "testing".

The only reason why the page didn't wind up getting deleted is because it has block compression problems. I just happened to notice an extensive edit history and had to work my way through things to try to figure out what was going on.

These actions should lead to Albanau's being blocked for vandalism. RickK 09:07, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RickK, and furthermore I wouldn't be surprised if User:Albanau again attempts such a deletion on another page, as his previous behavior (see the history of the Origin of Albanians article) shows that he disregards Wikipedia standards by constantly adding and readding nonsense to articles after repeatedly being warned not to do so (but he doesn't seem to care). He should be blocked, and even banned. Decius 10:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It does sound serious. Is this a POV dispute at the core of the issue, or a plain vandal? Everyking 10:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No POV, see the Origin of Albanians article. Point of Views have been stripped from the article, and every argument against the Illyrian origin theory is taken from a current scholarly reference. Decius 10:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The extreme dishonest manner in which he tried to illegally delete the page is outrageous, and I would say disgusting, and shows that he has no regard for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Decius 10:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article in question is mainly presenting the two sides of a debate regarding the ethnic origin of the Albanians. Albanau apparently does not agrees with some of the arguments given and tried to remove them from the article and then tried to add other arguments not supported by any reference or supported by references to dubious homepages. He was asked in the talk page to bring in real references to an actual published article/book whenever he adds a controversial argument, but did not comply. Bogdan | Talk 10:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

is he blocked now? pov or no pov, his dishonesty and "criminal energy" should lead to a short block at least, and any future disruptive edit should be slapped with another short block. This is obviously not a case where negotiation commends itself. dab (ᛏ) 09:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't block him, but I did give him a warning not to try anything like that again. RickK 09:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we could be attributing to malice what we could explain by ignorance. Maybe he moved it by accident and didn't realize that deleting his "testtttt" article would kill the old article history too? I doubt it, but I hesitate to convict someone of such an underhanded move so quickly. Everyking 09:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Ollamh

Vandlised my home page. Suspect they are a glove puppet of one of the rightwing americans on here.--Jirate 19:07, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

In fact if you check there contributions you will see that they have pointeda large number of people's home pages at autofellatio. It may be something to do with them not liking British spelling.--Jirate 19:15, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Seems to have been blocked now.--Jirate 19:43, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Link spam

Could somebody please revert the changes made on March 27 by User:69.83.92.135? They have simply spammed a single, POV link onto about a dozen pages. The link is less than enlightening and shouldn't be spammed across so many pages in any event. --Fastfission 21:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)