Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:44, 5 January 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Band Songs by user Kirky hammett

The user Kirky hammett has been adding songs of a band onto wikipedia, and removing my speedy deletion tags.

Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig

Isarig (talk · contribs) has been disruptively editing several pages, and his behavior seems to be a result of a dispute between he and I over the Juan Cole page, which is now in mediation. A couple of days ago, he showed up on the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 and began obsessively reverting an edit that I had made (I had deleted the reference to "piss christ" from the article). I thought my edit was reasonable, but it was strongly objected to by an anonymous user. Isarig, who has apparently never edited that page before, suddenly showed up to defend the anon editor and to revert my change. He was asked to stop disrupting by other editors including myself. I sent the page to RfC and I explained the main reasons why I thought the "piss christ" reference was both irrelevant and trivial. I also explained that it was better situated on a general article about desecration rather than the article about a specific incident of Quran desecration that occurred at Guantanamo Bay. He never bothered to add the link to the general desecration article, but insisted that it belongs on this more specific article, even though his main argument is that they are both forms of general desecration and/or religious intolerance. This suggests to me that the only reason he is making the change on that article is to "get back" at me by reverting a change I made rather than because he actually believes his own arguments. I feel that such behavior is disruptive and I asked him to stop. I stated that if he felt strongly that "piss christ" was something specifically related to the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 then he should be willing to write a couple of sentences indicating what the link is between the two and enter those sentences in the article, so that the reference does not seem to come out of nowhere. He refused to do so. It seems his only interest is in one-upping me, and indeed, in another dispute a few weeks ago, he admitted as much. Instead of allowing other editors to comment on the RfC, he has continued to repeat himself on that section of the page, without responding to the arguments I brought up. That section has become a long mess of tit-for-tat arguments, making it unlikely that many other editors will take the time to sort the arguments out there and actually move the dispute forward. It is alarming to me that such energy has been expended over something that seems to me utterly noncontroversial -- adding the words "piss christ" to a totally unrelated article.

While this dispute was ongoing, I made an edit to the article Qur'an desecration, another article that Isarig had never edited before. Again, he showed up out of the blue just to revert me, and has already reverted me three times in 24 hours. I asked him to stop stalking my edits and he threatened to report me (which to me was the final straw, leading to this report). This is a pattern in my interactions with this user -- he revert-wars over petty items; he refuses to acknowledge any POV other than his own, he accuses me of personal attacks while at the same time personally attacking me. He constantly threatens to report me over minor infractions while at the same time engaging in personal attacks that are often vicious (witness, for example, this comment and this comment, from a while back, where he specifically attacks me for my occupation, tells me that I am not fit for employment in my job. While those comments are from a while ago, he again brought up my occupation as a means of attacking me -- a direct violation of WP:NPA, which suggests that personal attacks include "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Throughout the discussion on that page he charged me over and over with "insulting other editors" yet never cited a single example of where I had done so. I am tired of being sucked into arguments with him over petty reversions. I am here to improve the articles, not to get into shouting matches and ego battles with other editors. I don't like reporting people to WP:ANI because I prefer these matters be settled in discussion; however, when he threatened to report me for accusing him of stalking - which he has demonstrably been doing - I felt the time had come to make a report. I hope his disruptive editing, and previous blocks for incivility (in particular, a libelous comment made a while back about the subject of a WP:BLP) will be taken into account when determining how long of a block his behavior merits. csloat 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This might have risen to a legitimate instance of Wikistalking, but you're harming your own case through forum shopping and selective presentation of evidence. You fail to mention that six weeks ago I responded to those same diffs at WP:PAIN and rebuked you for conduct unbecoming the dignity of the academic profession. If dispute resolution has failed so badly that you feel the need to post a biased plea for intervention here then I could open a request for arbitration - the duration and scope of the conflict make that a realistic option - yet I caution you that arbitration is slow, messy, painful, and embarrassing. Would you like to proceed? Durova 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Conduct unbecoming the dignity of the academic profession? I'm sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with my profession, that was my point. And if you have a complaint about my behavior in the classroom, or other aspects of my profession, please take it to my supervisor -- I will happily provide you with all the personal information you need about me to register your complaint. In the meantime I will ask that you, Isarig, and anyone else, refrain from using my profession to personally attack me.

In your "rebuke" you said neither side was above reproach, and I agreed with you. I did not cite the older incidents above to make the same complaint again -- I cited them to establish that Isarig's reference to my profession was out of line and followed from a historical context of such comments; that it was not just a single offhand reference. I most certainly did not expect to receive a similar insult from an administrator. I am not "forum shopping," and I resent the accusation. I cited the older incidents only to establish the history of the current dispute. Please note that when you "rebuked" me you removed your comment specifically directed at my "aggressiveness" and that I responded to you, explaining why I responded to Isarig the way I did. I have backed off of being so aggressive, as you recommended, but Isarig's abusive behavior continues. I feel the most recent wikistalking is something that cannot be resolved in WP:DR. I initiated mediation on the Juan Cole page, and we were asked by the mediator to avoid editing the article, but Isarig has continued to edit war with other users on that page even though I have backed off of it completely. Meanwhile, he stalks me on the Quran desecration pages, making arguments that seem tongue in cheek at best if not complete sophistry. I have opened an RfC on the Quran page, and presumably that will eventually reach some resolution, but what is to stop him from stalking me to another page and starting this whole mess over? I am trying to follow your advice from before and not get sucked into these wars, but he is pursuing me relentlessly. I feel that your approach is to reward the more abusive user by signalling that his abusive actions will be successful (and even joining in on the insults directed to my profession!) I don't know what you do for a living, but how would you like it if I started saying that your conduct on Misplaced Pages made you a disgrace to your profession? It doesn't matter if you are a teacher or a janitor; the insult is out of line. csloat 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most blatant examples of bad faith and sheer Chutzpah I've seen on Misplaced Pages to date. csloat accusing me of incivility? After telling an editor to "grow up", and this and this (accusing other editors of not being in "their right mind") - all examples of incivility from just the past 24 hours! This from an editor whose user Talk page is full of warnings about personal attacks and incivility, from numerous editors.And the nerve of accusing me of "stalking" him, after he suddenly appeared on a page I had been editing, reverting an edit of mine and then accused me of stalking him on that page! I've warned him twice today to cease making false accusations of stalking, and I guess he believes that the best defense is an attack. Isarig 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution is over there, guys. Not here. --jpgordon 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem, JP, is that I sent them to dispute resolution six weeks ago and they're back to square one. I'm one step away from giving the matter to ArbCom. Since this is here on the board anyway, does anyone have a softer alternative? Durova 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is the objectionable behavior to stop. I could go through and point out the distortions in his comment above (e.g., my first edit to the Said page was not a revert of anything Isarig did; in fact I had no idea he edited that page at all until he reverted me -- which is why I thought he was stalking me there ; or I could point out that the admonition to "grow up" - the one thing that I said that could be characterized as a personal attack in the recent disputes with him - is something I subsequently struck out and I asked Isarig to show good faith and strike out his accusation that I was a "liar", which he did not do). There is currently mediation on one of the pages we have a dispute over, and there is now an RfC on another page -- I think individual disputes will eventually be resolved but my problem with Isarig is that it has become personal and he is now following me to unrelated pages and reverting things out of what seems to be spite. If he is willing to back off, I am too. But someone besides me ought to tell him that this behavior is objectionable.csloat 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have wikistalked me to at least 3 pages (Edward Said, Middle East Media Research Institute, Efraim Karsh), you falsely accused me of stalking you on one of them when it was in fact you who were stalking; you falsely accused me of stalking you despite being warned not do to so; you repeatedly use uncivil language when addressing me and other editors, and have been called on it (the above 3 are merely the tip of the iceberg from the last day alone); you are continuing to misrepresent facts (i.e.: I struck out the description of your comment as a "lie" after you had struck out your own uncivil comment) - and have the gall to complain about my behavior? Isarig 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the false accusations Isarig. I did not stalk you on any of those pages, as you are well aware. You demonstrably stalked me on two pages about Quran desecration -- the only reason you showed up on those pages was to revert my changes and to pick a fight with me in talk. The above "3" only identifies one instance of actual incivility and it is one I struck out and apologized for. (I had not seen that you struck out the word "lie" as you never mentioned it in your comments; I thank you for that, and perhaps we have some basis from which to move forward). I have the "gall" to complain about your behavior because it is beyond the pale, and because you continually threaten to report me for nothing while at the same time relentlessly violating the very rules you accuse me of violating. As I said above, all I want is for this behavior to stop. I just don't have time for this. Misplaced Pages is something I find valuable and rewarding, but my interactions with you have soured me on the whole enterprise. csloat 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those pages I have mentioned are pages where I had been editing, and you had not, and you suddenly showed up shortly after one of my edits there to either directly revert one of my edits, or introduce a change in a section I had been editing that is contradictory to what I was writing. By your own definitons, these constitute stalking. Each one of the 3 above constitute an instance of incivility, and if you don't think that saying that an editor who defends a certain position is "not in his right mind" is uncivil, then that is perhaps the root of the probelm - you have no concept of what civility means. Isarig 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I never showed up to a page that I had not been editing just to revert you. On the Said page I edited for the first time; I was reading student papers at the time that were about Said's work, and it occurred to me to take a look at his[REDACTED] page. As I stated above I had no idea you edited that page before me - I don't always examine the history page before editing a page - and as another editor has confirmed, I did not revert you -- it was you who immediately reverted me. Stalking does not mean editing the same page as someone else -- it goes to the motivation for the edits. When you are going to the page specifically to revert war against someone that you had another edit war with in the past, it is considered stalking. The MEMRI page, as you know, I first went to the talk page and engaged the discussion; I did not revert you until it became pretty clear that your position in the discussion was indefensible. And you are really distorting things on the Karsh page - my first edit there appears to have been fixing a name problem on the Juan Cole link that another user had created. My first edit that you objected to was a month later, and it was an edit that you immediately reverted without discussion. All of that was months ago; to say I stalked you there is absolutely untenable. However, your actions on the Quran pages are clear cut -- you appeared there out of the blue and focused all your energy there on reverting warring against me, and you got quite abusive in the talk section. Your claim that I "have no concept of what civility means" is rich; it is itself more uncivil than the comment by me you claim is uncivil! When I said I don't think anyone in their right mind would go to the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 looking for information about the Piss Christ, I was making a rather obvious point that the two have nothing to do with each other, not attacking a particular editor. Can you say with a straight face that if you wanted to know more about a controversial artist from the 1980s you would type in Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005? It seems to be a stretch, at best, to call that a personal attack. csloat 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your motivations are (or were) when you appeared on the pages you had editied shortly after I did to introduce a different POV than mine. Perhaps it was all an inoccent coincidnce as you allege here - orperhaps you were wikistalking me. The point is - that the same is ture of my actions. You have no idea what motivated me to edit the Quran desecration page (and never bothered to ask), you just assume I was stalkign you given the same set of circumstance that apply to your own 3 cases of stalking. Either all of them are, or none of them are. The when I defed a certain edit (as I did), and you say that whoever defends such an edit is not in their right mind you are attacking me, and being uncivil. UIt is plain and obvious to anyone who reads yoru comments. If you want certain alleged behaviour to stop, you need to stop. Isarig 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was an "innocent coincidence" -- I said you were distorting the facts, and as I have shown, they are extremely different in the instances you cite. My POV was obviously quite different from yours long before we started editing any of this stuff, so POV difference is not evidence of any stalking. Specifically showing up to start revert wars is. I did not say you were not in your right mind; I said nobody in their right mind would come to the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 looking for information about the Piss Christ. It is plain and obvious that you are distorting my words. I am going to take a break from all of this for a while, so forgive me if I don't respond when Isarig repeats his comments. I think I've made my case. csloat 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this misrepresentation. What you wrote in the edit I linked to above was "I can't believe anyone in their right mind would defend the addition" - which is what I did . I am quoting you verbatim - there is no need todistort your words - they are damning in their own right. Misrepresentations will not get you anywhere. Isarig 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You also linked to this edit above, where I wrote, "The fact is, nobody in their right mind would come to this article expecting to read about the Piss christ." It is amazing that you immediately accuse me of misrepresenting things when you know for a fact that I was not. You are right about the other link but it is not a personal attack -- I said "I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would defend the addition." I did not say that anyone who defends the addition is not in their right mind. You could infer that but you could also infer that I don't believe you; given our prior interactions that would be the more obvious conclusion. But in any case it is a ridiculously minor point - there is nothing "damning" about any of this. The real issue here is the aggressive edit warring, the smearing of other editors, and the wikistalking. On the first two of those charges at least, it is pretty clear that I am not the only editor who has found your actions unacceptable. csloat 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isarig on some points and disagree on others, but his/her smearing and slander really has to stop. Isarig is far too eager to call other Wikipedians "liars" if they disagree with him and I am willing to pass on to an administrator proof that his similar past accusation against me (which remains unretracted) was false. Famousdog 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig behaves like a pathalogical edit warrer, bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea. Abu ali 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali brought this to my attention, presumably since I was involved on the Said page. Obviously I don't know the full situation, but I can say a couple things: 1. Sloat's first edit on Said wasn't a revert of Isarig, but an edit of information put up by Jayjg.. 2. Isarig then reverted Sloat and has proceded to edit war against a number of editors on that page over several days, including Zero0000, Sloat, Filius Rosadis, and me. I'd note that Isarig's last comment in talk on that page is on Dec 29, which was responded to, while he has reverted the page four times since then. That's all I can really say about the situation. Mackan79 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the stalking behavior, but I've certainly found Isarig to be obsessive and unreasonable on both MEMRI and Juan Cole. Also see this example of way over-the-top biting a newbie The newbie's sin was editing his own talk page. Sheesh. Time for a wiki-holiday, Isariq. --Lee Hunter 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following these disputes, but I see little wrong with the 3RR warning Isarig left on Jgui's page, mentioned by Lee Hunter above. I also find Abu Ali's comment above to be way out of line, and possibly indicative of the kind of attitude that Isarig has been up against. There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel, often involving violations of WP:V and WP:NOR and poor editing in general. Some of the criticism is perfectly legitimate, of course (when it comes to Israeli government policies), but some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general. In addition, there's often obvious sockpuppetry involved, and therefore a reminder not to bite the newbies misses the point.

It gets tiresome having to deal with it, but I don't know what the solution is. SlimVirgin 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the 3RR warning itself (although it was blunt to the point of rudeness) it was the strange hissy fit (see the edit comment) when the user removed the warning from his talk page. --Lee Hunter 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR warning was a polite explanation of the 3RR rule, and a request for self-revert, as a gesture of courtesy for a newbie. There was nothing blunt nor rude about it, and it is probably much softer than WP's standard 3RR template. You come here to complain about uncivil behavior, and you call my edits a "hissy fit"? Have you no shame? Or at least, a decent mirror? The user removed the warning with an edit summary that called a valid warning for an acknowledged 3RR violation "a bogus threat". Isarig 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent summary. Jayjg 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent summary of what? Are you folks seriously suggesting that my dispute with Isarig is part of a vast antisemitic conspiracy? I don't think Abu Ali's comment was reasonable either, but it is hardly evidence that he or I are part of some kind of neo-Nazi conspiracy, and I find the accusation out of line. csloat 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's comment "There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel" is a thinly veiled and attempt to accuse me of antisemitism. As SlimVirgin is an admin on WP, he should know better. Abu ali 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Turnabout is not really an answer, and Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. There is no justifiable reason for posting that someone is bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea. Jayjg 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that SlimVirgin has repeated his accusation of antisemitism against me below Editing Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Soliciting negative comments about an editor by User:Abu ali. Any examination of my edit log will show that this personal attack is baseless and defamatory. Abu ali 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is this accusation of antisemitism? Tom Harrison 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

He wrote of "an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel" and stated that "some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general." That seems pretty clear to me; what isn't clear, exactly, is who he's referring to.csloat 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's not clear that he's refering to you, then don't go out of your way to take umbrage. There was no accusation that you or anyone else is part of a neo-Nazi conspiracy. Setting that up as some kind of strawman is at least as abusive as anything anyone has said to you. Tom Harrison 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not setting up a strawman; the words he used were "increasingly concerted effort" that "often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general." I didn't take umbrage; I just asked who he was referring to. How is that abusive? csloat 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali, my comments were deliberately not aimed at individuals — for obvious reasons, but also because my intention was simply to highlight the problem in general. Regarding your own edits, I'm not familiar with them. My only criticism of you is that your comment above was out of order ("Isarig behaves like a pathalogical edit warrer, bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea"), and perhaps illustrative of the hostile atmosphere Isarig finds himself editing in. SlimVirgin 23:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If your criticisms were not aimed at me, then who precisely are these editors who you refer to.

There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel, often involving violations of WP:V and WP:NOR and poor editing in general. Some of the criticism is perfectly legitimate, of course (when it comes to Israeli government policies), but some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general.

You are making a serious accusation. So as a minimum you should be specific. Abu ali 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how more specific I can be. There are editors whose life's work seems to revolve around making all things connected to Israel look bad. Whether you're one of them, I have no idea, because I've never looked at your edits. It gets to be a bigger problem when it involves making all things connected to Jews look bad too. I'm not going to start giving lists of examples. I've given an example below of User:Kiyosaki, but the specifics don't matter. What matters is what we do about the general issue.

Misplaced Pages is not here to be used as a platform for pro- or anti-Israel editing. Or do you disagree with that? SlimVirgin 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Kiyosaki has been banned. The specifics do matter. If there are other editors who have behaved in an antisemitic manner, name them so that the can be investigated and dealt with. If there are no others then please be so kind as to withdraw the accusation. Abu ali 10:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that SlimVirgin has still not withdrawn his accusations of antisemitism. Neither has he substantiated them. Is this conduct acceptable from a admin? I also note that Arbitration Committe member Jayjg describes SlimVirigins accusations as an "Excellent summary". Is this the same Arbitration Committe which is supposed to discuss the issues at hand? Abu ali 10:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - There is occasional anti Semitism on WP. And homophobia. And racism and prejudice of all kinds, as well as appalling incivility etc. SlimVirgin as someone who is easily identified with Jewish and Israeli topics is better placed than most to notice an increase. It's our jobs to find the incidents, remove them and deal appropriately with the malfeasants, not to slap down the editor who brings the problem to our attention. --Dweller 10:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm staggered that you can actually condense this whole thing down to "a bunch of editors out to get the Jews". Where the heck is that coming from? One of Isarig's (and his "teammates"') most egregious rv wars is his belligerent insistence that the Juan Cole article include a defamatory insinuation that Cole is literally a protocols-of-scion anti-semite and that the article must not include Cole's response to the charge. I'm offended by your remarks. --Lee Hunter 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel offended. I can only repeat: I'm not familiar with this dispute, or with your edits or Abu Ali's, and I keep repeating that the individual accounts don't matter anyway. What matters is that there is an extremely hostile editing environment around some of these articles, as Abu Ali's comment to Isarig amply demonstrates. It's this general problem that we need to take seriously. Perhaps you could address that substantive point — but not with reference to any particular article or editor. SlimVirgin 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not engage in misrepresentations in order to make a point. The dispute you are referring to on the Juan Cole article is currently in mediation, and I have proposed and accepted several compromises there, and explictly wrote both that the specific quote you object to is not one I am insisting on, as well as stating that Cole's response to the accusations against him (from serious academics published in reliable sources) should appear in the article. Isarig 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this was solicited. I personally have not had any problems with Isarig. There were some disputes between Isarig and others on the talk page for Al-Aqsa Intifada. There were disputes between many people on that talk page. But it seems like the disputes have been resolved in the last few days. I think, though, that part of the problem I am feeling from reading the incident noticeboard, and various talk pages, is that people are taking sides, instead of attempting to maintain NPOV[REDACTED] pages. I urge people who have strong viewpoints about the issues on such highly-charged topics dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflicts to set them aside while editing[REDACTED] pages. I hope people from all sides of these issues sign on to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict and pledge to work on related[REDACTED] pages in an NPOV way. NPOV does not favor or block viewpoints on the Arab-Israeli conflict pages. NPOV allows all significant sourced viewpoints to be put on those pages. Some people from all sides have been favoring particular POVs by selectively censoring or diminishing other sourced viewpoints. And some of the discussion on those pages has been really over-the-top instead of being focussed on the article content and meeting[REDACTED] guidelines. People have been making too many reversions without discussion. Resulting in slow-motion edit wars. --Timeshifter 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why a complaint about "bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea" is considered out of line but a complaint about "an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel" is not. I would say we'd do well to avoid both. I would add, however, that I've seen relatively few statements like the former, and when they do appear it's usually from some short-lived crank like Kiyosaki. Statements like the latter, on the other hand, are routine on articles related to Israel/Palestine, and they are quite common even from influential editors with administrative powers.

As for Isarig, he and I have had our share of encounters. I think he can be a wilfully obstinate, baldly ideological revert-warrior (in the current Juan Cole dispute, he is claiming that Cole's dismissal of charges of antisemitism as "outrageous" constitutes an ad hominem rebuttal, and therefore cannot be included alongside the article's coverage of said charges). Beyond that, however, I've never once even suspected that he might be stalking me, and as regards personal remarks I've never found him to give worse than he got, and I'd know. I think csloat is a good and reasonable editor, and we share a position in the Cole dispute, but I don't think the stuff about Isarig's personal attacks amount to much. Csloat says hey you'd fail my class, Isarig replies hey maybe you're not qualified to teach – this is all just rhetoric. Who says talk pages can't have a little verve and color.

I don't know what policy on this is, but temperamentally I'm inclined to agree with Jayjg that going around user pages gathering up a posse seems like harassment. --G-Dett 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "harassment" above, where I should have said something like "bad form." Harassment has a technical meaning, and I have no idea if the action in question qualifies.--G-Dett 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me there was full transparency to what he did, which is what we should want. Mackan79 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, Mackan79.--G-Dett 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)--

Soliciting negative comments about an editor by User:Abu ali

After a WP:ANI report about my conduct was filed, User:Abu ali, with whom I have had several content disputes recently, has been soliciting negative input about me from any editor I have been engaged with. Today alone, he as solicited more than a dozen such editors to partcipate in the report. I find this to be a severe vioaltion of numerous WP policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs).

If you examine my contibutions, you can see that I informed other users of Isarig's WP:ANI, and did so openly and onwiki. I did not tell people to contibute to the ANI report or tell them what to say. The charge that I was "soliciting negative input" is false. The comment to the effect that this is a "severe vioaltion of numerous WP policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA" is baseless, and coming from Isarig, hypocritical. Salam/Peace/Shalom Abu ali 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. Abu Ali asked me what I thought, since I was involved in the incident. This report wasn't even filed by Abu Ali, was it? So, on behalf of Sloat, Abu Ali solicits comments on an ongoing ANI. This is inappropriate? Mackan79 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying my comment from the thread above, as it seems to be relevant here.

I haven't been following these disputes, but I see little wrong with the 3RR warning Isarig left on Jgui's page, mentioned by Lee Hunter above. I also find Abu Ali's comment above to be way out of line, and possibly indicative of the kind of attitude that Isarig has been up against. There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel, often involving violations of WP:V and WP:NOR and poor editing in general. Some of the criticism is perfectly legitimate, of course (when it comes to Israeli government policies), but some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general. In addition, there's often obvious sockpuppetry involved, and therefore a reminder not to bite the newbies misses the point.

It gets tiresome having to deal with it, but I don't know what the solution is. SlimVirgin 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing these users of anti-semitic editing? If not, I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Mackan79 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to partially agree with Isarig here. Based on the strong phrasing and large number of these messages, they appear to constitute canvassing for support and near-harassment of a particular user. I would strongly advice Abu ali to stop. You don't explicitly tell people what to say, but a message like "Have a look at ... disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think?" give the recipient a pretty damn strong hint of the response you want. Daveydweeb (/_review!) 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong phrasing? Abu Ali wrote "Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think?" on each page. What else was he supposed to write? If someone has been edit-warring inappropriately, how else do you uncover this other than through the comment of those who were invovled? You can point out that Abu Ali brought this to others' attention, but to act like it was some sort of breach of the peace seems pretty out there. Mackan79 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Daveyweeb, Ali's quoting the actual title of the section on this page there, not writing those words himself, so it's a little unfair to say he's leading people on with that comment. I also don't know of any[REDACTED] policy against letting other users know about WP/ANI reports about users that they have had negative (or positive) interactions with in the past. Finally, Slimvirgin, can you explain what any of this has to do with antisemitism? I found your comment only tangentially related at best to the earlier dispute when you posted it the first time, but I fail to see any connection at all to the dispute here. csloat 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking around for people who you think have been in conflict with someone you don't like, then canvassing them to go beat up on him on AN/I, is harassment. Jayjg 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That doesn't appear to have occurred here. csloat 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have occured here? What do you call the selective solicitation of 14 different editors who have been in conflict with me, to come and comment on a complaint against me? Isarig 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that editors who have been abused by you in the past are perfectly entitled to have their say here. Abu ali 10:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well at least Abu ali admits it. <<-armon->> 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is Abu Ali admitting here?--G-Dett 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing. <<-armon->> 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Csloat, my concern is that there's an increasingly hostile editing environment around articles to do with Jews, Judaism, and Israel. I've been editing for over two years, and while we've always had that problem, it's clearly getting worse, and the lines between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitism are becoming ever more blurred. A good example of that was User:Kiyosaki who turned up a few weeks ago to disrupt Allegations of Israeli apartheid. It was obvious to many of the editors used to editing these pages that Kiyosaki was a bigot, pure and simple, but it wasn't obvious to some of the anti-Israel editors on the page. It took us some weeks to work out whose sockpuppet he was, but he was finally exposed as the account of an old-time, well-known antisemitic editor. During the time he was editing that article, however, he caused a lot of disruption and bad feeling.

That example isn't isolated. We see antisemitic editors all the time trying to take advantage of anti-Israel POV to cause ill feeling and problems for editors they perceive as Jewish. Usually they out themselves over time, because they get more and more extreme, but not always. It's a problem I would hope all editors of goodwill would help to look out for, because it affects both "sides" of the Israel debate equally. It makes editors who tend toward support for Israel feel stressed and under constant attack, and it makes editors more critical of Israel look bad when they find themselves supported by antisemites. It makes Misplaced Pages look bad to have these articles veer back and forth between POVs, with bad-faith sockpuppets gleefully holding sway on talk pages and threatening regular editors with the ArbCom. The same problems crop up, for the same reason, on pages to do with Jews and Judaism. I see it as a problem we should all work on together. SlimVirgin 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that antisemitic editors should not be welcomed here, but I just don't see how it's relevant to this particular discussion. I'm not anti-semitic or anti-Israel myself, and I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else in this discussion is. True, Abu Ali's comment comparing Isarig to the Israeli military was over the top, but it wasn't anti-semitic. I think we could all stand to take a deep breath and relax here, and I'm going to volunteer to be the first to do so.csloat 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was Abu Ali who has tried to switch the focus to antisemitism, but it's not only a question of that. It's that there are concerted efforts to make Israel and Jews look bad, for whatever reason. The motive is sometimes antisemitism and sometimes an unexplained obsession with making sure that Israel looks evil. The motivations don't really matter just as the individual accounts don't. What matters is how we deal with it, because Misplaced Pages isn't here to make Israel or Jews look good or bad, and that was the discussion that I was trying to open up. I see the complaint against Isarig as possibly an example of the problem, given Abu Ali's inappropriate comment. SlimVirgin 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it was you who brought up the false accusation of antisemitism. And I note that you have not apologised or retracted your accusation, on the grounds that you are not familiar with my edits. (look here Special:Contributions/Abu_ali) Several edit wars with Isarig and his friends from WP:Israel concern their insistence on inserting libelous accusations of anti-semitism or association with anti-semites to discredit authors who are critical of Israeli government policy. Any accusation of antisemitic behaviour should be thoroughly investigated and dealth with. But accusations of antisemitism (or of any other form of racism) should not be thrown around in a light minded manner. Abu ali 10:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I have seen a great deal of hostility coming from all sides of these debates. Mackan79 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with csloat, Abu Ali and Mackan79 on these last points. I'd add that if "the lines between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitism are becoming ever more blurred," it is in large part because editors like Slim are tenaciously blurring them. Indeed the whole point of alluding to "an increasingly hostile editing environment around articles to do with Jews, Judaism, and Israel" is precisely to blur those lines. I have been involved in a lot of contentious pages related to Israeli-Palestinian issues, where Isarig and Slim have also been heavily involved, and with the exception of a couple of sideshows produced by cranks like Kiyosaki, I have never seen this "concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel." On the other hand, on any of these pages one can find a concerted effort to blacken anything to do with individuals – Jewish, Arab, or other – who are prominently critical of Israeli occupation policies. Isarig is involved in one such blackening effort right now at the very article that precipitated the present discussion (he's arguing that the article on Juan Cole should include an accusation that Cole's writings "resonate powerfully" with the central argument of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but should exclude Cole's dismissal of the attack as "outrageous"). Slim has tended to either condone or actively participate in blackening efforts of this kind, often by "blurring" lines as she has done on this page, and creating an incredibly specious spectrum of guilt by association, beginning at one end with anyone who disagrees with her about the root causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and extending all the way out to the antisemitic fringe.--G-Dett 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the allegations of antisemitism are actually irrelevant and beside the point here. I am an anti-Zionist Jew, and I am being stalked and harassed over the pages of Misplaced Pages by a series of one-off accounts and sockpuppets who do not like my edits to articles on Israel-related subjects. Every day, I have to search to find which articles have been vandalised with derogatory comments about me. Today, it was Gilad Atzmon, Roberto Rosselini, Pig and Camel. Yesterday it was Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, Folke Bernadotte/temp, Israel Shahak, David Raziel, Convoy of 35, Al-Khisas massacre, Roberto Rossellini, Farouk Kaddoumi, Great White Records and Gilad Atzmon. And there have been dozens more. The person responsible (and I'm definitely not pointing the finger at Isarig) is not making antisemitic attacks on me, but is certainly making a concerted effort to make me -- a forthright critic of Israel and Zionism -- look bad. So when SlimVirgin notes "an increasingly hostile editing environment around articles to do with Jews, Judaism, and Israel", she should recognise that it is not only supporters of Israel who face this hostility and abuse. RolandR 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've had to put up with that. I've blocked the latest account that was attacking you, and you should feel free to let me know if it happens again. You're right that the hostile environment affects everyone. The problem is not only antisemitism. It's also that some editors feel that using Misplaced Pages to paint Israel black is a legitimate way to use the encyclopedia, and of course it isn't. We end up with toxic talk pages, terrible articles, and editors who feel victimized and bullied. It would be good if good-faith editors on all sides could try to come up with a solution together. SlimVirgin 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the second part of this entirely; I just wish people could acknowledge the extreme partisanship on all sides of these issues. In my view, there's simply an extreme shortage on the assumption of good faith. People immediately revert edits without making any attempt to follow the guidelines in WP:Revert. If they've seen something generally similar before, they simply assume its included for the same dumb reason. All in all, many seem to have stopped caring, if they ever did, about the spirit of editing on WP. I think this failure to be civil and assume good faith, much more than any latent bigotry of WP editors, is the source of hostility. Mackan79 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali was simply performing a useful service in alerting me and others to this complaint. Isariq has been relentlessly belligerent and the displeasure of his fellow editors should be addressed. The fact that he has offended such a wide swath of the WP community is evidence of the disruption he has caused. There are many other editors who share Isarig's POV and sometimes his stubborn streak, but they don't create nearly the unpleasantness. --Lee Hunter 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This "useful service" has already been described by several editors here as harassment. And here you are applauding it. No more needs to be said about you or your contributions to this debate. Isarig 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lee even if you got the "alert", showing up here to to put the boot in regarding Isarig's belligerence, is a bad look when one could arguably call you even less civil at times and note your own hair-trigger rv button. Isarig has little patience for weak arguments and off-topic soapboxing on talk pages. If his opponents refuse to "stay down" and keep coming back with more of the same, usually peppered with personal attacks, instead of staying on point and forming better arguments, he won't let up and will keep knocking them down. The problem for them is that most of the time he's right. True, perhaps not the paragon of civility, but on the other hand, I've not seen him attempt to suppress anything contrary to his POV so long as it was reliably sourced and written according to policy. This can not be said of the editor who filed this ANI, and the "wide swath of the WP community" you refer to, are for the most part, composed of trolls like User:Will314159 who you didn't see fit to comment on. I don't expect you to like the guy, but I had expected more grudging respect. <<-armon->> 12:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note Armon (who has supported) Isarig in various disputes used the phrase "he won't let up and will keep knocking them down" (my emphasis). I think that this acurately descrives Isarig's style of editing and discussion, a style which Armon oviously approves of. Abu ali 10:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I approve of anything, it's that from what I've seen, Isarig generally stays on point and makes better arguments than his opponents. The problem is that most people, when they lose an argument, especially when it's shown to be weak, turn their embarrassment into anger at whoever "beat" them. This in my view explains a lot of the hostility for Isarig here. I believe that, like Felix-felix below, "I don't think he ever gave worse than he got" and I've also seen cases of him giving a lot less. Should he be more civil -sure. <<-armon->> 12:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well call me Isarig the Second, because I didn't see that as an example of being uncivil so much as firmly pointing out to Elizmr the absurdity of asking for "respect" for her suggestion that Cole was, as she put it, "internalizing" the themes of the protocols of Zion. I don't mind saying that anyone who proposes such an appalling and incendiary idea will lose my respect immediately. Regarding Will314159, I don't know anything about him and I don't know why you bring him up. --Lee Hunter 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

She was making a general comment in response your protests (or sloats) that Cole objectively couldn't have "internalized the themes" because his is a prof. The inability to respect anybody who doesn't share one's POV is likely an insoluble problem for a lot of editors, but it's not something to be proud of.

As for Will314159, we edited the same pages with him for months and you didn't notice how out of line his behavior was? OK, but it amazes me. <<-armon->> 12:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. The only person who talked about "internalizing the themes" was Elizmr and her comment came completely from left field and out of context with the previous discussion. She wrote: "And to throw my 2 cents in, like it or not, it is a well known fact that (very unfortunately), the protocols are very prominent in the ME media. It is not suprising that ME historians and scholars would have internalized some of these themes." This after demanding that we respect her opinion. Respect is earned, it's not a God-given right. --Lee Hunter 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, calling most of the people who commented here "trolls" is uncivil at best. Your claim that Isarig has not tried to suppress anything contrary to his POV is incorrect; as you know, you and he are involved in mediation on that very issue on the Juan Cole page. Your claim that I have done so is also totally inaccurate; that has not occurred.csloat 01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The mediation is public. It seems I'm more opposed to using a particular post from Cole's blog as a source to reframe criticism into a Cole/Karsh fight than he is -and I've also submitted 2 alternatives which I believe are better and from RSs to use instead. Poor evidence for "suppression". <<-armon->> 12:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the podium is but well i can speak throughout the window. It's a pitty that the discussion has taken this way. In brief, i have to say that SlimVirgin's statements are not helpful and harm the community IMO. I read that and feel that there's much bias when you say there exist some antisemitic editors. I feel bad because the scope of the accusation is so large. Please give us names Slim. Abu Ali was clear on his accusation though i don't agree with the brutal ways of Isarig. That accusation was directed to one user who could of course reply or rebute that. Yes, true that Abu Ali started it but let's not forget that it was directed to someone who can easily respond to it and not to a group of phantoms. The problem w/ Slim's accusations is that nobody can reply. It is a kind of unsourced edits in wiki jargon. But i will do reply and say that whether there are an orchestra made of anti-semitic editors and their fans or not over here, remains irrelevant. I will ask about names indeed especially when Slim uses the term obvious.

It should also be noted that i've heard the same accusations re anti-arab and anti-islam editors for more than a dozen of months. Have we reached a solution to catch those anti-x (in case there are) wherever they are here in wikipedia? Unfortunately No! Why? Because established editors and concerned admins think the phenomenon got only one side and is only limited to the side admins think they are victims. That's wrong, anti-x editing is well-spread around[REDACTED] but i don't believe there's infamous orchestras. There are individuals who carry much POV and fight for that and don't risk banning as account recreation is made easy. So let's stop making vague accusations and be concrete to try to get rid of these problems. At least, let's try it. Cheers -- Szvest - 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I've had recent and fairly brusque encounters with Isarig, who, as outlined above is an obsessive, ideological, and pretty rude edit warrior.(on the Oliver Kamm page) However, much like G Dett, I don't think he ever gave worse than he got, but I haven't experienced stalking by him, to my knowledge.Felix-felix 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova blows the referee whistle

This particular dispute has always been tough to adjudicate. The main participants are well informed and highly articulate, yet some of their methods violate policy in ways I rarely see among editors who know how to spell. The mediation looks like it may indeed succeed at its own narrow aim. Yet the dispute is larger and spreading. I find it oddly appropriate that the Edward Said biography has joined the affected pages: during his years at Columbia University that English department had a reputation as street brawling for Ph.D.s.

In specific reply to csloat, my rebuke spoke to that dichotomy. The debate about libel and slander touched an area I studied in graduate school and your knowledge of that subject does appear to be professorial as does your articulate writing style. Topically these are high level discussions. That contrasts with forum-shopping, personalizing disputes, bad faith assumptions, incivility, edit warring, and deceptive complaints - behaviors more characteristic of a weak undergraduate. My criticism has nothing to do with how you conduct a classroom and everything to do with this website where expert contributors in the humanities are uncommon and too many of the weak undergraduates I normally referee are eager to assume the worst of any authority figure. If the opinion hurts your feelings I am sorry; I know of no milder way to express this earnest evaluation.

This does not, however, vindicate the other parties. Normally I would wait for mediation to work but this particular conflict has seeped onto too many pages and accumulated new disputants as it spreads. The main question I confront now is not whether but how to open an arbitration request: who and what are involved? Durova 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you canvassing opinions here? <<-armon->> 10:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record I think both SlimVirgin's veiled insinuation and Abu Ali's outrageous rhetoric are damaging to this whole enterprise. For me, this issue boils down to the speed with which Isarig assumes bad faith, makes and then repeats baseless allegations. From my own experience: A secondary issue is the fact that the Wiki guidelines on reliable sources are frankly open to interpretation, for example, terms like "expert" are weasley worm-can openers and the massive "previously published work" loophole doesn't help the issue. Finally, I, for one, was not "rounded up" by anybody. Cheers! Famousdog 15:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think arbitration is premature here. Most of the issues being discussed stem from the Juan Cole article, which is in mediation, and good progress is being made there due to the efforts of User:Martinp23. The broader issues brought up by User:SlimVirgin - the hostile editing environment surrounding Israel and Jewish-related articles may warrant a a differnt approach, but agian, I'm not sure Arbitration is the solution there. Isarig 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll hold off for now. I'll also caution you about disruption, Isarig. The only reason I haven't blocked you for the Quran desecration controversy/Piss Christ quarrel is because the waters are muddy. Everybody, please slow down and disengage. And try not to graft the Arab/Israeli conflict onto this already messy dispute. Durova 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig is one of a small group of editors (the others are Amoruso and Shamir1) who endlessly push a particular pov into mid-east-related articles. A large fraction of their edits are reverts, usually to reinstert the junk they have copied from worthless propagandistic sources. It would be a tough assignment to find any substantial improvement to any article due to their efforts over months. The proper place for this discussion is before the arb ctte. --Zero 09:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The remark above is a personal attack against three editors and should be removed by the editor who wrote it. Elizmr 10:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The remark is not a personal attack, it is a complaint. I don't know Amoruso and Shamir1, but it is a valid comment on Isariq's work. --Lee Hunter 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Zero's remarks are based on evidence that has cited many times in talk pages and in this Request for Assistance. Isarig has become particularly disruptive. As well as removing well-sourced information, for example here, he posts abusive fake "warnings" on talk pages and refuses polite requests that he restore WP:RS-compliant material. If action is not taken Isarig should at least be warned that he must abide by policy in future. Misplaced Pages simply doesn't need editing of this standard. --Ian Pitchford 11:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Norm

Some vandal has decided that the departed User Norm (talk · contribs) is Willy on Wheels, and is repeatedly showing up with new accounts to vandalize User talk:Norm to that effect. I have reverted the Talk page to the last version left by Norm, and have protected the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like something WoW would do to some user for kicks. HighInBC 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also protected User:Norm because it has been receiving similar attacks. -- tariqabjotu 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Check this out. . Most interesting. He registered the account in 2004, and is right NOW using it for WoW vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect account compromize. It wasn't very long ago blank passwords were allowed by the system. 68.39.174.238 04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that too; it's so out-of-character considering Norm's contributions elsewhere. Anyway I reverted all the damage on Commons. Seems like there aren't many people watching over there. Antandrus (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's for sure. I'm amazing some things aren't more disoriented then they are; I've had some nasty runins with that in the past. 68.39.174.238 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Norm was also used on Wikinews for vandalism. After two pagemoves I blocked it. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry and tag-team edit-warring

User:Siddiqui has persistently gone against consensus in several articles relating to Pakistan, most notably Pakistani nationalism and History of Pakistan, where he has been repeatedly adding unreliable sources (random unverifiable geocities links) and steering the tone in favor of fringe sectarian views. His edit-warring, as evidenced here and , , do not involve discussions or debates but simply persistent reverts over long periods of time. This user has expressed such disruptive behaviour before, advancing narrow, nationalistic and politically inflammatory minority views (see this). Then, when it was clear that reasonable people fixed his edits, he decided to recruit tag-team meatpuppets. He started to post to a certain group of ideologically biased users, such as User:Nadirali, User:szhaider (who considers India a threat to world peace - look at his userpage) and User:Unre4L(who is on a mission to "reclaim Pakistan's stolen heritage") to try to revert-war there, which they did. In addition, he solicited a meatpuppet from off wiki, a user named User:AliHussain. This is evident from the fact that this user, a new user, immediately posted to Siddiqui's page upon logging in for the first time about "seeing what he can do" and proceeded to revert-war again . The users Nadirali and Unre4L were involved in some ridiculous debate over the nonexistent concept of "Ancient Pakistan" (based not on scholarly sources but Pakistani historical revisionism) in Talk:History of India Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:Panini.They have been resoundedly refuted by several knowledgeable users like User:Dbachmann, User:DaGizza, User:Deeptrivia and User:Fowler&fowler but they continue to prowl the pages. There have been RfC posts by other users concerning their narrow fringe views. in turn they tried to create a bogus article about an underground Islamic Fundamentalist/Pakistani nationalist website started by this group of singleminded editors that which got speedily deleted . This problem is becoming increasingly difficult to contain and these users are rapidly getting disruptive.Bakaman 01:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

More instances of such behaviour:Rumpelstiltskin223 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What an accusation ! The Indian contributors have been tag-teaminig on these Pakistani articles for many months before I got 3RR and the History of Pakistan was "protected" for more than three months. Now that I have some Pakistani contributors involved to represent the Pakistani perspective they have started this accusation. One can simply look at the history of these articles to see tag-teaming by Indian contributors before Pakistani contributors. I have invited many of my friends to[REDACTED] that does not mean that this "puppetry". One can accuse the Indians of the same regarding these Pakistan related articles.

Siddiqui 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Especially when I live thousands of miles from every other Indian user.Bakaman 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman is a Hindu nationalist who is constantly adding Devangari texts to Pakistan related articles and tagging their talk pages with Indian banners claiming them for India. He was quick to welcome a user who abused me on my user page. And look at his choice of words. Welcoming my abuser is a clear indication of his own behavior. I personally do not ‎accept any consensus which is developed by a bunch of like-minded Hindu-biased users ‎who are always aggressively scaring away whoever tries to interfere their propaganda ‎based intentions. Most of their citations are from those websites which promote ‎Hindutwa. They never accept any input from any user who does not agree with them. They insist on adding Indian script to Pakistan and Islam related articles and have been indianizing all such articles with twisted words and dubious citations. They force other users into accepting their citations no matter how questionable they are. Just look at their talk pages and you'll clearly see their unity in promoting Hinduism in Pakistan and Islam related articles, and Indianizing all such articles. They have literally occupied Pakistan related articles and won't let anybody other than members of their lobby make any major changes. If someone resists their propaganda agendas they persecute that user with full force and unity. Szhaider 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Several pages got protected due to the edits of this group (History of Pakistan and Pakistani nationalism to name 2). In retaliation, Siddiqui has been editing tendentiously, using inflammatory section titles and other acts of disruption across[REDACTED] articles, such as & . User User:HamzaOmar most definitely the same user as Siddiqui is helping him revert-warRumpelstiltskin223 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Szhaider and Siddiqui are absolutely right.Bakman and other Indian users play edit wars by editing in groups,therefor being careful not to break the 3RR.Nothing but a clear form of meatpuppetry.Bakaman and his fellow imperialists have made racist remarks towards Pakistani users as seen on the history of Pakistan talk page. If Bakaman and his fellow indian imperialists can't get their own way around,they then get Indian administrators to assist them in their crusade against Pakistani wikipedians. Right now Bakaman and fellow imperialist user:deeptrivia plan on writing an article on "Pakistani textbooks"(to be specific textbooks used by a small group of religious fanatics in Pakistan)to stereotype us and brand us as extremists.This can be seen .They had done this before when they created an unsourced article on Christians in Pakistan which had been deleted yesterday upon my request. Unfortunately they clearly outnumber Pakistani wikipedians and are able to edit war in groups to keep all Pakistani items categorized as "Indian" despite my efforts to make it "SOuth Asian" to keep it neutral. I tried to revert the article on ,but they keep changing it to "Indian" and keeping all refferences to Pakistan out including consistantly vandalizing the Pakistani tag I place on the talkpage. And due to the lack of diversity among administrators,they have a clear advantage over us. The alligations Bakaman states are false.Bakaman is racist towards Pakistanis(particularly Muslim). His fellow imperialists(and possibly him)are part of a racist site called .They make disruptive edits to Pakistani articles such as Pakistani nationalism by sticking their POV into them.They consistantly edit war on Pakistani history articles and try to keep out all refferences to Pakistan,again in large numbers to keep from violating the 3RR.And for your information,Pakhub is not Islamaist.This is another part of Bakaman's propaganda.Any claims to revive Pakistani history is automatically claimed as "Islamist" by Bakaman and his fellow imperialists.Please read the articles on Pakhub to decide for yourself. They have also unleashed nationalistic bots and tagged Pakistani and Iranian related articles to Indian categories.Their consistant efforts to keep all consensus out(with the assistance of biased admnistrators) is a clear violation of wikipedia's neutral and no propaganda policies.Nadirali 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your paranoia amazes me... hope you understand accusing admins is not the best way to present your case here. They were made admins precisely becasue they HAVE made productive contributions to the project unlike you who seems to be interested in removing project tags from talk pages. As for Panini call him a Pakistani before any non-Indian historian and see how they'll laugh at you. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood 08:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This after Siddiqui spammed talk pages , proving Bakaman's point totally. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am getting Pakistani editors to protect the Pakistan related pages being filled with Indian propaganda. I am also urging my friends to join[REDACTED] and contribute to Pakistan related pages. The Indians have been team-tagging and reverting any changes to Pakistan related articles. The new Pakistani contributors will soon be able to give balanced view of Pakistan-India disputes. Indian have the right to give thier side of opinion so Pakistanis also have the same right. The Indians have filled Pakistani articles with Indias propaganda. Any change to reflect Pakistan view point is reverted and the Indian contributors team tag to defeat smaller number of Pakistani contributors. Hopefully this will change as I have been trying hard to convince many Pakistanis to join[REDACTED] and contributue to the articles that interests them.

Siddiqui 07:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battle ground. You by your own admitance are guilty of meatuppetry. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood 08:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a blog, where you can put down any information, and because you have a few admins on your side, nobody can question your actions. The Pak tag belongs anywhere, where there are Pakistani ancestors involved. The fact is, Panini had nothing to do with modern Indians. If it hadnt been for some users here, the article would still have a ROI flag. (check history). So maybe you guys should pull yourselves together and stop defending biased information, backed up my some Indian written sources. If you dont want to call people of Pakistan, Pakistanis, what else do you want to call them? Indians. I see...makes no sense, but since you have admins on your side, who are we to question? Unre4L 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

P.s I provided 5 .edu sources of Ancient Pakistan being a valid term. Even then you question this. This obviously shows you have no regard for correct information being put on Misplaced Pages, but only information where you can cram the word "India" in as many places as you can. Unre4L 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the fact tha google uses Ancient India 880 times to one compared to the fictitious "ancient Pakistan" seems to be lost on you, as well as nadirali's hallucinations of me being female, when I am obviously male. You're right WP isnt a blog where one can discuss fairy-tales like the "ancient history of Pakistan".Bakaman 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First I thought Google was the only argument you could come up with. Now I know it. Ok...let me make it very simple. Why do you think we are arguing about this? Because people are misinformed, and since they are misinformed, they use it more often. If Ancient Pakistan came up with as many Google results, then this argument wouldnt be taking place, now would it? And your Google argument is not going to cancel out any official educational sources. Unre4L 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually here is one for you. Islam gives 94 million google results Hinduism gives 8.7 million results. Wait a minute. That must mean... Unre4L 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Zephram Stark sockpuppet

A new sockpuppet of Zephram Stark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be active. The Mirror of the Sea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He restored Coving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to an old ZS version. Separately, Grace Note is defending his edits with perhaps inappropriate vigor. -Will Beback · † · 02:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be "appropriate" to let me know you've written about me here? I don't have this page on my (very short) watchlist and I only know you wrote here because I suspected you would, rather than just let a minor issue go, seek to extend a conflict as far as possible. Why you think that is a better course than just letting the article stand is a mystery to me. There is nothing inappropriate about my defending the edit. I think it is useful. I don't know what went on with Zephram Stark. I know that editors I trust were opposed to him and I have some idea that he was pushing a POV. I had some idea of an ongoing engagement because he edited pages I have edited or looked at, but I don't usually read these long unfocused narratives that some people on those pages indulge in. I don't really have any awareness of his goodness or badness, or take any sides in the conflict, except, as I noted, that I know he was opposed by editors I trust. That is all.

But the article seems interesting to me. I think it can and should be allowed to live, regardless its provenance. Destroying interesting articles because of who wrote them doesn't seem a good idea. If Will has a problem with the content, he could perhaps focus on that. Otherwise, we seem just to have an extension of personal conflict that doesn't serve the encyclopaedia. As I say, I don't watch this page, and frankly, the days in which I was interested in pointless fighting over issues that neither I nor the other combatants are particularly interested in are long gone, so this is all I have to say about it. Grace Note 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to consist almost entirely of unverifiable original research, which, as I recall, was the original objection to it as well. Has something dramatically changed since it was last re-directed in August? Jayjg 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has, the practice of coving has been peer reviewed in the New York Times and other notable publications concerning topics such as these, seems its reputation is growing--Edchilvers 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, though, currently only two sentences in the article have citations. Jayjg 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in these two citations you will find most of what has been written in the Wiki article. I just didn't see the point of putting the two exact same citations at various points in the article. The article was probably written by the guy who invented the process to be honest, yet the fact that it may have started out as original research does not deter from the actuality of it having garnered quite a large following since--Edchilvers 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some good references have been added and some OR and unreferenced stuff removed. To Grace Note - nothing wrong with removing unreferenced stuff and OR. --Duk 04:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Zephram Stark. Thanks. — Mirror of the Sea Something To Say? 05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not, but you certainly are the indefinitely blocked vandal account User:The Iceman Cometh. That's gotta count for something, don't you think? Jayjg 05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wot, no block? SlimVirgin 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked the The Mirror of the Sea account and marked it as a The Iceman Cometh sock. -Will Beback · † · 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with anonymous editor on List of anime conventions, Anime South, and Tsubasacon

I would like to request administrator review over a situation I am having with an anonymous editor on three articles. The problems first occurring on Christmas weekend when the anonymous editor inserted a wikilink to Anime South onto List of anime conventions. I removed the link because it didn't meat the criteria listed at the top of the talk and summarized in the lead of the article. The anonymous editor kept inserting the link back in and made several excuses on the talk page as to why this convention should receive an exception before finally saying that the criteria is irrelevant.

During the same time, I also tagged several anime convention articles with the {{unreferenced}} or similar tags, one of which was on Anime South. Later the anonymous editor changed the wording in a sentence that made it clearly speculative, which I then removed. After that, the anonymous editor restored the speculative statement and removed the referenced tag, which I reverted.

The anonymous editor has also gone to Tsubasacon and put up an {{unreferenced}} tag, which I requested another editor familiar with anime conventions to review. so that I can avoid a WP:COI. After his removed the tag and added some sources, the anonymous editor removed the sources and restored the unreferenced tag.

This has came to the point were I think the anonymous editor is now being disruptive. I originally thought s/he was an Anime South staffer until after I found this topic on the Anime South forums yesterday. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To demonstrate the uncooperative-ness of these individuals (or person):

These self-righteous wiki editors have formed a group supporting each other so they don't get 3RR. We need to join up and form a posse of our own to fight the same way they do. Are you in? -Animesouth 08:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly admitting to wanting to violating policy. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible ID of anonymous editor

It has came to my attention that the anonymous editor may be Marcyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who may also use a second account Animesouth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). known IPs used by the anonymous editor: 68.1.77.61, 68.1.73.33, 68.63.22.57, 68.1.74.54, 68.1.78.129. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It may also be wished to be pointed out that Tjstriker (talk · contribs) is likely included. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the person has a weird habit of not signing their comments, and removing any signed comments that are added by other users. It is beyond me why this person does this. I have seen edits from July by Marcyu (talk · contribs) where such is happening. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Include the IP 68.105.60.48 (talk · contribs) in the mix too. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. 68.1.60.33 (talk · contribs). Appears that the person is just changing their IP address at will. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparent inappropriate disruption in reply to a CheckUser request

About to sleep, have been looking at this but can't follow up. User looks like he's disrupting WP:RFCU (Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Art Dominique) and User talk:Husond, in response to that RFCU linked. Would appreciate if an admin investigated/kept an eye on it. Thanks. – Chacor 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gives the checkuser clerks something to do :) Thatcher131 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem.

User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. Someone mind explaining to me again why keeping the history would deter new Esperanzas and show other users what a horrible mistake it was? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit POINTish to me. – Chacor 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns. Borderline T1? >Radiant< 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So much for my canned smart-ass remark about needing a userbox...Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've checked Geo.plrd's contribs, he's mass spamming every member of Esperanza he can find. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A block for gaming the system might be in order? – Chacor 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support this. WP:POINT violation + an attempt to skirt abundantly clear community consensus. —bbatsell ¿? 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Can someone block/add stiff warning to everyone who signed up and edited it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just left a note re this issue at their talkpage. Let's wait and see. -- Szvest - 17:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on giving a cooldown block to Geo.plrd for this double-whammy violation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree about an immediate block. He's just received the first/final warning re that. They are offline now. Once they are back we'll see what their reaction would be. -- Szvest - 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He made a comment after your warning that seemed to indicate that he was going to continue the "Phoenix" project anyway, but that doesn't matter. The best indicator will be what he does after his recreations are deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted the warning at 17:25, January 4, 2007 while their last edit was at 06:02, January 4, 2007. Nothing to lose if we wait anyway. Yes, knowing about their reaction to the deleted subpage would be interesting. -- Szvest - 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I read "06:02" as "6:02pm". --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why I shouldn't just nominate this at mfd? --Spartaz 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already there: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. —bbatsell ¿? 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd contend it's speediable. Not explicitly in WP:CSD, but quite obviously a flagrant breach of consensus reached at the Esperanza MFD, which is what a new MFD would turn into. – Chacor 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dang! --Spartaz 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conlict x 4) (now slightly out of date) It is a concerning violation of WP:POINT, going directly against the opinions and consensus generated at the MfD of Esperanza. Are the project pages there deletable/redirectable to Misplaced Pages:Esperanza, rather than hashing out an Esperanza Mk II MfD? I don't feel that a block is appropriate unless Geo goes against the warning posted. Martinp23 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just speedied the userpages per CSD G4. I don't think that a block is in order unless the user persists. The userbox is more problematic; I'll let some other cold-hearted bitch admin take care of that. -- Merope 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Should have guessed that JzG would be the "cold-hearted" admin I referenced. -- Merope 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Though "not the way to do it" is not the most informative deletion summary ever. I'd have expected some link or reference to the Esperanza MfD, and/or a CSD criteria. Carcharoth 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The user can hardly be ignorant of it, but in any case I left a lengthy comment on his Talk - much more than would fit in a delet summary. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. On a side issue, I was actually, out of curiosity, trying to figure out the timeline for when they created the userbox and Phoenix respectively, but as they were deleted, that is more difficult to figure out now. Could you, or someone, note the date and time of creation of the pages in question? A day later, a few hours later, or whatever. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix created 05:13, January 3, 2007, userbox created 06:43, January 4, 2007. —bbatsell ¿? 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Phoenix was a working model. Geo. 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a working model complete with bureaucracy and talk page spamming for members. -- Merope 18:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT and Phoenix/Esperanza Returns

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_5#User:Geo.plrd.2FPhoenix -- Speedily deleting it yesterday had no effect; deletion review is now up. Any other admins want to take a stab at this? -- Merope 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo.plrd has withdrawn his DRV. The userbox is back, however. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Delinquent Road Hazards

This AfD was closed as a Delete by Khukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy by Pd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar with Khukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope23 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in the Misplaced Pages:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment on User_talk:Khukri. AnonEMouse 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Actually, Khukri also closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as a Delete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope23 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation. AnonEMouse 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head. AnonEMouse 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope23 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Misplaced Pages:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not, Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe. Carcharoth 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pointy stick needed

Would somebody please have a gentle word with User:Barberio about the advisability of slapping standard warning templates on admins' talk pages in the middle of threads where they are dealing with other users. It's not a particularly helpful thing to do and stinks of WP:POINT given that he is in dispute with me at Misplaced Pages talk:External links/YouTube and elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, aye. I'm on it. -- Merope 18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)#

Copy paste of PAIN report placed. Please make note of the last point. --Barberio 18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent activity:

• Tells others to "F*** off" (without the stars).
• Accuses others of "b**tching".
• Removes npa warning templates from his user page.
• Blocks user who complains about it!

This user seems to have problems not resorting to inappropriate behaviour in his disputes with other editors. --Barberio 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yawn. Please read WP:DICK in detail, this is becoming wearisome. While I do not condone telling people to fuck off, your npa3 warning was just ridiculous. That editor had made a clear legal threat and deserved his block and nothing Guy said to him was offensive. Moreschi 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and being wilfully offended is just as bad as bad as being wilfully offensive, and probably causes more problems. Moreschi 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect WP:DICK is not policy, WP:NPA is. --Barberio 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

May I point you to WP:DUCK? ---J.S 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and removing a warning from your talk page is not a violation of any policy. ---J.S 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the legal threat that the user SlamDiego was blocked for. HighInBC 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There was none. He said he 'felt liablled' by another users comments, which is not the same as actualy threatening a libel suit. (For what it's worth, SlamDiego's original complaint that JzG was replying to on WP:PAIN was overblown, but did not deserve the response given.) --Barberio 19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling something "Libel, although I won't take action" seems to me to be skirting the edge of No Legal Threats. Kinda like "If I wasn't such a nice guy, I'd sue you. You don't want me to be a nice guy?"-ish —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Even so, it would have been better to point that out, rather than threaten with a block for something borderline in a dispute that could be settled by getting people to calm down. --Barberio 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The PAIN report is here for those trying to follow along. ---J.S

To Barberio: my response to him was to thank him kindly for self-reporting his legal threat and express the hope that this indicated he would not repeat the offence. I thought that was a long way from harsh. It's only when he demonstrated that he both understood the message and didn't ave any intention whatsoever of heeding it that I got firm. It is much easier to deal with disputes if you don't have random people pitching into the middle of them, of course, especially when those people appear to be looking for excuses to oppose you rather than taking a dispassionate view of the case at issue. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue could have been resolved by simply stating the issue was not a grave attack, nor libel, and should be resolved just by a asking for moderated language. I attempted to do so.

Your threat of a block against the complaining editor was clearly escalating the issue, and your following this up with personal attacks of your own by telling the editor he was "b****ing* over it was further escalation, moving on to directly block the editor is an action I simply don't understand. --Barberio 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• HighInBC, SlamDiego characterised comments made against him by another editor as being "libel" while at the same time making equally aggressive and hostile comments about that user. I was in discussion with him about this and he made it perfectly clear that in his mind only attacks against him are libel. Full-on legal threats are grounds for immediate banning, in this case he was merely being aggressive and deeply uncool so I gave him a short block to calm down, with a comment to that effect on his Talk. Unfortunately Barberio chose to wade in and add further heat, for reasons known only to himself. I can't see any evidence that WP:PAIN was on his watchlist for any reason, although of course it could have been. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It has in fact been on my watch list for quite some time, due to reporting some personal attacks. --Barberio 19:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, so you did. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have commented out a slapfest above. I suggest we talk about the underlying problem of templating experienced users. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The comments by editors have been restored. --Barberio 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Users reading this may wish to review my new essay (in progress, other editors welcome, and if you can think of a catchy name please move it, but Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars, because templating the regulars is a mistake. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Now all we need is WP:NOJERRYSPRINGER MartinDK 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not have left templates, but at the time of the incident, that's what WP:PAIN required. I agree that the requirement to add specific templates to the talk page, rather than being able to phrase a more suitable warning, was probably a bad part of the process. --Barberio 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I like - to both :o) Incidentally, Barberio, you seem to be confusing WP:PAIN with WP:POINT in your above comment. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Having mulled this over on the way home and also prompted by Hipocrite, I have unblocked SlamDiego. He was being a dick, but probably not to the extent that he needed stopping right now, which is what blocking is for. However, I have also told him that describing other users' comments in a content dispute as libel, however heated things might have become, is extremely unlikely to help. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How is calling another user a 'dick' more helpful than describing another users' comments as libel? KazakhPol 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a wp:dick isn't the same as making a statement which could be construed as a wp:legal threat. Argyriou (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And after being pointed that way, some people realise they've been stupid. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that, having looked at WP:PAIN, I agree with Moreschi's comments above. there are some genuine cases, but most of the complaints boil down to little more than "Mummy, he called me silly...", and are usually made by people who are engaged in an editing dispute and are trying to use this as back route to getting their own way. Admins should surely be trying to douse these flames, but too many seem happy to pour petrol on them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Martin, that's precious enough that I've created a redirect: WP:JERRYSPRINGER. Patstuart 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The issue here is really external links and YouTube, but rather than resolving the dispute Barberio is attacking people on the other side of the dispute, specifically JzG and Dmcdevit. I warned Barberio earlier this week against attacking or falsely accusing other users; in reaction, he forbade me from editing his talk page. If he doesn't stop he should be blocked. >Radiant< 09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of links... to a good site

Is plbman (talk · contribs) spamming? He's added almost a hundred links to the same site... but it's a pretty neat site. Is this a violation? A helpful addition? Something nefarious that I'm not quite smart enough to work out? I could use a little advice. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's affiliated with the site, adding this many external links is unquestionably fishy, and constitutes spam. -Patstuart 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They are all different online books. They happen to be hosted on one website, but they are all part of the Open Archives Initiative. This is not substantively different from adding a bunch of links to different books on Project Gutenberg. It's being suggested that this is WP:COI, but these are good additions and who else is going to make them if he doesn't? I suggest we let him WP:IAR as long as the edits are good. — coelacan talk — 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coelacan. Unless the edits are shown to be bad edits, these should be allowed due to the nature of the links. ···日本穣 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's been a suggestion that the links would be best used as citations in the text. That is true, but also a lot more work and I think Plbman's contributions should be reverted back into place and used as they were (external links) until they can be integrated as citations. I just want to make sure we aren't asking Plbman to bring a {{shrubbery}}. — coelacan talk — 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the way this was dealt with is unfortunate. The links seem solid and certainly shouldn't simply have been removed; at worst, they could have been moved to the talk page as likely useful references. I definitely don't agree that it was spam. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks god for IAR. HighInBC 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, did anyone review these books. They are all archived studies and publications from the California Fish and Game that date as far back as early 1900s. They were digitized and organized as part of a project that is managed by plbman under a federal grant. In most cases they are being added to articles that have no or few External links and in many cases the relevance is questionable. My question is would anyone add these links on their own based on the merit of each of these archived documents? Would any of these links have been added by this user if it were not a part of his project? For each article that was linked, there are probably many other pages on the web that may be equally or better suited as an external link. Each document requires a download and some are 20 - 80MB each to view the actual document. These very same articles are located here under a much better online viewing format California Explores the Ocean. Perhaps a different approach would have been to add a new article (California Explores the Ocean) under WP with a link to this page rather than adding all 178 archived documents under different WP articles. There appears to be a COI here and adding 100 links in a day is spam. IMHO. Calltech 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I disagree that this was spamming.

Secondly, the existence of "other pages on the web that may be equally or better suited as an external link" is irrelevant because no one has added them. We don't remove good content from articles based on the theory that "better" content might be possible. Unless and until such "better" links are added, how does Misplaced Pages benefit by losing these links (leaving most of the articles in question with "no or few external links")?

If some of the links are of questionable relevance, perhaps they should be removed or relocated to different articles. Indiscriminately purging all of them en masse was an ill-advised overreaction on your part, and labeling obvious goof-faith contributions as "link spam" was needless newbie-biting. —David Levy 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see a conflict of interest here -- the user does not stand to gain from the inclusion of these links in any way. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:JohnJohnJohnJohn

This is a repost from 2 days ago, with addendum. The previous post didn't really receive any attention.

Fraslet (talk · contribs) recently brought my attention to the fact that JohnJohnJohnJohn (talk · contribs), whose editing has certainly raised a few eyebrows, was possibly operating Orchardbank (talk · contribs) and Johnowenlangham (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets. John has now asserted that Orchardbank is in fact Malcolm Nicol, a Conservative Party councillor from Polmont, a town in Scotland which John comes from and has repeatedly made disruptive and bizarre edits in connection with. John also claims that, were that the case, Image:MalcolmNicol.jpg could be legimately licensed as GFDL-self by Orchardbank. Orchardbank has also made edits about Mr. Nicol, including this rather aggrandizing effort: . I don't know if this is ready for a WP:RFCU, but I think it has become important to establish exactly what the real situation is here.

Since then Patstuart (talk · contribs) has placed a suspected impersonator / sock tag of no less than Willy on Wheels on John's userpage - I find it unlikely that John has even heard of WoW but stranger things have happened - and Mikkalai (talk · contribs) reverted this edit by Johnowenlangham to Orchardbank's talk. What is the story here? Deizio talk 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

JzG's personal attack

Revision as of 15:54, January 4, 2007 (edit) JzG (Talk | contribs) (→Deep breaths :) - Um, right.) ← Older edit Revision as of 19:20, January 4, 2007 (edit) (undo) JzG (Talk | contribs) (→Deep breaths :) - update) Newer edit → Line 26: Line 26:

--> Also, you are not hated; everyone is welcome on Misplaced Pages, and so long as you go about it civilly, we can have these users answer for their actions. Anthonycfc 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)  :--> Also, you are not hated; everyone is welcome on Misplaced Pages, and so long as you go about it civilly, we can have these users answer for their actions. Anthonycfc 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- * Your hysterical outpourings on WP:PAIN are likely to achieve very little other than to ensure that you are dismissed as a crank. Would you like to go back and try again, citing diffs and without the capitalisation? Guy (Help!) 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC) + * I removed your reports from WP:PAIN since there is no evidence of attacks provided. In future please bear in mind that we need, at the very least, information as to where the supposed attacks occurred. I did spend some time looking into it but the only aggression I could find was from you. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk • contribs).

...Are you asking a question, or what? --Masamage 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Yrgh believes that JzG's comments above are a personal attack and he wants to rant about it! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh yeah. The top of this page says "This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department" for a reason. Apparently you know about WP:PAIN to report personal attacks, you can take this there but if all he did was call you a crank, I seriously doubt any uninvolved admins will care enough to block him or whatever. --W.marsh 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this user has made a habit out of accusing... everyone... of personally attacking him (and in a rather disruptive way at that) after he was confronted by multiple editors about a series of dubious edits. He has previously been mentioned on AN/I here. —bbatsell ¿? 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And why wasn't anything done about it then? D: And at what point is the community's patience exhausted with Mr. Yrgh?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also wonderful.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just marvelling at that myself. --Masamage 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef per that latest ... marvel. Can't say I've ever seen anything quite like that. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, 100% speedy endorse blocking this worthless twat. I wasted Actual Time checking out his baseless report. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Calm down. Of course, I support blocking this user, but it is a personal attack to call someone a "worthless twat". There's no need to start calling people names, even though they are incredibly frustrating. Yuser31415 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've already posted to Guy's user talk page. It seems out of character and I hope that was a typo for twit. Durova 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • But in reality, it's not out of character at all. ATren 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yup. --Masamage 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hell freezes over

I'd better put this under a new section. Based on Guy's post above and the subsequent diffs, which do check out, I've left him an imminent block warning for incivility. It's the dead of night in his part of the world right now and he hasn't edited since, so I'll wait for him to log on and respond, but basically what I've said is that I'll block him for uncivil statements he's already posted unless he strikes through certain comments or pledges to clean up his language. I've never blocked an admin before - much less one I respect as much as him - but it would be a double standard if I overlooked this evidence. I welcome the feedback of other users regarding this decision. Durova 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll support that even, though I feel sheepish doing so. Guy seems like a very good editor, but I read the above evidence the same way you do, especially in light of this. Can't be allowed, even (especially?) from a respected admin. --Masamage 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't support such an action. While I am strongly opposed to editors (especially admins) making uncivil comments, I don't think that blocking is the right way to go about this; all it's going to do is create bad feelings. In this case, an apology from Guy would be suffice, provided he does not repeat his behavior. Yuser31415 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I interpreted Durova's actions as asking for apology and change in behavior first and foremost. The block would only be if he refuses, which would be kind of surprising. --Masamage 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly accept an apology. Durova 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to an admin blocking another admin. Always have been opposed to this, always will. It's just not ... done. Take it to RfC, even ArbCom, but don't directly block another fellow admin. Yuser31415 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see how a civility block would be anything other than punitive in Guy's case. Guy has had a sharp tongue as long as I've known him, and (1) he isn't particularly more likely to be uncivil in the next x hours than he is in the n hours after that, and (2) I seriously doubt that a block will cause him to change his manner of interaction. IMHO, if people are really concerned about his behavior, engaging on his talk page or an RFC would be the way to go. TheronJ 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can gather consensus at WP:CIV for the exception if you're uncivil and get away with it this policy doesn't apply anymore then I'll strikethrough my warning. The problem editors habitually claim that sysops are a clubby little bunch who violate policy with impunity. Well if none of us get blocked except by ArbCom, then to quote George Orwell All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. If I ever make the same mistake then by all means give me a block warning too, and an actual block if I don't back down. Durova 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are these editors? I've seen people complain that a few admins get away with too much, but I've never heard anyone but User:Cplot style conspiracy theorists claim admins as a whole are a priveleged elite. -Amarkov _edits 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot never made any such claims about administrators being a privileged elite. Cplot complained about federal propagandists on the wiki, many of whom are not admins (for example, MONGO thankfully). Why not try to provide a diff showing something Cplot did wrong. That would be an interesting exercise. --SeePlot 11:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, a WP:SOCK.--Isotope23 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins has no special authority or exemption. The blocking policy applies to them too. HighInBC 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Someone has a bit of a meltdown from dealing with crap, and you threaten to block him? Instead of saying "what's going on, can I help", you threaten him? Instead of providing a support system for the people who end up having to deal with the flood of bullshit that comes their way, we use ultimatums? Sounds great - when someone is buckling under the strain, let's kick them? Durova, I must say, I am deeply disappointed in you. I most certainly oppose your use of ultimatums and threats against one of our hardest-working admins. Guettarda 04:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem ... calm down, please. Yuser31415 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When I saw it in one post I presumed it was a typing error. After I saw it in six more over several different days and conversations I acted. An eighth example has surfaced since then. Durova 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's an insane thought process, and one that has caused major problems. "I'm dealing with trolls, so I'm above policies!" is the worst thing an admin can possibly say, short of maybe "**** off you ****ing ****er I'm ****ing blocking everyone because I ****ing feel like it". Nothing, at all, should cause you to be placed above policies. -Amarkov _edits 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Really. If "inability to deal with stress without calling people names and swearing at them" came up in an RFA, most of us would vote "oppose". And I don't think that of Guy; I think he's a lot saner than the wacko you're describing. --Masamage 04:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. Not sure if I'm even allowed to post here but I found ANI to be a reasonable place so far. From the purely linguistic perspective - twit twat and twot are about the same in the context of heated discussion and certainly in common usage. But I learned English in Northumbria if you can call it English:) I do have to apologise for that in daily life quite often. Whether heated discussion or common usage are allowed from anyone on Misplaced Pages is still uncertain to me. I deal with it by trying to write really flat and boring in discussion. AlanBarnet 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Howay, man, it's nee big deal, like :o) Guy (Help!) 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with JzG's comments, but ... haven't we learned recently that blocks aren't a good way to deal with personal attacks made by established users? --Cyde Weys 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, we're you're in a little pickle here. We You get blasted for admin cabaling if we don't, and we get into that situation if we do. I'd also like to say that I am utterly confused as to why "twat" is offensive; that's a nickname my mom uses for my sister, and I don't see any offensiveness. -Amarkov _edits 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's anatomical slang. According to its article it can also be a form of twit, but I've never heard it used that way. --Masamage 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... okay, that was more than I really needed to know. Just keep in mind that he may very well be using my definition, not an obscene one. -Amarkov _edits 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. I expected you to just mouse over that link; it didn't occur to me until just now that you might just click the thing. That's really embarrassing and I'm sorry. --Masamage 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops, I didn't make it clear that I didn't actually click it. I actually caught it in the diff. But I still know what the word means. Don't be embarassd. Have a smiley face. -Amarkov _edits 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't include me, because I'm not an admin, meaning I'm somewhat insulated from whatever happens. Yay. -Amarkov _edits 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda has it right. I realise that it is now all the rage for admins to be the manners police, but while we're going through this phase, it would be nice to remember that blocking people who are not a threat to the project hasn't always been something we expected admins to do, and especially to do casually. I really do appreciate the fact that we're a lot quicker to block trolls and lunatics these days, but we do have a whole dispute resolution process designed for facilitating community input on the behaviour of valued contributors. Jkelly 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more than that. Most of us don't spend much time dealing with troublesome editors. Dealing with them on the scale that Guy (and many others) do is very stressful. If someone has a few meltdowns over a couple months, then maybe it's a sign that we, as a community should be more supportive of them; seeing stuff like that the correct reaction is to say "what's wrong, how can we help" or maybe "take a break from that stuff and concentrate on what's fun". As long as our aim is to retain hardworking volunteers, the correct action is never to approach a good editor like a disruptive troll. If they are feeling the strain, all it does is say to them "your contribution isn't worth shit". It's most likely to exacerbate the problem. The last thing you want to do is come at someone with threats and ultimatums. It will almost certainly fail to produce the desired result. In addition, in general we cut trolls more slack than Durova cut Guy. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. The threats were totally out of line. Guettarda 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He violated WP:CIVIL, and if most of the words I've never heard are similar in definition to his word "twat" (assuming he meant them that way, of course) , he violated it pretty badly. Even then, if I told people to "fuck off", I would most certainly be told to stop in a heartbeat. While admins should not be approached like trolls, they should also not get preferential treatment over everyone else in that respect. And dealing with trolls does NOT justify swearing at people. -Amarkov _edits 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he didn't. You violated AGF - maybe you should be blocked for that?? There are seven links provided above. The first one shows no incivility - he says to someone "you have the brass neck to come here making demands? The short answer is: go away". No one says we have to suffer fools. In the second case, there's nothing there that isn't calling a spade a spade. In the third he says "what the fuck"...oooh, my ears are burning, he used a swear word. Hmm - maybe I need to be threatened with a block for my "WFT" higher up the page. In the fourth case, he says to Fys "and I want you to fuck off". Fys has been behaving like an idiot ever since he played chicken with the arbcomm and got them to blink. He's saying "quit bugging me". Not incivil, and it's totally wrong to take it out of context. In the fifth case, again, he is using "fuck off", but seriously, calling that incivil is nothing but prudery about "the f-word". Did you miss the bit about Misplaced Pages not being censored for minors? And the sixth example isn't incivil, and it isn't aimed at anyone in particular so how can it be taken as anything serious? As for the word "twat" - that tempest in a teapot is nothing more than a collective failure to assume good faith. Maybe you should just block yourselves for violating AGF and be done with it. Guettarda 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... In case you didn't notice, I'm the first one who brought up that "twat" might mean something else. And you are not in any way explaining why what he did was civil, you're explaining why it was justified. Which is good, except that glosses over what I said, that incivility isn't justified, just by the fact that the point of the incivil comment is correct. You can say things which are right in an incivil way. -Amarkov _edits 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit summary of the first diff. Anchoress 05:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guys and gals, we are not policing words (Misplaced Pages is not censored) we are policing personal attacks having significant venom to hurt people. For the Fuck's sake it is absolutely fuckingly acceptable to use the bloody old-English word fuck to emphasize an idea or an emotion. On the other hand it is absolutely unacceptable for an admin to engineer a phrase that would unnecessary hurt people even if the phrase has no colorful words and even if it does not formally violate the principle to comment on contributions not the contributors. I would dare say that in the phrase "useless twat" I am much more concerned with the word useless than with the word twat. Most of the Guy's replies here are examples of using colorful words but not personal attacks. Some might be (although I guess calling a person who delibeartely choose to behave as troll useless should not hurt his emotions. I guess we are better off by examining the situation more careful with Guy present rather than issuing blocks. I trust Durova to discuss it with Guy and to make a right decision. Alex Bakharev 05:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are different from incivility. For instance, while dismissing all ideas someone comes up with saying "**** those ideas" is not a personal attack, it's certainly incivil. Similarly, I wouldn't quite say anything he did constitutes a personal attack, but it does constitute incivility. Enough to block? I don't know. But personal attacks should be cause for aggressive blocking, period. -Amarkov _edits 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's space between "friendly and polite" and block-worthy incivility. If we couldn't tell someone "leave me alone" (viz., "fuck off") without the thought police breathing down our necks, then I for one would be out of here long ago. Guettarda 06:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Leave me alone" is substantially different from "**** off". Just because Misplaced Pages isn't censored doesn't mean swearing at someone is less offensive. -Amarkov _edits 06:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't "substantially different". Guettarda 06:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV's "Serious examples" includes "Profanity directed at another contributor." --Masamage 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, which would be "fuck you", not "fuck off". Quit Wiki-Lawyering. This is nonsense. Guettarda 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me some folks need to get a fucking life. Wiki isn't a fucking haven for the fucking language Nazi's and this fucking inane proccupation with "so and so huwt my poow widdle feelings" just shows how utterly divorced from fucking reality Wiki is. Personally, I think Wiki could use a nice case of occassional whoop-ass rather than concern over whether a troll's feelings are hurt, and a nice case of reality when ideas are simply baltently fucking stupid. So, that being said, I suppose Durova will want to block me next for actually speaking my mind. Go for it, I really don't care. Wiki at its worst is simply a nattering bunch of officious, pietistic (Wiki as religion) people worried far less about the declining content of the encylopedia and worried far more about creating the equivalent of a Utopian dictatorship. Just remember, Utopia means "nowhere" and Wiki in many cases exists in a netherworld far removed from the real world. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the aggression, but I'm not wiki-lawyering. I was offering a piece of information to see whether it had any bearing on the discussion; I think your point about the meaning of "directed at" is a good one, so now I'm satisfied. Go back to insulting people who don't agree with you. --Masamage 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

If admins are to have any authority in preventing the increasing coarseness of discourse here, we must begin with ourselves. However, as much as I respect Durova's opinion on nearly everything else, it's far too early to think about blocking. Some supportive conversation would be very nice, as would offering to shoulder some of Guy's burdens. I'd guess most admins become experts in recognizing and dealing with one or two particular trolls and/or disruptive editors (I have my share for sure). Eventually it wears you down, and I think Guy has taken on more than his share already, so maybe we should let Guy pass the baton on some of his least favorite. We should support him and lighten his load, as we should have done for MONGO months ago. Thatcher131 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all agree admins should not be blocked as they have been chosen by the community to be above Misplaced Pages's policies. This is the universal view. KazakhPol 06:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody likes a smartass. As a matter of interest, I started an admin misconduct RFC a while ago over violations of block policy that resulted in the admin voluntarily desysopping himself after a wave of negative responses to his behavior. I'm perfectly willing to take strong action at the appropriate time. This is not yet the time for strong action. Thatcher131 06:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the result of the long, drawn out, and heated (Template:Emot) debate is that we will wait to see how Guy reacts, and I am 99.999% sure he will make an apology. And then, let's just drop the whole matter, hmmm? (BTW, for the record, this is my 3000th edit.) Yuser31415 06:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen. --Masamage 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, "Nobody likes a smartass." If I had a dollar for every time my dad said that to me... anyway, It's a pretty simple thing, really:

1. Does ZisGuy sometimes shoot his mouth off? Well, prety much yes.
2. Does ZisGuy also work his arse off? Definately yes.
3. Does #2 make #1 ok? Anyone wanting to come right out and say that the rules are different for admins/hard workers/FAC writers? No, I thought not.

I've not seen the bordeline tetchyness JZ has demonstrated amount to any serious problem. Yet. Durova's heavy-handedcomments had the correct idea but were woefully handled. Can we all get back to work now, and deal with this iff it turns into a problem?

brenneman 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it. The rules are different for established contributors, not because they have a license to offend, but because we expect them to revert to form and because we know they're worth investing effort in.

Congrats to Durova for being bold, and for coming here for a san-check before acting. And agree with most of the above, blocks should be preventative, not punative. JDZ made a mistake. I'm confident he'll realise that and lower the temperature in future. If not, then maybe he should hand back his bit. But a punative block is the wrong way to express an opinion. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• If I understand what you're saying, does that mean that we don't accept bad behavior from these contributors, just that we (perhaps) handle it differently? - brenneman 07:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well put. Where a user's only contributions are negative, a perma-block solves the problem and doesn't cost us anything. Where a user is mostly good with some bad, a perma-block solves the problem, at great cost. A temporary block applied to halt a rampage is a thing of beauty. But a punative block doesn't solve anything, and probably costs us dearly. In this case, I expect him to be sensible. If not, well, there are other options. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also one of the admins who puts myself on the front line in terms of dealing with difficult editors. I wouldn't retain much credibility in asking them to be civil if I were uncivil myself or if I countenanced obscene put-downs from another administrator. The strongest thing I have going for me when I handle a hard case isn't the sysop tools: it's integrity. The central question I asked myself is If I saw exactly these words from an editor of equal value to the project who wasn't a sysop, what would I do? It's a tough call - some of you may disagree with it - and I trust that when Guy logs on he will quickly demonstrate through his inherent good sense that most of our worries are needless. And I have to add that the accusation I've acted punitively is a bit of an AGF foul. I thought people knew me better than that. Durova 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am loving the argument that it's not really rude to tell someone to fuck off. I'll remember that next time someone gets on my nerves. And by the way, Guy is southern English, as I am, and we don't really use "twat" for "vulva" much. It would translate into American as a slightly milder "asshole", I suppose. It wouldn't be very offensive. It has more of a flavour of silliness.

Durova should though be supported here (although no surprises that there is practically a queue forming not to). It's not acceptable for admins to display behaviour that others would be blocked for. They're not above the law. And if you can't deal with twats without telling them to fuck off, maybe giving up dealing with twats would be the best approach. Grace Note 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are punative blocks a useful way to deal with past incivility by anyone, admin or otherwise? I suspect it's like rubbing a puppies nose in 'it', useful if you can do it at the time but harmful if you do it long after the event. The message we want to send is "what you did was not acceptable." A bonus block doesn't help get that message through, IMHO, it distracts. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolitely. Did anyone notice the earlier discussion here and the open case at WP:PAIN? How many times are we going to discuss these issues? Double Jeopardy anyone? If we do it again and again maybe we can make a case for an indefinate block! Sheesh, Guy is clearly feeling it - he was highly active over the holidays and needs some support. Should he swear? No. Will Blocking him after he has left when the diffs have already been raised discussed and dismissed help? Hell no. Does he need some more support from his colleagues? Hell Yes. --Spartaz 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it that the bit of bad faith mud slung at me about punitive blocking still sticks after I already disavowed it? In the unlikely event that Guy logs on and claims he's perfectly right about telling people to fuck off and intends to continue...well then wouldn't it fall within the bounds of reason to impose a block preventatively before he actually does so again? Durova 07:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what in my edit was slinging mud? Do you really think that we need to discuss this three times? Would it be fair for a start? There are plenty of dispute resolution options available if Guy doesn't heed the request to cool the language down. But a block hours after the event when he isn't even logged in? Will that really help? I doubt it and I don't think that it would calm the situation down. Quite the opposite - we would have carnage if we went down that route without trying our very best to discuss the situation. You know how it works - wheelwarring, RFCs, RFArs everywhere. *Shudder* Spartaz 07:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The diffs date as far back as December 1 and happened mostly within the last week or so. Most of them either use the word fuck or call some specific editor an idiot. If anyone other than an administrator had posted the statements it would be uncontroversial to characterize this as an escalating pattern of incivility. Normally in such cases I would block shortly after verifying the evidence. I have not done so in this instance, nor is it appropriate to introduce wheel warring to this very hypothetical discussion. Your participation in this thread and at my user page has demonstrated very persistent bad faith against me and mischaracterized my actions to the extent that yes I do think it amounts to mudslinging. WP:AGF does not mean that my motives and methods are bad until proven legitimate. I made a tough call tonight regarding a sysop I admire and like, couched it in the most respectful terms I could muster, and disclosed the situation here immediately. Durova 08:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never posted on your talk page as far as I can remember and its not on my watchlist. Since you are throwing TLAs at me can I ask you where you have AGF with me? Making unfounded allegations of persistant bad faith against you by an editor is far more of a personal attack than what you charactarise as my mudslinging. Please review your post and check you have the right editor. You are completely overeacting to a comment that I don't think is wholly out of line with a significant pov posted in this thread. Blocking anyone without discussing the problem with them is inappropriate in pretty much every circumstance. If you asked Guy to tone it down and he told you fuck off then fair enough but not this so far. I think you are taking this far too personally. Its allowed to disagree - there is no need to get all offended. --Spartaz 08:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I posted that shortly before I went to bed and must have been more tired than I realized by that point. Durova 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough! This is completely out of line. Not only do we have a huge section of people now trying to get even with Guy but he hasn't yet had a chance to defend himself. Also, before all this biting at Guy began did you for one second consider the rampant bad faith of bringing this issue forward and the blatant disruption that this has caused by now? Those comments that Guy reacted to were completely out of line and he did the right thing. Showing up at WP:PAIN and launching a personal attack of the magnitude that this editor did should be more than enough reason for a good long block at least. End of story, nothing more to see here people. MartinDK 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My God... JzG remarked that someone may be "dismissed as a crank" and it spawned a giant thread started by a mildly offensive body part of a user that turned into a hunt through Guy's contributions for any other past transgressions. Amazing. Somebody has to deal with our twats. Wouldn't a message on JzG's talkpage to tone it down a little have sufficed? I find him quite reasonable. Grandmasterka 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I am appaled at the way things seem to be working here lately. As soon as a grup of disgruntled editors smell blood they hurl accusations and threats at an admin that works his fucking ass off around here. WP:JERRYSPRINGER MartinDK 07:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry everyone, I know that learning to deal with people you consider to be idiots is not optional but somewhere between the nth deletion of tenorically and fielding my fourth angry email from a spammer DEMANDING that he be allowed to continue adding links and articles about his company WHICH IS NOT SPAMMING AT ALL, I think I went over my personal threshold for the number of people-I-consider-to-be-idiots that I can handle simultaneously. My own fault for visiting the firehose of crap. Mind you, I'm not sure I can or should bowdlerise things - if someone does something as stupid as slapping a warning on an admin's talk page not do disrupt Misplaced Pages by disrupting their disruption of Misplaced Pages to prove a point to prove a point, I am almost certainly going to continue to say what I think. As anybody who knows me personally will readily tell you, that's my standard response to crass idiocy, even from my friends. Perhaps I should start ROT13ing things, like they do on Ye Shedde (uk.rec.sheds). I'm not going to address the diffs posted above, because I suspect that anybody who cares is not going to accept my version anyway. What was it that Cryptic said? Deals badly with trolls. Plus ça change, I guess.

All of which brings me back to a comment I made some days ago: we need, I think, a place where we can get peer support without the intervention of people trying to escalate or resurrect thier own disputes. Barberio, for example, had absolutely no call to stick his oar in to the situation with SlamDiego, all that did was to make a tense situation worse and distract people away from helping with that problem (where I could have used a bit of help, and fortunately Hipocrite came along to provide it) and into yet more low-grade Wikidrama. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point about past disputes. What is the correct procedure for handling things when you see an admin (not you in this case) several times over a few months step over the line, generating complaints, but each time managing to avoid showing genuine contrition, but responding in an aggressive "move on" style that discourages people from actually starting proceedings ("oh, it's not worth the hassle"-sort of thing), leading to things going quiet again until the next time?

There will always be a tension between letting sleeping dogs lie (not bringing up past disputes) and wanting to express concerns about a long-term pattern of behaviour that shows no signs of changing. What do you think is the best thing to do in cases like this? Carcharoth 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose RFC would be the correct procedure. ANI threads such as this are far too easily abused by people with an axe to grind, who simply repeat earlier disputes with the person in question even if they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. >Radiant< 11:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and well said. I love these kind of summaries which use no citations as they are cristal clear. -- Szvest - 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reaction to SlamDiego, as I had an encounter with him in which I was sorely tempted to block him. I think it is ridiculous that all this fuss is being made about how you handled a troll combative and disruptive editor. -- Donald Albury 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would, in fact, be perfectly happy to accept an apology for bad behaviour and a promise not to do it again. I have no vendetta against JzG, and he does do fine work, but he needs to know when to back off and go have a cup of tea. If you're worked up into a state where you're using foul language and ranting, you need to put down the keyboard. Unfortunately, comments to such were ignored, and my only recourse left was to file it on WP:PAIN and bring it to general attention.

I'm upset that he (And some others) seems to have decided I'm his enemy, I'm not. I was trying to get him to stop attacking people and escalating issues that could be resolved calmly. I'm sure he can so, and just needs to find that admin zen again.

I'm sure that it's all been impressed on JzG now, and if we can settle this with a simple agreement not to use foul language against editors, it's something we can all drop and walk away from. I mean JzG no harm, and don't want any putative actions taken on him, I just want us to be able to get on with editing the wiki in a calm civil way. --Barberio 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 nails it. This is MONGO all over again. The clear message is: take the crap, deal with the trolls and cranks, and if you ever, ever, speak out bluntly or profanely at the shit being shoveled, someone will scream "foul" and either block you or threaten to do so as a punitive measure - or in the case of MONGO, desysop you as a reward for having done so much, so long for Misplaced Pages that you are at the breaking point. Here's the bottom line: I call a troll a troll. I call a POV pusher a POV pusher. Accuracy is not incivility. Incredibly hard working admins who fight these idiots (Yes, I said idiots, I stand by that) who (the admins, not the idiots) occasionally slip under the strain should have a weighted response. If they have a ratio of 2,000 edits and actions which are civil and helpful to the encyclopedia, and 1 or 2 which are uncivil, to people who are of no or extremely little value to the encyclopedia, then reacting to that as though it were some kind of horror movie scene is Undue Weight. Hear me clearly: between the Giano situation, which is a case of one of the best writers here being driven to what appears to be a defensive running battle, by ADMINS no less - and the MONGO and now JzG situations, where admins have been driven to minor incivility by the sheer volume of crap they have to fight, and the response of a large portion of the community to respond with torches and stakes to the people who are driven to that point not the people who drove them there, I am beginning to doubt the basic common sense of some of the general Misplaced Pages population. What are you people thinking? Oh My God, someone said a BAD WORD to a vandal, troll, or POV pusher. Well, fuck, I guess we'll all have to go to Time Out and not get cookies. Apparently it is more important to Be Civil at all times than to work your ass off completely uncompensated and have the random moment where it gets to you. Focus, anyone? Perspective? I am not here to promote "Wiki-Love". I am not here to get my narrow, judgmental mind in a tizzy because someone used a Naughty Word. I am here to help with the enormous, challanging, exceptionally special group effort of creating the most amazing knowledge resouce since the Library of Alexandria. Ask yourself, Why the hell are you here? Perhaps you'd be happier on some online community preaching some kind of feel-good pretend pablum than here. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. KillerChihuahua 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Then let's make it official and put this into policy. If there truly is an exemption for valued users, it should be documented on the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policy pages. I'm being totally serious here - those policy pages are unambiguous in their condemnation of incivility, but the reality is: incivility is justified for certain editors, and that fact should be properly represented in policy. ATren 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? Then either you need to read again, or I was unclear. Punitive blocks for incivility are bullshit, and discussing matters with the editor is always preferred. Consistant crap will get one indef blocked, but occiasional crap does not. This is not a "special rule" this is applying the rules as they are currently written. What is so hard to understand about that? KillerChihuahua 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...and if that editor continues to act incivilly, then what? ATren 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Then there's still no call for someone to loudly and repeatedly pointing out the incivility, and spend an order of magnitude more text on that than the size of the actual incivility itself. We shouldn't go around blocking people who are beneficial to the 'pedia. >Radiant< 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But this is my point exactly: this sentiment (that some users should not be blocked for incivility) should be expressed in policy. The current uncompromising text of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA does not allow for exceptions, but that doesn't reflect the reality - which is that a casual editor would be indef blocked for habitual incivility, whereas valued contributors are given a pass. Note: I am not arguing for or against the practice here, only that the practice is in conflict with the stated policy. If the consensus is that there are exceptions to these policies, then those exceptions should be documented somewhere. ATren 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I actually find very little reference to blocking on either page. NPA refers to blocking for legal/death threats, and "in extreme cases" it is "controversial" for users to be blocked for disruption. CIV lists a few suggestions to prevent incivility, several of which are widely impractical and several of which involve blocking (now reworded). I'm not sure where the idea comes from that incivility/personal attacks must in all or most cases be dealt with by blocking, because neither page says so. >Radiant< 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, it's covered by ignore all rules. If the rules hamper the work of building the encyclopaedia (for example by preventing Giano from contributing good content), then we can safely ignore them. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Anyway, it's covered by ignore all rules. If the rules hamper the work of building the encyclopaedia (for example by preventing Giano from contributing good content), then we can safely ignore them. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like your way of thinking because it seems to presume that Guy and MONGO are somehow incapable of self-restraint. Granted they do a lot of good work dealing with editors who frustrate and annoy and attack them. Why does this cause them to use pointlessly inflammatory language like "fuck off" and "useless twat"? If you've ever worked retail then you've stood at a similar "firehose of crap" and probably not told anyone to "fuck off" (which would get you fired). In my view any normal person is capable of this sort of self-restraint. And it would be nice to see everyone use it. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point here to all the people getting upset about "idiots" and "trolls". Why let "idiots" and "trolls" upset you so much? They are, as you say, idiots and trolls. Trolls will be pleased that you are getting upset, and idiots will, well, not really care or understand. Pity the idiots and trolls and dispassionately and calmly block them, rather than ranting and raving at them. POV pushers are another matter, and, in my opinion, a greater threat to Misplaced Pages, but they are being serious, so treat them seriously and civilly and defend balanced, well-written articles. Carcharoth 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruption is disruption and is just as detrimental to writing an encyclopedia as POV pushers are. Everyone should remain civil as much as possible but we only human, and if someone is being trolled to death, Misplaced Pages then becomes just a battleground for them. I am not aware of all JzG has been dealing with, but no doubt, it is very difficult to understand who disruptive editors can make almost anyone become a bit off center in their remarks until they experience it first hand. I don't condone incivility, but in examining it should be noted that, Misplaced Pages users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action. Now, again, what JzG needs is polite reminders to remain civil...and he also needs opur support if he is indeed dealing with a constant barrage of harassment...or even if he is simply dealing with a little harassment.--MONGO 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good in theory, difficult in practice. People screaming at you, taunting, mocking...the reason people do it is because it works. Guettarda 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just have to say something here (speaking in general and not in direct response to this thread), I don't see what place swearing at someone has in a serious effort to write and maintain an encyclopedia. Swearing at someone (even someone whose sole purpose is to troll) just enflames the person and gives at least some onlookers the impression that that's an acceptable way to interact with people. It's unproductive all the way around. Blockable? No, but admins have all the tools they need to deal with disruptive editors, how is being aggressively hostile to a disruptive editor going to make them less disruptive? And in the meantime, borderline editors and newcomers will see that there's a place for hostile incivility here, which is a message I don't think we want to send. Rx StrangeLove 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I said it as a reviewer on PAIN, and I'll say it here: JzG's conduct was unacceptable for a sysop, and he needs to be reminded to maintain the decorum expected of the Misplaced Pages administration. If he cannot conduct himself appropriately, he is negatively affecting the environment here on Misplaced Pages, and should surrender his status. If he can, well then all's well that ends well. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'll say it plainly - people who are discussing blocking, or desysoping JzG for calling a disruptive and worthless contributor a twat are busybodies who should review Matthew 7:5. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about being part of the problem, you try being part of the solution? Incivility, especially towards those trying to resolve a situation, is divisive and unnecessary. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough, that was where we came in. Do you honestly think I react like that when not provoked? It takes a fair bit of effort to get me angry, but one or two individuals seem to have made it a project to see how rude and aggressive they can be before I bite back. As games go it's not a particularly constructive one. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Try to decrease the "temperature" of a situation - not increase it. Sysops should be examples of expected conduct on Misplaced Pages, and as such, breaches of policy by a sysop are more concerning than those of a normal editor. As such, I feel that you should be reminded to keep such decorum. Do I think you should be desysopped or blocked, or, oh I don't know, tarred and feathered? No. You made a mistake when provoked, all I'm asking is you learn from it :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Atren

So, as I read this thread, it seems there is consensus that a certain amount of incivility is permitted as long as (a) you have a lot of edits to your credit and (b) you were provoked. Can we make it more clear in policy that incivility is permitted under these circumstances? Because the policy pages seem very clear that it is not permitted under any circumstances, and the reality seems to be not so clear cut. All I'm saying is when an editor visits WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and sees these idealistic, uncompromising statements about personal attacks and civility, they get the impression that these are inviolable rules that can never be broken, when it's clear that WP:IAR applies to civility. I think we should qualify those policies to soften the stance somewhat (especially WP:NPA which is especially uncompromising) to reflect the reality not promote the false ideal. ATren 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have told ATren in no uncertain terms that he was to stop needling JzG over this issue. As you may or may not know, ATren is in a protracted dispute with JzG over the article on Personal Rapid Transit, and is transparently using this time of high Wikistress for JzG to attempt to make his experience here worse. I told ATren in no uncertain terms to stop this reprehensible behavior twice -> , and . As demonstrated directly above, he has decided to ignore my strongly worded advice. I suggest an adminstrator take appropriate corrective action to protect one of our most valuable editors and adminstrators in his time of need from ATren's desire to hurt people he has had disputes with. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to hurt anybody. I simply presented evidence on a user with which I have a contentious history. Durova clearly stated that she thought this was an isolated incident, and I replied that it was not, with diffs. Is that stalking?

And now I've made comments that the policy is at odds with consensus here. Policy is unswerving in condemning incivility, but consensus is obviously not so clear. It's clear that a certain amount of incivility is permitted for valuble contributors. So the policy is at odds with practice, and that should be resolved. That's it.

Frankly, I would find it quite ironic if I were blocked for simply reporting incivility here. I'm sure if I were involved in a conflict with another editor, JzG would not hesitate to chime in with his views. Why am I called a stalker for simply presenting evidence? I should point out that I'm not the first to question JzG's incivility, and in fact I didn't even start any of the recent threads. Why am I being singled out? ATren 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

2nd arbitrary section break

If your history consists mostly of vandalism or disruption, then calling someone a "twat" or telling them to "fuck off" should earn a well-deserved block. On the other hand, if you're a hard-working, productive contributor who makes the same comment in a moment of weakness when the Wikistress level hits DefCon 1, then a gentle word-to-the-wise should suffice. Actions should be viewed in context - why else are edit histories public? This is not a "double standard"; it's common sense. Policies actually reflect this - neither WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL specify a punishment (except for egregious cases), but leave that to the discretion of the community. By the same token, Durova is a valued, hard-working, and scrupulously fair editor who's trying to do what s/he thinks is right, by bringing the issue here; going after Durova is also uncalled for. Let's give Guy a chance to cool off; based on his history here, he's earned it, and will learn from this incident. Just my 2¢. MastCell 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Meh. I'm cool enough now, although I nearly went ballistic after reading Barbiero's sanctimonious bullshit about me having decided he's my enemy - I don't think I'm the one following someone around and stirring up trouble in his interactions with others. He's attacked Nick, Dmcdevit, me and now Radiant - if that carries on he's set to attack one admin too many, and we know where that will end up. I updated the disclaimer on my Talk page anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*shrug* I'm not attacking you, Nick, Dmcdevit or Radiant. I'm asking for some civil behaviour and responsibility, and I hope we can try to get along. I'm trying not to act in a hostile way to you, but making accusations of stalking and using phrases like "sanctimonious bull" make it hard to.

It should not be such a big thing for a well intentioned established editor to ask an admin to moderate their language, or check potentially controversial actions with others before proceeding. Constant review by others is the way the wiki works, this includes admin actions and behaviours. Frankly, I'm confused by some of the admin who are professing otherwise. --Barberio 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reads to me like JzG has decided to ignore you and you're desperate for acceptance. I reccomended you walk away before - I triple reccomend that now. Trust me, you are earning nothing but poop. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Countdown timer

Is there any way someone could glance at Countdown timer? It sure reads like advertising to me, but the creator keeps removing speedy delete tags on it. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong, but think it needs someone else's eyes on it at this point. 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Gwernol for the help! Philippe Beaudette 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tarinth

Tarinth (talk · contribs)'s contributions are almost totally !votes on AfDs. And the !votes I have read (about ten in the past ten minutes) are practically nothing but bizarre. Before I start throwing templates or criticisms at him/her, am I totally off base here? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a polite note that one's AFD contributions are likely to be taken more seriously if it's not one's only contributions to the project? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. The quality of the argument is the main thing, not the quality or quantity of the 'voters'.

At a quick glance, some of the comments are a bit harsh, but the few I looked at were superficially resonable. Any particular contribution(s) that worry you? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This one caused me to sit up and take notice. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems to have been an exception, an attempt to express a close call decision humorously. This more recent Afd Tarinth participated in reasonably constructively: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Iowa_Electronic_Markets, and this one quite constructively, actually improving the article under consideration: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Argument_from_beauty. Tarinth isn't quite up on our fine points (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nick Cater) but seems to be making a good faith effort. AnonEMouse 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, this feedback is why I brought this here. I appreciate the input. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page is hacked

Telletubbies. HighInBC 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now it is really nasty.HighInBC 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? Diff links please? --Cyde Weys 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:POTD image/2007-01-05 was briefly vandalized. FOUR main page templates were left unprotected for 45 minutes. Congratulations to the sysop who caused this mess. --- RockMFR 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The sysop didnt protect it so the vandal could put the pictures. duh 121.6.103.249 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... please stop. People make mistakes; we don't need the sardonic remarks. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed and blocked. This was the edit: . He later changed the image: . Go !vote for ProtectionBot. Also, if you're a Commons admin, go delete this (WARNING, GRAPHIC). I'll open a CU request asking for the entire ISP to be blocked. --Slowking Man 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am prepared right now to start running ProtectionBot as soon as it is flagged. Several of the Bots Approval Group wanted to see the code, so that is where we are right now. Also, they generally seem to feel it should have its own RFA before being given sysop rights. Dragons flight 02:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The RFA doesn't appear to be necessary. Just ask for a bureaucrat to flag it on WP:AN. Or run it on your admin account for now and run it through RFA if you must. But this is critical enough that we don't need to wait for all of this unnecessary bureaucratic process. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even if a 'crat won't flag it without an RfA, just run it as a "script" on your account - no-one's going to complain (or, they won't if they've got any understanding of the distruptioon which goes on). Martinp23 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, Dragons flight. If you're certain that the script is performing as intended, just run it on your account for the time being. Addressing this issue is far more important than dotting every "i" and crossing every "t." This is a textbook application of WP:IAR. —David Levy 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When calling for Commons attention, please post to the Commons AN (more likely for a commons sysop to be able to do something about it then.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The POTD templates for tomorrow will probably be forgotten again as there doesn't seem to be anyone monitoring them. --- RockMFR 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that bot should run. Can't those POTD images be protected in advance? It's not as if non-admins need to edit them anyway. - Mgm| 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I went through the list of unprotected template sent to me by shadowbot2. I did not list Template:POTD image/2007-01-05, but listed Template:POTD protected/2007-01-05, which I checked to be sure it was protected. What happened? Why was one shown on the bot list, and another used? HighInBC 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Spacetimefilms

Spacetimefilms (talk · contribs) added a couple of articles on films. You'll never guess the name of the production company... Guy (Help!) 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it Columbia Pictures? :3—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed indef block of User:Nkras

Nkras was indef blocked by Zscout370, and several editors are requesting a review of the block. The relevant talk pages are User talk:Nkras, User talk:Coredesat, and User talk:Zscout370. — coelacan talk — 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To simplify, Nkras was asked not to repost content from an article called Traditional marriage, which was deleted via an AFD. While the deletions of the reposted content were by Coredesat, I was the one who did the block. I chose an indefinite block because of one of the summaries Nkras used to recreate the content. The summary, as repasted at User_talk:Zscout370#Nkras.27_block, felt like taunting and refuse to listen to consensus. He was blocked before, though it was retracted some time later by that same admin. I feel that it was his intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages by reposting the content, and with his recreation statement, I felt that he would have caused more harm than good. User:Zscout370 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

i've taken it to ArbCom. Zscout370 made very clear he wasn't changing his mind and i, for one, don't want to waste my breath with him. we don't need to kneel down and beg admins to just act like decent people. we don't need to beg them at all. they need to take their role as servants of the project more seriously than that. i dunno how long Zscout has been an admin, but i'll bet he likes power and tossing it around. r b-j 05:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the requests for arbitration page. The Arbitration Committee will not consider this matter until earlier stages in dispute resolution are exhausted. This discussion is the appropriate place at which a consensus on this block should be reached. I will add that while the block appears harsh, personal attacks on the blocking administrator do not advance the discussion. Newyorkbrad 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite a jump there, going from a block that you disagree with to complete assumption of bad faith and personal attacks. POV forks are bad. Immediately recreating them after they are rightfully deleted (AfD here) is bad and reeks of intentional disruption and violation of consensus. If the user has no history of this, then okay, shortening the block might be acceptable; however, my understanding is that is not the case here and in fact the user had been blocked for POV pushing before. Where is the evidence that they are here to build an encyclopedia consistent with our goals? I don't see it. —bbatsell ¿? 05:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My (now deleted) summary of the matter is at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Nkras&oldid=98587038#Overreaction.3F — coelacan talk — 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That + the responses from the blocked party pretty much sums up and ends the matter in my book. Unless there's something big I've missed in reviewing this, I firmly endorse the block. —bbatsell ¿? 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that the indefinate block is an excessive time period. User:Nkras has a strong opinion on the subject of marriage and what is the definition of marriage. I came to article when a WP:RFPP was placed granting full protection and later removed that same protection after discussions on the article talk page had taken place. During those discussions Nkras was an active participant but he was also able to agree to a IMHO reasonible compromise see this discussion. Whist a block for his actions were necessary IHMO is that a short term block to enable him to consider his actions would have been sufficient. Additionally Arbcom set a precedent of restricted editing to other editors who have strong opinions than Nkras which should also be considered like at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy with User:Raphael1. Gnangarra 07:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am Strongly Oppose this indefinite block. I was one of the users who was both affected by (and highly irritated by) his contentious edits. However, the fact remains that he was the principal author of the compromise reached about the opening section of the Marriage article. He drafted the text that now stands, with input of several other editors. It is a classic example of how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Yes, he has made several mistakes in his time at Misplaced Pages, but he has learned from them, and I have seen him grow. As to his recreation of the traditional marriage article, as has already been pointed out, it was substantially different from the article that was deleted. While the admins who acted against the recreation may not have known this, it goes a long way towards clarifying his intentions, and his frustration at seeing it deleted once again. I would like to add that this entire situation has been highly stressful for many editors here. One user has already left the project due to the block of Nkras, and I am considering leaving myself. I urge you to rescind this block, which is causing more damage than it was supposed to prevent. Jeffpw 10:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• While I fully endorse this block, its duration seems to me too harsh. Nkras has only one previous block, and it was lifted only one hour later. He's not a persistent troblemaker, and block no longer than a week is appropriate in this case, IMO. MaxSem 11:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Per Maxsem. While I fully endorse this block, an indef is a bit much. Give him a week off and make it absolutely clear to this fellow that "Consensus" is absolutely vital and that we must stick by it. What is more, also make it clear to him that DRV exists for a reason. Though an indef is a bit much, this editor's conduct sticks badly in the craw. Moreschi 11:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The block was totally appropriate, especially given the edit summary for the recreation and the statement "I will not agree to any "consensus"". I fully endorse the block. Zscout should not be in any way sanctioned for what i deem to be a perfectly appropriate block of a user who specifically stated they will ignore concensus achieved and judged upon by a neutral administrator at AfD, and go and recreate an article after specifically being told not to (but rather to go to DRV) three times! However, I would agree to an unblock in a week's time or so, on the provision that if he recreates the content, or acts disruptively in any form related to Zscout, Cored. or any other editor involved, he is blocked indef. Daniel.Bryant 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you on two points: no sanctions against Zscout370 (it was one, isolated overreaction in good faith) should be taken, and that when an if Nkras will be unblocked, his next action against consensus should result in indef or something close to that. But even such incivil and stupid comment as the one you've quoted shouldn't result in indef with no serious violations in background. MaxSem 12:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think this could be put down to a series of unfortunate events. I don't think Zscout's reaction could be accurately described as an "overreaction"; it was more the fact that he might have seen a bunch of edits that screamed "indef" at him, and missed all the good stuff. It's why we have WP:AGF, and I think Zscout is entitled to a lot of it, and Nkras a little bit as well :) Also, see Mangojuice's comment below - he sums up the distinction between "indefinite" and "infinte" quite nicely; this misunderstanding is probably cause for most angst. Daniel.Bryant 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Zscout acted correctly on the information available, whats happening here is an act of good faith from those that have interated with Nkras knowing that once the initial heat is removed from the action he's capable of reaching a consensus. With this knowledge the community wants to extend to Nkras the opportunity to again participate as such I think an appropriate warning to Nkras that further such actions wont be tolerated and that the indefinated block will be reimpossed if he repeats such actions. Gnangarra 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I fully endorse Zscout's decision to indefinitely block. The user in question has disrupted Misplaced Pages and has made statements that he will continue to do so. Remember that an "indefinite" block is not an "infinite" one -- if Nkras changes his attitude the situation could change. But until then, I see no reason to allow him to return to editing after time off -- time seems unlikely to settle his behavior. Mangojuice 12:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly summed up - this distinction (indefinite != infinte) is probably the cause of all the angst in this dispute. Another perfect example, from 5mins ago, is here. Daniel.Bryant 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How does Nkras demonstarte a change in attitude without being able to edit? Gnangarra 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Emails and talk page discussions (assuming his talk isn't protected) saying that he will not be disruptive would show a good faith attempt at a change in attitude. Oh and agree with Mangojuice and Daniel Bryant (and assumedly Zscout) that indef != ban. Its amazingly simple to shorten a block if assurances to stop disruptive actions are forthcoming. Syrthiss 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed Nkras, and urged him to email Zscout to discuss this block and how to have it removed. And to paraphrase what was stated above, if we as a community are to assume good faith on the part of administrators, I would hope that admins can extend the same courtesy to new users who are still learning how the Wiki process works. Jeffpw 13:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

While I fully respect the decision to block any user with repeated disruptive edits on "hot" topics that claim to "ignore consensus". However, I cannot help but feel that a few things were a little off with the way it happened. First, ZScout said at the RfA discussion that the user's eit summaries were "taunting the admins". I've got the feeling that Nkras's edits were not the main reason why ZScout blocked him, but more because he refused to respect the admin's "authority". Then, the "consensus" citation is off context, as Nkras was making a very good point, per WP:IAR. Furthermore, while I like the technicity and poetry of the infinite/indefinite disambiguation, it not fair to the blocked user (nor is it textually correct: "Infinite block" wouldn't apply to its duration, but to all its aspects, so it couldn't apply here): There is a reason why we have 24h, 1weekand 2 weeksblocks. Else we could just indefblock everyone and be done with it. An indefblock makes a user feel at the mercy of the first admin. That's good sometimes: some people need to understand that there is a regulation mechanism here; but right now it's a tad too much.

Now, I'd like everyone to understand me real good: I don't like that guy, and if after his 1 week block and some good explanations about why there are talk pages he went back to disruptive edits, commentsand summaries, and then was bloocked indefinitely, I'd be more than happy. But after a short block to let him browse the policies and guidelines, and make his own mind as to wether he wants to be a part of this or not. Not before. Thanks for reading.--SidiLemine 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

<< I've got the feeling that Nkras's edits were not the main reason why ZScout blocked him, but more because he refused to respect the admin's "authority". >>

That's assumption of bad faith without a shred of evidence. In fact, he wasn't going against the authority of administrators, he was going against the authority of the community. WP:IAR does not apply to violating consensus (<< I will not agree to any "consensus" >>), it applies to skipping unnecessary and inapplicable process. —bbatsell ¿? 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the indef block of Nkras. He is not a bumbling newbie. He appears to be an upholder of 'absolute truth', which explains his refusal to accept consensus. As such, he is unlikely to accomodate himself to the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, where, after all, verifiability comes before 'truth'. -- Donald Albury 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree, Donald. Nkras has been here for exactly 2 months, and of his 289 edits, only 76 are to articles themselves. The vast majority are on various talk pages, which doesn't really give one experience in consensus building or constructive editing. In my eyes, he is relatively new, and deserves a chance to learn from his mistakes. Jeffpw 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Being unlikely to accomodate" doesn't mean he won't. Unblocking the guy after a week, and watching him closely won't cost much. If he really is the absolute truth upholder you say he is, it won't take two hours after that to ban him once and for good. Oh, and verifiability is not consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by $yD! (talk • contribs) SidiLemine (UTC)
      • I think part of the issue here is that some of you don't have the perspective admins have. I have had the experience in the past of giving a user the benefit of the doubt and trying to monitor their behavior. Several times, in fact. I've learned to be conservative because, let's face it, the upside to any one editor being honestly involved in the project is usually small, but there's a very big downside to disruptive ones. A couple examples that spring to mind are User:Hurricane Devon and User:Aquafish, that I was personally involved in. The truth is, one admin watching closely means that they have to divert a good portion of their attention, and be on-wiki 24/7, and spend a lot of time analyzing borderline behavior, agonizing aboud whether to reblock, possibly discussing with other admins, whereas that time could be spent much more productively if the user was simply blocked. Mangojuice 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse this block. shows complete contempt for Wiki ways in the face of some very patient explanations of how to go about this the right way. No angry mastodons, thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

While I am the first to admit he was at times obstructive and contentiopus in his edits on the MArriage article, the diff above gives a distorted picture of events there. This diff and this one and last one here clearly show he was working quite collegially with other editors after tempers had died down. Please try to show a complete picture of his editing on Misplaced Pages, and not only negative examples. Jeffpw 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on process. One of things that bothered me about this dispute and the reason for my limited involvement, was that User:Nkras was given no explanation by the blocking admin of the unblock procedure. I would hope that the subject of such sanction would always have it explained to them at the time how they can have the decision reviewed. I wonder if there are any thoughts on this point? As to the block itself- yes, an indef block does seem rather long. But given that Nkras has not in his later posts to his talk page expressed regret for his disruption or an undertaking not to disrupt in the same manner again, I recognise that he gives little reason to trust him. WJBscribe  16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Didn't he change his ways even before being blocked? Anyway, I think I can say that we have reached a consensus that while a block is in order, an indefblock is too much. Now we probably should decide upon the reasonable length the block should have. I personally think one week is enough. --SidiLemine 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Support for SidiLemine's compromise block, with the proviso that Nkras is put on some sort of monitoring/mentoring restriction. Jeffpw 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. Theresa Knott has asked for Nkras to clarify his future behavior, let's start there. Mangojuice 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, we all know this is not a vote. This is a discussion of whether this indefinite block was appropriate or not, and an attempt to reach consensus about what should be done. As such, my support of SidiLemine's attempt at a solution was appropriate. Please don't be pedantic. Jeffpw 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Peace. Mangojuice does make a totally valid point. Until Nkras has clarified how he intends to conduct himself in future there really is no way of determining how long a block is appopriate. If he says, "I will do everything in my power to undermine this scocially left institution," he prob shouldn't be unblocked. If he says, "I am very sorry and promise to always work towards concensus constructively in future," a shorter block might be appropriate. Without his response the discussion is slightly hypothetical. WJBscribe  17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Blocks are preventive, a credible commitment to no further disruption would likely be persuasive in an unblock request. That said, the block is warranted due to the statements made. So. See what happens, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Herein lies the problem with editors, editing articles they have strong personal feelings about... I agree with what Mangjuice said above. Based on Nkras's statments in some of the diffs provided above he appears ready to embark on some tenditious editing in regards to this topic. I'd like to see him submit a request for block review or comment on his userpage committing to working on a consensus instead of editing in a way that could be seen as disruptive or WP:POINT-making. the ArbCom is premature. I don't see any evidence RfM or RfC was ever pursued here. We have those for a reason.--Isotope23 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. Is he aware that he should state that helearned, and won't do it again? And slightly off-topic, isn't therea risk in these kind of situations that the guy just understands he got banned, and doesn't even come back to check his talk page? Just asking. We also have block warning templates for a reason. --SidiLemine 17:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • He has edited numerous times since the block; in my opinion, the tone of those edits is not at all an improvement and more clearly delineates his role as a POV warrior. Check his contribs. Plus, he was blocked for POV pushing once before; that's about as big a block warning template as you can get. He apparently expressed enough regret to get CanadianCaesar to unblock him before the block was to expire, but he went right back to it only a few days later. —bbatsell ¿? 17:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Plus, there are pointers to this discussion and the WP:RFAR on his talk page. Just because he's blocked doesn't mean he can't read those discussions. Mangojuice 18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Nkras posted on his talk page, stating that during a block of two weeks, he will study up on policy. I am pretty much fine with that because it shows that Nkras has made error and is making some effort to fix it. I am not sure what policies that Nkras should read other than WP:NPOV and Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy, since those are the two core issues. What do yall think? User:Zscout370 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell no lie

User:Tell no lie repeatedly reverts to unacceptable content on the Reuben Singh article. The user simply keeps re-inserting the same manifestly inappropriate text (violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP), each time with the same edit summary (one that violates WP:AGF), and refuses repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither friendly suggestions nor vandalism warnings on User talk:Tell no lie have had any effect. I reported the problem at WP:AIV, but an admin there considered it to be beyond the WP:AIV jurisdiction, and removed the entry.

The user generally shows up every few days to do the reversion, so a 24-hour block might not even be noticed until it's over, but it might send a message before we do a longer block. JamesMLane t c 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for WP:BLP violations. This person really does seem unlikely to be reformable, but if he acknowledges fault on his talk page, then by all means he should be unblocked. Morwen - Talk 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Athelete arrests

Just wanted to get more eyes watching this, as it's starting to get absurdly bogged down in disruption, sockpuppetry, vandal removal of other users' comments, etc. Postdlf 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NLP update - Some COI issues and reluctance of some editors to get along (and some positive points)

Hi all. Recent notifications concerning the NLP article have covered promotional obscuring of views (suppression of information ) and users of a known COI editing the article To be found under "Comaze" Under "NLP article specific examples of promotional obscuring of facts and relevant views" . An admin has already civilly explained the situation to those above editors . Also Cleanup taskforce has asked for a serious cleanup of the article - including reducing redundancy and making the debate more concise and contained . Efforts to balance views emphasizing the concept seem to be getting ignored -

"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview."

Some editors have been persistently trying to suppress core information from the opening and these tend to be the ones reluctant to get along with those of a different view , ,

,,

There is still a misuse of argumentative words to avoid. There is no need at all for the argumentative or debate word "however" in the line yet they insist. . Their behaviour seems to me to be highly unconstructive considering the assessment of the CleanupTaskforce.

Editors have been ignoring efforts to make the article more concise (without obscuring views), by physically distancing the discussion on the article - and by removing it completely from discussion .

There is some evidence of editors with known COI making odd edits on other articles .

On the positive side - there are fewer edits per day (usually less than 40). A lot of the problem was caused by the plus 50 eds per day which has led to an oversized article. The CleanupTaskforce has given helpful instructions to make the article more concise and to clarify what NLP is about. I don't see any particular problem long term and I'm fairly sure editors will come round to the idea that editors of different views are supposed to try to get along. Once they properly discuss the suppression of information policy I'm sure a win-win can be achieved. Trolling - sockuppetry - and meatpuppetry don't seem to me to be an issue. I believe the main point is to encourage editors of various views to work together collaboratively and civilly in the long term. AlanBarnet 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All other editors on the NLP page are in agreement that AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is either a sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown or he is equally bad. At least two more independent users on his talk page have identified him as a sockpuppet also. However, even in his own right, this new user has exhausted all patience with his disinformation, distortion, and lies (much of which continues above). This is his third WP:AN/I notice about content disagreement. A block has been requested before. 58.178.142.37 07:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello user 58.178.142.37. The editors you mention all seem to be keen on obscuring key views or at the very least they are all reluctant to make clear concise statements of each view. I've provided edits and discussion recently and on multiple prior occasions and encouraged discussion concerning getting along and making sure that each view is concisely summarized to the best of each view. Rather than discussing or adjusting my edits - others have tried to either marginalize the discussion or in your case - delete my edits altogether without discussion on a regular basis - call me a troll with venom - and restore argumentative debate into the article. I believe that most would see your actions as unreasonable. I havn't tried to cut away - reduce- or obscure any of the sourced NLP views. You and others seem to have obscured the views of science either by removing them from the lead - reduce them so they become obscure - add undue argument - or cover them with nonrelevant information. All the article needs is to present the subject of NLP with each view summarized so that it becomes clear to the reader. This can all be done without excess size and it can be done civilly. This is not a content disagreement. Its about COI - obscuring key views - getting along- and a simple enough NPOV solution. AlanBarnet 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• It has been asserted by others that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown. I would not like to call that, since at least some of the motivation for the assertion seems to be that he is pushing the scientific mainstream view of NLP in that article. Previously the article was under mediation; maybe it needs to be again. My understanding is that HeadleyDown was less calm and less polite than AlanBarnett. I have no personal knowledge of HeadleyDown, though. There is abundant evidence of conflict of interest in the pro-NLP camp, and they definitely dominate editing of that article. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am convinced that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown not because of the views he/she pushes), but from his/her well-documented pattern of behaviour (btw, personally I would tend to be more on the anti-NLP side). Jbhood 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:I Wear Two Shoes

New account created today which immediately proceeded to nominate several articles on wrestlers for deletion. I am 99.9% sure this is a reincarnation of the banned user JB196, since this is the same approach as made by User:CDlatch245, another confirmed reincarnation, yesterday. I have reverted away his {{prod}} notices with the note that I will not object if someone else puts them back on, and also tagged some of his AFD nominations for deletion. Can someone who (still) has admin tools please intervene here? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The methodology taken by this vandal (if it is the same one) is alarming, insidious and highly damaging to WP. The fact that most of us (me included) know nothing (and probably don't give a stuff) about Australian wrestling only makes it more dangerous, as it catches well-intentioned editors off-guard. It certainly caught me on the Billy Blaze AfD. It's very clever, deleting all the notability from the article before Afd tagging. This needs to be stamped on, quickly please admins. --Dweller 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nick has blocked the account. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is an over-active chinese dude on IRC who alerted and helped me revert the d00d's edits and speedy the AfDs that were created. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not Chinese, damnit!—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the various admins for taking prompt action. You're the guys in the white hats and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. --Dweller 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Concur with Dweller. Thanks for the help. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• See Also: MusicqueenEr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Tevildo 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sighs. Whack-a-mole. Lovely. I already sent one abuse report (not through WP) for JB's previous sockpuppetry/disruption.. should we go for WP:ABUSE next? Or is that not possible because we can't confirm the underlying IP without a RfCU, and it's not for fishing..... SirFozzie 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Stanley port

New account that has made about 100 edits in the last 3 days all to his own commercial painting selling site . In spite of warnings he has continued doing so. This user needs to be blocked. Arnoutf 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done already (thanks to a report at WP:AIV). Kusma (討論) 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Arnoutf 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

User:71.80.36.167, User:71.80.39.173, User:24.151.175.18 and 160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of banned User:Scottfisher / User:Scott_fisher; as may be User:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, since Image:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. See User_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.36.97 (talk • contribs)

• I have blocked for a month User:71.80.39.173 and User:24.151.175.18. The other two anonims have not edited for months. User:Patty_rising is quite possibly also a sock: they edited the same articles (e.g. Image:Popper.JPG or Rick Stuart but I cannot find a positive proof. Can you refer me to the previous name of Image:Popper.JPG? Alex Bakharev 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Probably 'John Popper of Blues Traveler.JPG'; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Popper&diff=25080124&oldid=24924681. BTW, both of those you blocked resolve to Charter Communications. See

Block review

I have indefinitely blocked Huansohnrecordz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continuously uploading images without source or copyright information. Since November, this user has uploaded 100 images all of which have been, or will soon be, deleted. The user has no contributions outside of these images. If you look at his contribution log, there's maybe 3-4 things in there and its his current uploads that haven't been deleted it. He's never actually used these in articles as far as I can tell. I post this here for block review. Metros232 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ehhhhh... Maybe he needs a human warning explaining things to him? An indefblock without a non-bot warning seems a bit stiff. Maybe a short block with an explanation (to keep him from uploading today), and then monitor the account to see if he keeps up? And then block away. -- Merope 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with the indefblock, perhaps with an added note about how to use {{unblock}}. The account had 6x10^23 botwarnings with no indication of reaction. I'd rather the user have to go and email or post an unblock than have to discover in 2 more months another 100 images to be deleted. Syrthiss 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. What Syrthiss said. -- Merope 14:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As a disinterested observer in this matter, I would like to support Syrthiss'above comment. I think the {{unblock}} should be presented as a matter of course to users who are being given an indef block, since many are relatively new users who may not be aware of what recourse they have. Jeffpw 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I brought this here. In many situations, I would have gone Merope's route: given one final warning. However, it was the lack of contributions outside of the images that led me to this block. If he was attempting to improve the encyclopedia with the images and was just misguided with the licensing, that's one thing, but since he's just uploading for no real purpose, I went the block route. Metros232 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on unblocking at User_talk:Huansohnrecordz#Blocked. Thanks for the input. Metros232 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I go with the unblock remarks; a new editor who just doesn't what he is doing may get blocked indefinitely (no argument there) and confuse it with infinitely. Giving the unblock reference shows the difference. Arnoutf 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a while back that we include {{unblock}} instructions in the standard block notice templates, but was shouted down. I still think it can't hurt. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

{{vblock}} includes such instructions, but it's a vandalism-specific template. When I can remember, I try to use that or include a note after the template with instructions, if I use a standard template at all. Knowledge of {{unblock}} is crucial. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to mention the {{unblock}} option. But seriously, blocking this user was much better than giving another warning. 51 weren't enough, so I sincerely doubt 52 would have been. And users who don't care about copyright issues can create Ginormous Messes. Mangojuice 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, MediaWiki:Blockedtext, the page displayed to visitors on the receiving end of a block, already contains explicit information for appeals, including {{unblock}}. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One more block review

I've just indef blocked this vandalism-only account of Whatno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Szvest - 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't even really need a review, FayssalF. Good riddance to a waste of pixels. I've also speedied his two vandalism images he uploaded. Syrthiss 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think deleted makes more sense as a verb than speedied (sorry, minor grammatical annoyance). --Cyde Weys 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Visionary Brazilian kid

13-year-old user Will-Martins was blocked indef for creating a pool of vanity articles which included Willian Neiva (documenting his movie stardom up to 2008), and his movies Thiago and the Cousins, Jake is going to field and The Life Zac :the Series. Despite the warnings, he persistently kept creating and recreating these vanity articles and moving his user pages to the main space. More importantly, he edited valid articles such as List of Disney Channel Original Movies and Disney Channel to include his fabrications , sometimes almost imperceptibly amid other valid entries (try to locate Willian Gustavo Neiva in this diff). After being blocked, he now returned under a new account Raven gnm and created Thiago and the Cousins /Jake is going to the field which was speedy deleted by Voice of All. He's also continuing to add his phony movies to List of Disney Channel Original Movies with his IP 201.78.63.184. Since he doesn't seem to be willing to put an end to this trend, I recommend his IP to be blocked indef and account creation prevented.--Húsönd 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problemos. -- Szvest - 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure about indef for an IP, let's see if a week is enough that he gets the message. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I had never recommended an IP to be blocked indef before but the circumstances here might make that the only solution, or at least an account creation block as the IP alone would be easy to monitor. Otherwise I believe that he'll be creating more accounts and damage valid articles with his sneaky vanity inclusions.--Húsönd 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Support indef block after a one week block, if it fails, as long as unblock instructions are left on the talk page, in case another user gets the IP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that User:Rani-maris was blocked by Lucky6.9 back in December as a sock puppet. We need to get Lucky6.9 into this discussion since he seems to think this User is a sock puppet of some previous editor. Rani-maris (talk · contribs) is the original creator of the Willian Gustavo Neiva article. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Lucky is on a wiki-break, I have emailed him. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rani-maris does seem to be a sockpuppet of User:HD324. Edit pattern definitely corresponds to the same person (Willian Gustavo Neiva).--Húsönd 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PAINful situation

Now at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard--Doc 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

It seems that some of our recent bouts of nastiness are caused in part by WP:PAIN. I believe that that noticeboard gives at least some users the idea that they should report nastiness here in order to sanction the person who was nasty. In other words it appears to give the expectation of punitive blocks in reaction to bad behavior. Needless to say it's frequently both sides that are behaving badly.

At the very least, the header needs an overhaul. At worst, it may be desirable to shut the board down as non-productive. Comments please? >Radiant< 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong support -- Szvest - 17:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the word intervention in the title should be enough for people to know it is for prevention of ongoing personal attacks, in a perfect world. Shutting the board down is without purpose, and overhaul would do nicely. All the noticeboards get off-topic complaints. Just make the instructions clear and if it is really bad add a rule saying reports not meeting criteria can be removed immediately. HighInBC 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also support overhaul or discontinuation. Dispute resolution exists; PAIN gives conflicting messages. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill it with pointy sticks on fire. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. It's pretty hopeless, actually - it's not patrolled enough to be really effective, most of the attacks come here anyway, and it is a magnet for childish tit-for-tat. Plus it requires you to bring a {{shrubbery}} which is a problem in cases of genuine personal attacks requiring speedy intervention. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. PAIN is simply counter productive - and is often being used as a tactical weapon. The object of 'intervention' with an uncivil user must be to calm them down and get them to play nice. You do that by speaking to them nicely, not by boilerplate and wikibylaws. Sure, in some cases we'll need to block trolls - but we can do that by an exercise of common sense.--Doc 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Agree that there are problems with the current board. For new users that do not know the policies it is too punitive and for experienced editors that loose there cool for a minute it is insulting to evaluated there by your peers. --FloNight 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I agree with pretty much every criticism of it above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree (but shouldn't this be in MFD?). PAIN was made in the same style as WP:AIV, and even when it was first created, there was some criticism about the illusion that we can deal with personal attacks as quickly as we can deal with vandals. AIV exists, and works, because it is relatively quick and easy to deal with vandals. Personal attacks are much more problematic. PAIN cannot function like AIV, and it certainly can't get "quick attention" like AIV can because dealing with personal attacks is not a quick thing. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it. Report personal attacks here. Yuser31415 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Not the right place Erm - isn't the appropriate place for deletion discussions of this sort at WP:MfD? Crimsone 17:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think this is proof of concept there is a will to see this gone, so a formal MfD would probably be a good idea.--Isotope23 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- it is an admin noticeboard. Regardless of the outcome of some vote, we probably should base our decision to keep or delete on what administrators are actually willing to do or not do. Jkelly 18:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Kill with stick Actively unhelpful to project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment • "Kill with stick"? "Kill it with pointy sticks of fire"? I'm sorry people, if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, state them seriously. This is not MfD, nor is it the place for MfD. Please create a MfD if you wish to discuss a deletion, and I will comment there with my thoughts. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • OK. Let's take the sticks here. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard --Doc 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Tourettes Guy

I'm posting this here instead of WP:RFP because it affects many articles. I noticed a pickup in vandalism to TS, and found this. Not only is Tourette syndrome being hit more frequently now, but also the several articles about the fictitious "Tourettes guy" that have been AfD'd (and DRV'd). I reluctantly concur that Tourette syndrome may need semi-protection for a while, and a closer eye may need to be kept on the TS daughter articles, and the various Tourettes Guy articles.

• Danny (Tourettes Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tourette's Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TourettesGuy.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tourettes Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Turrets guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tourettes Guy
• and there's a deletion review somewhere, but I can't find it.

And, we also have sockpuppetry involved: Sportsguru9999 (talk · contribs)

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

November's deletion review in case it's informative. There may be others. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

July's and December's. —Cryptic 18:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's something really wrong with our DRV process if that many DRVs about TS can happen without me becoming aware of any of them - why is there no notification process on the article talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was sooooo tempted to use that f word again... yes, it's me, the real Tourette's Guy :o) Sandy, these DRVs had nothing to do with Tourette's, last time I checked it out there was pretty broad agreement that "Danny" doesn't even have Tourette's. I'm looking into whether we should be asking for spam blacklisting to help with the links. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• oh, I don't think he has TS - he's just a drunken slob - but they've been adding their links to the TS article for a long time, and I'm sorta/kinda the only TS editor on Wiki, so you'd think I'd know what they're up to :-) We do need some help - I've seen their activity elsewhere. Worried about WP:BEANS, though. (And hold the coprojokes - you can't afford any right now - someone might take 'em the wrong way :o) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum: Centrx removed the WP:SALT from at least one incarnation, which had already been deleted six times, so I have made them all protected redirects to Tourette's Guy - if anyone deletes the protected-deleted there please let me know and I'll restore it. If we've learned one thing about these people it's that they are persistent. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also , and - Talk:Porcupine#A_porcupine.27s_testicles will give you a fair idea of the kind of nonsense we get from this source. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ilena revisited

Ilena (talk · contribs) (WQA Dec 14, AN Dec 26, WPQ Jan 3) appears to be slipping back into her previous behavior after a week of marked improvement since the previous AN, thanks in no small part to the help of some very patient editors. With over 400 edits since early December, she still doesn't appear to understand WP:V and WP:NPOV, resulting in her edit-warring and other disruptive behavior which she supports with personal attacks against those who hold viewpoints other than her own. She recently indicated she would be contributing to Wikipedial much less over the next week, which I think is the ideal time to discuss the situation again, as opposed to timing of the previous AN, where she attacked everyone who even hinted at having a viewpoint she didn't like. Ronz 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you provide some diffs with evidence of this behavior...--Isotope23 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(chosen from her last 50 edits) --Ronz 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The problem has been three-fold:

1. She does not realize that Misplaced Pages doesn't deal in truth - we deal in verifiable facts. And when I point this out to her, she provides links that are not reliable sources.
2. The opposing editors in the dispute have been doing the same thing, which seems to be ending up in a tit-for-tat dispute where both sides are just going to come out of the matter looking very, very bad, and possibly blocked.
3. Ilena is very used to being on the defensive, after harassment by some of these editors in real life and on usenet. People have brought baggage onto Misplaced Pages, and this has fed her defensiveness. This leads to the unfortunate side effect where she gets in this mindset where if someone is not for her, they are against her.

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter deserves the Order of Lenin for the hard work he's put in mentoring Ilena. That said, harassment is a two-way street, and Ilena's not exactly an innocent victim here. I think there's really one issue: Ilena is here on Misplaced Pages to argue her case in a real-life feud with Stephen Barrett. It's a conflict of interest and also very disruptive to import a real-life feud into Misplaced Pages (which, after all, is ostensibly not a battleground). It could work out OK if she is able to understand and apply Misplaced Pages's core principles. Peter is an optimist, and I am a pessimist, as to the likelihood of this happening - credit to Peter. The question is, why do we cut someone with Ilena's contribution history so much more slack than we give a hard-working, productive admin)? But Isotope23 is right - please provide diffs to support the claim that she's backsliding. MastCell 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with MastCell. WP:AGF but it appears there are several parties involved in this dispute who are bringing their usenet baggage here. That said, I don't really see what Ronz is referring to. There were a couple of edits on the 3rd to the Barrett v. Rosenthal article where a description was changed back and forth. Without diffs it is hard to say if this is the problem User:Ronz is concerned about, but I will say that neither description is in any way sourced. The edit war shouldn't have been engaged it, but that text should be sitting there uncited if it is disputed. That said, User:Ilena seems to have a penchant for using article talk pages to air her grievances against other editors as well as continually claim bad faith on their part. As Peter has alluded to above, there may be good reason she has these opinions based on her experiences elsewhere, but someone probably needs to remind her of WP:AGF and that she needs to treat Wiki as separate from her ongoing issues with people outside of the 'Pedia as well as a reminder of Verifiability not truth.--Isotope23 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't think censure of Ilena will be constructive, as it's just going to mean that a biased article is going to stay biased. For the most part she has been "playing nicer" by staying to the talk page, minus an incident of baiting.

I would like to propose a community remedy, but I'm unsure if it's something the community can do. Specifically, I would like to propose that Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Jance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Curtis Bledsoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as parties to this content dispute, are banned from editing these articles for a term agreed upon here, and must discuss changes they wish to make on the talk page. I, myself, voluntarily recuse myself from editing under this term due to my association as a mentor of Ilena. Thoughts? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How am I party to this content dispute? If I am, then so is Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and anyone who ever edits these sites. I have no baggage wtih usenet, and I have no interest in POV in these articles. Excuse me, but I really do not see this. I welcome input as to where I have been biased or engaged in any dispute here, except to discuss what the the court ruling was (and was not).Jance 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any Usenet baggage either. I have always deliberately steered clear of her. Keep in mind that it was her making the first attacks (myriad) that started her problems, both on Usenet, in the courts, and here. That doesn't justify harsh replies, but "who started it" is an important factor here. Before she came here, the editing was getting along just fine. The Barrett v. Rosenthal article wasn't even started by any Barrett friends as far as I know, and that's how she found it. It had been started apparently by some lawyer types (or others interested in California law cases) who were interested in the case. She immediately started violating multiple rules here, and when anyone advised her, she replied with attacks and claims of POV reverts against her as a person, when it was only trying to get her to follow policy. Let's not start attacking the victims of her attacks.

Her very first entry on the talk page was a personal attack on me. My first article edits were not objectionable in any way, yet she attacked me and apparently assumed that the articles condition at that time was controlled by Barrett supporters, when they had actually not been involved at all. I had just discovered the article by chance. I think a block of the named editors (the victims of her attacks) who be a gross injustice to editors who had been working just fine before she started attacking all of us and violating multiple rules here, while editing in a severe COI situation, which means it is her who should be blocked from editing the article, and be limited to civil discourse on the talk page.

I take my hat off to Peter for his attempts to mentor her. I only fear his lack of understanding of Ilena's past history and consistently aggressive Usenet behavior (which she has brought here) has caused him to be too optimistic, but his attempts deserve our respect. Good for him! -- Fyslee 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I love the show Arthur, I had to edit your username templates above...--Isotope23 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's still not right. It was probably me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha... I didn't know which "Arthur" this referred to, I just added "user5" so we were not seeing the template for the PBS kids show. I would hope he and Buster Baxter are not involved in this dispute.--Isotope23 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing censure here, at least not at this time. Without diffs it is really hard to say exactly what prompted this complaint in the first place, but from looking through Ilena's history I don't see anything current that would warrent a block or ban at this point, particularly given her claim that she is going to be off Wiki for a while. Blocks and bans are meant to prevent problems, not be punative. That said though, I'm inclined to agree with you Peter that if this silliness is continued, everyone involved in edit-warring here, particularly those who are actually connected to this outside 'Pedia should be slapped with a topic ban on anything related to Barrett v. Rosenthal for several months. They are wasting other editors' time, yours included, with this nonsense.--Isotope23 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Or maybe mediation. It worked for NLP for a while, anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, I don't see any evidence of an RfM or an RfC here so tossing around community bans is a bit premature. Let WP:DR work its magic first.--Isotope23 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy; maybe mediation is an appropriate next step. Many of the content disputes are actually relatively minor (6 reversions on whether to call a publicist a "publicist" or not, without any actual sourcing?!?) They don't exactly require ArbCom's attention - all that's needed is potentially some third-party input to smooth things over. I think Ilena considers me one of Barrett's minions, so I don't think I fit the bill. The problem with blocking all involved parties from editing is that the article will likely just sit there - the only people who really edit it at this point are the ones Peter has suggested blocking. Although, if the goal is to cool things off, perhaps it would work? MastCell 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Full on topic bans all around is the nuclear option; I don't think we are there yet. Better to start with an RfC and move on to RfM if that doesn't help. I've had my own experience being referred to as a shill of sorts on another unrelated topic and I'd say, yes that probably much excludes you as being an acceptable 3rd party. I'd be willing to have a look and make a few suggestions as a completely uninvolved party (I'd never heard of the case or any of the personalities involved here until it started showing up on WP:AN/I. I'm probably as neutral as it is possible to be on this topic.--Isotope23 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my proposal. Allow me to clarify. Article bans are a preventative measure, not enforced by blocks unless the editors break them. The idea is to give a "cooling off period" to diffuse a dispute, and I think such a period would be helpful. Thoughts? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think an RfC to bring fresh outside perspective, and a RfM if that doesn't work would be good first steps. I don't think this has boiled over to the point where an enforced cooling off is needed yet.--Isotope23 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I object to Wizadry's proposal that I have a 'side' or am involved in any dispute re this entire issue. A review of my edits would verify that I am not. I have also never participated in any of the external debates or usenet groups. I am tired of being dragged into this. Jance 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isotope23. An RfC may well be a constructive tool (NOT a forum to attack Ilena) to air the case and allow Ilena to learn more about[REDACTED] ettiquette, as well as the principle of truth vs verfiability. I think a soft ban of users from the Barrett related pages would be premature. Especially for editors such as jance who do not appear to have any direct connections to the topic outside[REDACTED] or have not shown any bad faith editing. David D. (Talk) 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, Ronz has heckled Ilena with excessive (imho) & tortuous policy reading usages since she showed up that can be very anatagonistic, having had milder heckling issues with Ronz' policy broadsides myself that I considered to be with little merit if not provocative. My take is that sometimes "pro-Barrett" editors are playing with fire on WP:BLP issues with respect to Ilena w/o any recognition. I strain to identify, understand and address some underlying issues although I think that I am fairly aware of many relevant factors. I am hopeful that the "baggage problem" of several can be analyzed, mediated and defused to the general betterment of WP and editors. IHMO, this "revisit" was divisive, premature and unnecessary.--I'clast 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User blocked accidentally

It appears Frankyboy5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is autoblocked: "I cannot edit anything all because somebody with the same IP as me has been vandalising everything, even though I signed in!". Could an admin go and have a look please? Yuser31415 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we a little short on active admins at present? Template:Emot Yuser31415 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we just can't do anything without the information in his block message. I see Syrthiss is working on it now, though. -- Merope 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeh. For the future Yuser31415, if you respond to a helpme on a user encountering a block please ask them to put {{unblock}} at the very least on their page. That guarantees that anyone working on unblock requests will see them in the category of blocked users asking for unblocks. Syrthiss 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol I see you already did they just didn't do it. In any case, Frankyboy5 says he is unblocked so this matter is closed. :) Syrthiss 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Template:Emot Yuser31415 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Block for review - Cool maestro

I have indefinitely blocked User:Cool maestro, who has uploaded scads of obviously copyrighted images tagged with {{gfdl-self}}. He specifically claims to own the copyrights. I hadn't communicated with the user prior to blocking, but others (such as User:BigDT) had, and I noticed Cool maestro had blanked those messages off his talk page without responding and was continuing to upload more material. I invite review from the community on this; I've been deleting his image uploads that are clearly copyrighted (and ones that aren't, such as Image:Cool indian.jpg and Image:China dude.jpg) are probably copyrighted but not obviously so. It's my position that if I hadn't blocked him right away, he would continue to upload images he almost certainly doesn't own and create a huge mess that would need cleaning up. Whereas, if he somehow actually owns copyrights to all those movie posters, and yet uploads images with names like "Cool indian", it can be worked out through email, and permissions@wikimedia would need to get confirmation anyway. Mangojuice 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess. Sounds like a good move to me, given the amount of work the user would create if left unchecked. -- Merope 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this was a very appropriate block. User:Cool maestro needs to understand and acknowledge the copyright issues here before continuing to edit.--Isotope23 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Take a look at the upload log for this user. Numerous copyright violations invalidly tagged with "GFDL self" descriptions. *sigh* Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing for Bot Approval

I am somewhat saddened to bring this report to the AN/I noticeboard, as this is an established editor whom I respect greatly as a contributor and developer, but in light of their actions, I feel I have no choice but to report it here.

First of all, let me establish the context for this report. In the spam guidelines, there is a section on canvassing. Asking for opinion and consensus is a natural part of the Misplaced Pages consensus building process, however, when canvassing occurs it dilutes a true consensus and turns the process into a simple majority. It also poisons the well - editors who would normally vote oppose may not vote because of a strong block of support votes, or vice versa. Now, to explain the specifics, Dragons flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently proposed a bot to perform protections on certain articles. In the process of proposing it, he canvassed quite heavily for it (in my opinion). Diffs include:

There's more, but those are what were readily available. To me, advertising on another BRFA is just blatant spam. Opinions? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly endorse this instance of spamming, and you'd have to dig deep to find anyone more anti-spammer than me. This particular bot approval is needed urgently and vitally. It's been discussed extensively here and there is strong consensus that this needs done, like yesterday. Leave him be. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (double edit conflict)Well, it's not really spam when it's only on the most relevant pages. If he'd left the message to all the creators of feautred pictures, I think I'd care a lot more, but this is very focoused notification, informing of the proposal. Anyway, as you noted on the BRFA page, Peter, BRFA isn't a vote - only discussion, so these comments shouldn't matter. I think I went to the page based on the post on AN, and made a suggestion on the page - not a vote, a suggestion. I belive that this was probably Dragon Flight's aim when leaving the messages - to get ideas, which he has got in abundance there (and one can get ideas from oppose votes, to satisfy their reasons for opposition). Martinp23 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't really consider this canvassing, and secondly, when we say canvassing, aren't we mainly talking about spamming messages? We have here five independently-tailored messages in five separate situations where he's encouraging people to support a bot. I think it's within his rights, as the bot's creator, to offer arguments as to why it is a good idea. It doesn't really make sense to say he's not allowed to talk about it at all, or that he must give the appearance of being neutral over whether his bot is approved or not. The one qualm I have is where he says to go !vote in support and provides a link, but that is a very minor quibble at best. --Cyde Weys 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the WP:SPAM section on canvassing and I must say I see no great issue here. One distiction made was the level of disruption made by the crossposting. This doesn't seem to like an "aggressive propaganda campaign" to me (unless you can provide more spamdiffs to support the claim), but rather "reasonable amount of communication about issues". Deliberate and single-purpose spamming is bad, while mentioning a discussion on related occasions is no worse than advertising a WikiProject in a signature. Миша13 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to leave a notice on the admin noticeboard, since admins have had to manually protect all these pages. The Bureaucrats' board because, after all, bot RFAs are a bit exceptional, and Bureaucrats close RfAs. The only edit slightly hard to justify (IMHO) was to Shadowbot's page, but it is a related bot... Note that one of those is not Dragons flight. Prodego 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote from Misplaced Pages:Canvassing: "Canvassing is the systematic contacting of individuals in a target group to further one's side of a debate." He did not systematically go out and ask for people to support the bot, nor did he only contact people who he knew would support the bot. He posted about it publicly on AN and other places (since only a limited few follow the bot requests page) and in doing so asked for input from the people the bot would most help — administrators — since only administrators can take care of Main Page issues. Move along folks, nothing to see here. —bbatsell ¿? 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I think WP:IAR applies here... nothing he's doing is hurting the project and in fact as Guy said this is a very urgent need.--Isotope23 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to draw the various editors here to the existence of the aforementioned bots RfA. The page was created 3 days before conditional approval was granted. It seems, I'm not the only editor aware of it's existence, with 3 !votes (as of 21:30 on 5th Jan) already having been placed before the RfA is listed on the main WP:RFA page along with the rest of the RfA nominations. The only page linking to the RfA at present being User:ProtectionBot - So, my main question, what's happening with the RfA ?http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not been listed yet, so the RfA hasn't officially started, so those !votes are early. I think the RfA will only be going ahead when full approval from BRFA is granted (correct me if I'm wrong) Martinp23 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be sensible to list the RfA now and once the result of the RfA is known, then the BRfA process can continue, it seems the BAG is getting ahead of process here and the talk of WP:IAR combined with an RfA that hasn't yet been listed leaves me a little uncertain as to whether the BAG was going to be permitted to give the bot sysop permissions in this case. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I prepared the RFA for when/if it became appropriate. It was not posted in part because I wanted to be sure what the functionality of the bot would be, and this has been subject to revisions due to discussions at BRFA. As it had not been posted, I have removed all early posting of votes to it, as I regard that as inappropriate. Personally, I feel adminbots ought to be handled entirely through BRFA (with wide community notice; not spam) rather than having two largely overlapping discussions, but many people seem to disagree with that, so I am prepared to do an RFA if that is what is to be required. Dragons flight 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the first vote. I just figured it couldn't hurt to support early. (It so happens that I also think that a RfA isn't even necessary, but if it goes live I'll support it.) Melchoir 22:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think an RFA is necessary when the bot owner is already an admin. Bot owners are already responsible for everything their bots do. Giving a bot a sysop flag when the owner is already a sysop is a simple matter of deciding if the bot is a good idea — and since we all agree that this one is — it should be granted. WP:RFA is for granting sysop access to humans, and if you look at all of the normal questions and procedure that go on in RFA, you'll see that they're totally unnecessary and irrelevant when dealing with a person who is already a sysop and just needs a second flagged account for bot usage. --Cyde Weys 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde. I had assumed, per the precedent set at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA any bot with sysop functions would need to be approved through the normal RfA channel, since Tawker was already an admin at that point and he had to go through an RfA process. I realise there is a vast difference in what TawkerbotTorA and ProtectionBot do, but shouldn't the bot still have to go through an RfA process ? --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Per my own previous comments on Jmaxbot, I concur with Cyde. Raul654 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The user conduct described does not constitute canvassing or spamming within the meaning of any relevant policy, nor does it give rise to any of the concerns that those policies are meant to address. Moreover, any reasonable steps calculated to help solve the problem of inappropriate images on the mainpage and in our daily featured content are of surpassing and immediate importance to the reputation of the project. Letting administrators and bureaucrats know of a potential bot that could contribute to addressing this issue is not only acceptable, but highly commendable. I frankly don't understand the reasons for making this report and am saddened by the existence of a dispute between two of our best Dragons. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Addendum: I'm by no means a bot expert, but I also agree with Cyde that a full-dress RfA should not be necessary for a situation like this. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that Dragons flight did nothing wrong and that an RfA should not be necessary. —Mets501 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• As a tangential thought in response to the An RfA should always be necessary when seeking sysop status for an account - it is how the community decides if it is needed, and whom it is trusted with. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is obviously needed because the bot cannot function without it. And we already decided we trust this individual, unless that's changed since his RfA. What's left to talk about? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: for the record, the BAG recomended a RFA to get community for the concept... since admin-bots have been so... hmmm... feared. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be vanity to quote myself, however, taken from my wikiphilosophy:

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, but what is the relevance of that statement to this issue? Newyorkbrad 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As an administrator I'm telling you you're all totally wrong and you're just supposed to do what I say otherwise I block you, whenever I feel like it. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The strong push to bypass the RFA process seems to be nothing more than a block of sysops who think their opinion is what matters and do not feel they need the approval of the community as a whole to ratify their proposal. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Of the five people who just here have supported not bothering with an RfA, three are sysops and two are not. I think you may be imagining things here -- the community has had ample chance to discuss this issue and virtually nobody, administrator or not, has opposed creating this sysop bot. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Actually, Peter, the text of their comments were quite clear; I'm not sure why you're assuming an enormous amount of bad faith here, but it's troubling. The coder and overseer of the bot is an administrator; thusly, he has gained the trust of the community through his own RfA. The BRFA process is designed to determine whether there is a need for the bot, whether technical issues are present with it, and whether the mechanisms are in place to prevent errors should they arise (as they nearly inevitably do in man-made code). The user in charge of the bot has been granted trust, and the consensus on the BRFA is quite clearly in favor of the bot itself. That is why the editors above who support bypassing the RfA hold that position, and they made themselves abundantly clear. For the record, I think we should go through an RfA to remove even a smidge of doubt, and I'm slightly (but not significantly) unhappy with the precedent, but I refuse to assume the bad faith you assume above. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• There was no assumption of bad faith, and I got five edit conflicts trying to reword my statement - but anyways. My main concern is that there seems to be no basis to circumvent the RfA, and yet they want to. Now some would say this is uncontested, which is a little annoying, since it makes me wonder what I'm doing, if not contesting it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )

• • I'd like to offer an alternative interpretation, Peter. I think the push to skip the RfA process is because the user in question is already a Sysop. Dragons Flight already passed an RfA, so unless he has become less trustworthy since then, an RfA seems redundant and the need for it has not been established. As long as the sysop-bit element of the bot is clearly defined during the bot request phase (which it was), then the community has more than enough opportunity to comment, and they did. In addition to these practical considerations, I'd like to offer one final realistic one. There are folks employing criteria in RfA that would, by definition, make it absolutely impossible for a bot to pass. Not because the bot isn't the Right Thing for the project, but because the bot has not written a featured article, has not accumulated X-thousand edits, and so on. There are both practical and realistic limitations to using the RfA that has nothing to do with a "block of sysops" working in concert to somehow thwart the rest of the project, and I feel such a suggestion doesn't do the hard working folks on the project justice. If you feel there is any such cadre working against the interests of Misplaced Pages, then that should be resolved separately and not involve the protection-bot effort that Dragons Flight is undergoing at the moment. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• My complains are not with the bot - I feel it is a neccesary tool in combating the problems we have had. My problem is how people are going about implementing it, since it seems to be circumventing policy. IAR is not a free pass to do as you would. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can clarify something here that might reduce the controversy. Precisely what "sysop" functions will this bot be performing? No one wants a bot given the ability to inadvertently block users, delete articles, etc. and if someone were to propose giving a bot the ability to do these things I can see the argument for requiring a broad consensus evinced by something like RfA or an equivalent. But do I understand correctly that the only "admin only" function this bot will perform will be to protect templates? That seems to be a fairly low-risk situation and might not implicate some of the broader concerns. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The examples you provided seem relevant locations for such a notice. HighInBC 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can see how some people would like to see this get 'fast tracked', but really is there a need to bypass WP:RFA? The bot looks to me to be an interesting idea, but... the community's say is important. I mean if the bot is good, and you anticipate no objections, an RFA can't hurt. In my opinion, no user account should get the sysop flag without going through an WP:RFA. I mean really, if there are few objections to the bot, and the community is guaranteed to support the idea, then we might as well put it through an WP:RFA, 5 days is nothing. —— Eagle 101 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the RFA would serve more then just getting approval for the sysop bit… the user already has approval for that. What the RFA would establish is community approval of the concept of a Sysop bot for this specific role…. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, Dragons flight has gone through an RfA already. Why should he be forced to do it again? Second, so many people are irrationally afraid of adminbots that maybe a bit of IAR (and process circumvention) would help to demontrate it in action and show that it's not a big deal at all? Миша13 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we used to have an autoblocking bot for vandals? Guy (Help!) 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A thinking point to consider. When we perform a Request for Adminiship, is the RfA for the account, or for the person behind the account? If the answer is the former, then an RfA makes sense. But if we're determining whether or not the person is suitable for adminship, then a separate RfA becomes redundant. I think precedent suggests that Misplaced Pages considers the person to be the more important elemtn of the equation. Dragons Flight the person has already passed the RfA, and by necessity, the robot he creates is his responsibility. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand Dragons flight is not going through the RFA, the idea of the bot is. Any user account wanting the sysop flag has to go through it. —— Eagle 101 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Genisock2 may be worth reviewing here. NoSeptember 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my question a few posts above, which may have been lost in the multiply threaded discussion. For editors, "the sysop bit" is an indivisible whole: one is either an administrator with all the buttons going with the job, or isn't. Is that true for bots? As I understand it (please confirm), this bot would only be tasks with protecting templates, couldn't it be constructed in a way that would not require access to the full "sysop bit" including the powers to block, delete, etc. that raise greater concerns? Newyorkbrad 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also please see this. It is from WP:SOCK, which is another term for alternate account. I guess in short, I am trying to say that I think the RFA is for the account, not the person. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid wall -- Request enforcement of AfD decision

There was a dispute some months ago over whether Apartheid wall should be a standalone article, a redirect to Israeli separation barrier, a redirect to Allegations of Israeli apartheid, or deleted outright. An AfD in June 2006 (at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall) settled this issue, with a decision of "The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier.", and that decision was implemented.

On December 28, 2006, an editor changed the redirect to point to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Attempts to change the link back are reverted within minutes by that editor. Please take appropriate action to enforce the AfD decision. Thanks. --John Nagle 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars over an inappropriate redirect. WP:LAME. I am nominating the redirect for deletion; it's divisive and unnecessary, as no articles link there now that I have removed the totally unneeded link on Jews Against the Occupation. But regardless of opinion, the AfD decision was a long time ago, and this can be revisited. Mangojuice 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block on 66.37.63.162 for repeated vandalism

I'd like to request a block on 66.37.63.162 for repeated incidents of vandalism. --Poochy 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this user has only made one edit today, so a block is not appropriate. Secondly, try WP:AIV next time. Thanks for fighting vandalism :-) --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has made 3 edits in the past 48 hours, all of which were pure vandalism (one adding nonsense, two modifying biographies of living people). S/he has also been blocked four times before for vandalism, and has over 100 edits, a vast majority of which are vandalism cases. I'm guessing s/he would continue if given the chance, so I think a block is necessary. You're the admin, though, so I'll leave the decision up to you. --Poochy 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Art Dominique sockpuppet army

The banned user Art Dominique (talk · contribs) is a long-standing vandal with a huge number of socks, most of them currently blocked. A series of them were blocked, based on a checkuser report (see most recently archived case from 3 January, 2007) . A newer checkuser was filed for another bunch of socks of this user (4 January 2007), but that checkuser was declined as "impossibility to check". The declining checkuser didn't want to explain why it was impossible. I'm not really contesting that decision, but I still think someone should look at these socks and block them if they think there's a good reason. The connection to Art Dominique is here . As you can see, one of Art Dominique's socks was determined to be a subaccount of Love is all we need (talk · contribs).

• Love is all we need (talk · contribs)
• Eat your carrots (talk · contribs)
• Christmas almost here (talk · contribs)
• Eat apple a day (talk · contribs)
• The rolling rocks (talk · contribs)
• Good Afrodisiac (talk · contribs)
• Sticking to truth (talk · contribs)
• Recorded history (talk · contribs)
• Riksföreståndare (talk · contribs)
• Erroll Van Dyke (talk · contribs)
• Friendly request (talk · contribs)
• Let me add then (talk · contribs)
• Old lock smith (talk · contribs)

Hope someone will review these. TheQuandry 22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Looks highly likely, blocking (even though most are inactive) for safety. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians born in 1999

Category:Wikipedians born in 1999 is currently populated by one user. Would it be appropriate to depopulate this? (for obvious reasons) --- RockMFR 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot