Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#User:Observer R

:Templates are things between curly brackets (like {{this}}). If you use a template (transclusion) in a sig, then each time the template changes, the previously signed signature changes. Since this would require the page be changed everywhere you have a signature, it'd put massive load on the MediaWiki software and bog the site down. If EVERYONE used a template signature on here... well, it'd be a Bad Thing(tm). ~Kylu (u|t) 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:Get off your high chair already. – Chacor 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::Snap...look, there was not a chance in hell of you succeeding, and hence {{user3|Jaranda}} was quite right to remove the entry. Daniel.Bryant 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Not saying that removing the RfA was a bad thing, but isn't WP:BB for articles specifically? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::::This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think it was correct to remove the request. Yes, there is absolutely no chance it would have succeeded, but only bureaucrats can close or de-list a nomination. The user in question had been asked to withdraw his nomination, but he did not. Therefore, it should have run until a bureaucrat closed it. -- Merope ^Talk 04:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Just to note: There has been precedent for clearly-failing requests being removed by admins. – Chacor 04:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Okay, then perhaps the instructions on the page need to be revisited. Right now it says non-bureaucrats can do it only in cases of "vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination". -- Merope ^Talk 04:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::That is a description for someone reading it, not a rule. —Centrx→talk • 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::: There is precedent to remove clearly failing requests, and an RFA by a user with less than 20 edits is suspicious. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::::There most definitely is for ones as obvious as that. Sasquatch t|c 05:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I've seen cries of "sock!" for much less than what this user did - my question is how a 20-edit user found their way to RfA... Daniel.Bryant 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have no opinion either way about whether admins should be able to close no-chance-in-hell RfAs or whether it should be left to the beaurocrats. Regardless, it's done all the time, and you should be thankful that it was. Voters tend to be pretty hard on someone who thinks they should be an admin with just 20 edits. If it had been left to run, it would have been pretty embarassing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's good to remove obviously failing nominations to prevent them from becoming overly negative. We have lost good users that way. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

4 hours seems to short. It should be two days at maximum. Unless the person up had only 20 edits. Anomo 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He always act the same way, adding nonsense to discussion page, claiming that the article is atrocious, that the editors are pretentious and claiming that anyway he don't want to edit wikipedia. This vandal is really annoying as i've seen vexed editors answering him. By checking his log I've just realized he was just a vandal having fun by trolling editors. Please can't you block this vandal's IP or something? Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Check contributions log for evidence: Special:Contributions/86.145.55.59 Buenaparte Social Club 13:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:What do you mean by "he masks his IP behind an anonymous proxy"? Is this an open proxy, or are you reiterating that the user is not logged-in/hasn't registered? Also, reports of vandalism should go to the appropriate page (or WP:AIV), and requests for dispute resolution should go to that page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:actually i mean both. sorry i will post this report in the right place. thanks. Buenaparte Social Club 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Belgaum page history - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belgaum&action=history here]

But I am 100% sure about User:Naveenbm being User:Sarvagnya's sockpuppet and he was used to block User:Mahawiki. Just see how User:Sarvagnya comes out of nowhere after User:Naveenbm reverts 3 times. Certainly, a severe violation of subverting justice for one's own need. Both User:Naveenbm and User:Sarvagnya must be blocked for this.

AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 16:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:WP:RFCU. – Chacor 16:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:Whether a user is a sockpuppet or not, nobody has the right to more than three reverts unless it's for vandalism. User:Mahawiki should have taken it to WP:3RR instead of repeatedly reverting. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHillman&diff=80246564&oldid=80137015 left a message] in my user talk page which rather speaks for itself,
2. continued his edit war at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/KraMuc (2nd) (note that {{userblock| 84.153.121.168}} fits the easily recognized pattern of a typical KraMuc "anon" edit),
3. continued his edit war at Louis Essen, which has been going for several days at least (clicking "check the watchlist at User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc is probably the easiest way to assess the scope of KraMuc's recent activity at Wikipedia),
4. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKraMuc&diff=79681870&oldid=79677488 left a message] in User talk:KraMuc complaining about my apparent earlier misundertanding about "information" he himself provided.

About Louis Essen: the putative content of the edit war there ("British" vs. "English") is obviously quite silly, but various users including myself have been reverting his changes on sight. Speaking for myself, my reversions of KraMuc socks have rested on the principle that a permabanned individual should not be editing the Wikipedia at all---certainly not the very articles where he got himself into such trouble in the first place--- whether these edits are made from an obvious sockpuppet account for the banned user account or as anon IPs obviously representing the banned individual. Why take the trouble to try to apply this principle rigorously? My thinking is that if bad actors demonstrate that they are de facto free to create socks or use anon IPs and carry on as before, then they would appear to be justified in concluding that our behavioral policies have no teeth and have become essentially pointless. That would be very bad for Wikipedia, in my view.

About the "misunderstanding": I long ago noted KraMuc's "correction" in my notes on the KraMuc affair, although I plan to reread these pages in their entirety when I get a change. The notes have always had the form "KraMuc has said X,Y,Z", with links documenting such statements, not "X,Y,Z", and I have made a serious effort to stress this distinction in the notes themselves. I stress that from the very beginning (I created these notes some weeks before Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun#Keeping_notes appeared), on the basis of common sense, I have tried to stick to simply collecting publically available facts in a convenient form. I hope and trust that it is fairly obvious that the intent of these pages is to further the goals of Wikipedia, not to attack a particular user (banned or otherwise), although this would be clearer if I were left in sufficient peace to complete my planned essays which were to have used these documented cases as examples, since I feel a need to draw attention to phenomena which I feel are highly inimical to the best interests of Wikipedia readers, but which appear to be largely unrecognized. I think I've been fairly generous in voluntarily noting "information" he has provided in these notes after being permbanned, overlooking the fact that his habititual method of comment is to vandalize the notes or to leave personal attacks on myself in various places. ---CH 22:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:I would suggest that you revert the edit which will restore the link and then leave a polite note on the other user's talk page asking them to stop removing them and instead to comment at the AfD. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it, salt the page and deal with the reverters appropriately. --Aaron 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC) I'm an idiot; I just asked for an admin move to be salted. I'll put it up for another full-blown AfD in a few minutes; it violates WP:C&E. (Yes, I know it's only a proposal, but most AfDs are already following it.) --Aaron 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::Why should it go to another AFD? This is clearly a recreation of deleted content, which falls under CSD, and should be deleted immediately. The proper way is to go to DRV. Do that. Thanks. --Ragib 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Indeed. --InShaneee 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Good point; I'll go do that now (if it hasn't been done already.) --Aaron 18:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Wrong, the version I have restored [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Farrell&oldid=78390775] is substantially different from the version that went through AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Farrell&oldid=62074960]. It was the speedy deletion of that that was out of process. the wub "?!" 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Isn't it a question of whether the version you restored is substantially different from the AfD version? Isn't it the community consensus vote on the AfD version that takes precedence? If Diane Farrell's page is back, all candidates for Nov. 7 elections need to come back: they're all in the news now, and if election articles don't have to be created first, guidelines mean nothing. Wiki guidelines are determined on IRC chat. Sandy 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, lets not get stuck with process for process sake... {{user|Malangali}} has made a good argument on the notability of the subject at User talk:The wub#Diane Farrell article (why it should be undeleted). Yes, that isn't the "correct" place to do it, but there it is. Thanks/wangi 17:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:OK, so AfD and DRV become meaningless: the community voted the article deleted, one person can overturn a community decision. Sandy 18:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::Things move on. At the time of the AFD I guess they were not notable enough, but in three months a lot can change, especially in the run up to an election which is only four weeks away now. An AFD delete vote does not mean delete and salt - if the subject does become more notable then it is ok for somebody to re-create the article. The unusual thing her is the undeletion, but I see no problem with somebody starting with a decent article rather than a bare stub. Thanks/wangi 18:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Decisions made by community consensus should only be overturned by community consensus. Administrators do not have the power to overturn consensus by themselves. In other words, delete and bring up to DRV. Joelito (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• DRV is up. Have fun. --Aaron 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::From deletion policy - "If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article." The original AfD was in July and (IMO) was fairly close to no consensus. I discussed this with Malangali on IRC the other day, and given the evidence he provided then and on my talk page (including national and international news coverage) restored a reasonable version for him and others to work on. Also in future Sandy if you have questions about my actions please ask me on my talk page. the wub "?!" 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I did ask on your talk page, as you know. It concerns me that community consensus decisions are overturned by one person based on IRC chats: this goes on all too often on Wiki. Should we now restore all candidates who are up for election Nov 7? Absolutely - you've set a precedent. Further precedent that process is irrelevant next to IRC and AN/I is being established. Yes, I do believe process should be respected, and individual exceptions shouldn't override community decisions based on chats that occur out of community view. Sandy 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Sorry Sandy, I just noticed you did leave a note on my talk before coming here, but you didn't give me very long to respond. As for the IRC thing, believe me I'm not part of "The Sekrit IRC Cabal", in fact I am usually fairly sceptical about decisions made there. This was also one of the first times I've used it, and honestly all happened was Malangali said that his page had been deleted and he didn't know why, I asked him a few questions, and asked him to post evidence on my talk page. If you really care and Malangali agrees I can post the logs, as we were the only ones involved in the discussion.

::::No I don't think we should restore all candidates, but this one is in a particularly marginal constituency and has hence recieved a significant amount of news coverage.

::::Also note that I don't have a problem with Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, though it is only a proposal. In fact I mentioned it to Malangali on IRC and suggested making a page about the race, but of course he couldn't see the old Diane Farrell page to work from. I would be happy for this article to end up merged, though with all this bureaucracy she may well have been elected and become "officially worthy" of her own page by the time that happens. the wub "?!" 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::As I mentioned on Aaron's talk page, the bigger issue is why individual decisions are made on IRC, basically invalidating community decisions. This is the kind of thing that makes editors really resentful of admins. It also sets a very bad precedent: what is good for Diane Farrell should now be good for every single candidate who wants to bypass Wiki process by approaching an admin on IRC. EVERY candidate becomes more notable as elections near: that's why the election article is supposed to be created first. Perhaps I'm a policy wonk, but this is wrong. EVERY candidate is notable now, as elections near and coverage increases, the election article should have been created first, and the precedent of overturning community decision via approaching an admin on IRC is troubling. On a side note, I'm sorry for not giving you more time to respond, but you didn't appear to be online. Sandy 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::I do understand your concerns about IRC, but the fact is I would have done the same if I had been approached on my talk page. Would you still object then? the wub "?!" 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I am concerned whenever an admin overrides community consensus outside of process: I am *more* concerned when that happens on IRC. Sandy 21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Erm, "out of process" is a bit over the top considering Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates. Thanks/wangi 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I admit I get a little nervous when I see something like "Per our IRC talk" in pretty much any Wikipedia discussion anywhere, but that's mainly due to the whole appearance of impropriety thing; in this particular case I don't see where anyone involved has done anything in bad faith. The reason I'm concerned about this article's recreation is that I have personally already used WP:C&E to get other House and/or Senate candidates' articles deleted through AfD (real, major-party candidates, not cases where someone went down to the county courthouse and paid $75 to put their dog on the ballot as a joke), and I think it's thus unfair to let this candidate's page skate past WP:C&E altogether. I know C&E is technically only a proposal, but it's in semi-regular use on WP:AFD already, so I think we need to keep a level playing field as much as possible. --Aaron 20:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless the article is protected from recreation for a specific reason, it is quite proper to create an article about a notable subject using new content from verifiable reliable sources. FloNight 21:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:Ahem: The article is not deleted, G4 was (quite rightly) contested as the article is different. This is a debate whose place is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell (Second nomination). I advocate deletion of all failed candiates with no other claim to notability (and this is one such) but you are free to air your own views. Guy 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::The article might or might not be notable. My concern is with the idea expressed above that AFDs can never be recreated. Some articles have very few editors voting in the Afd and never get a good look see in the first place. And situations do change. IMO, all good faith recreations should get a fresh evaluation. --FloNight 21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::*Note to admins: Francisx (talk • contribs • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=move&user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:Francisx}}}}}} page moves] • block user • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:Francisx}}}} block log]) is removing Guy's AfD tag from the Diane Farrell article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Farrell&diff=80278835&oldid=80277990 here's the diff]). I've reverted it, but given Francisx's statements in the DRV discussion, I think it's likely he'll try again. --Aaron 23:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::**Patent nonsense. There are multiple overlaping discussions regarding the status of Diane Farrell, and my point was that it was confusing to have multiple contradictory community consensuses on the status of the article. Aaron is being less than honest in calling me a vandal because he disagrees with me on the status of this article. Note that he has not hestitated to interject his personal political views into discussions in the past. I'm curious as to what other statements of mine Aaron is using to label me a vandal.--Francisx 23:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm seconding FloNight's comments regarding the appropiateness of sending something to DRV simply because it has been deleted. I regularly wail to people who are trying to get useless sub-stubs restored via deletion review to "just re-write the damn thing." However, that does not mean that an admin is able to use his sysop rights in this way:

• If the Wub had restored this into user space, that would have been acceptable.
• If the user had written a new and different article from scratch in main space, that would have been acceptable.
• When something has been speedied twice by two admins, don't take it upon yourelf to undo it.

A modicum of respect for the decisions of fellow admins, a little bit of propiety, and a good long think about the path of least resistance should have been applied here.
brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

: I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_8&diff=prev&oldid=80327491 closed] the deletion review discussion. Normally I'd have closed the deletion nomination as the review was first, but there was a good deal more deabte at the AfD and this is already confusing enough for those not intimate with our byzantine machinations. - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::Makes sense to me. (About the only thing in this fiasco) IMO, it really did not need a DRV, just a Afd since it was not the same article. --FloNight 01:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:[edit conflict reponse to Brenneman]: That is the sensible kind of response I was hoping for: my concern is when decisions such as this one unfold on IRC, leading one to believe that "process" may mean nothing on Wiki, and one should just shortcut to an admin on IRC. Since I still don't know what IRC is, that locks me out :-) A DRV on Farrell could have been put up long ago, without any need for the appearance of circumventing guidelines because of a last-minute, pre-election rush which sets a bad precedent and is prejudicial against other candidates, who might not have IRC channel advocates. Sandy 01:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:: You need to stop removing citations on the article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Farrell&diff=80366119&oldid=80365766] Her website is a RS for past elections. Arbusto 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:::As already discussed on the article talk page, you need to correctly attribute statements, and not state a candidate's opinion or data as fact when it comes from the candidate's own website. I did the attribution for you, since you didn't source the data to an independent, reliable source: another editor has now provided part of the data from an independent reliable source. I wonder why you brought this here, when it was settled in the article and on the talk page ? Sandy 07:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The election article is now in place, and contains the Farrell information: Connecticut 4th Congressional District Election, 2006. Per WP:C&E, there is no need for an article for a candidate who hasn't achieved notability independent of the campaign. Sandy 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot has misused Admin tools, by placing a protect tag on the Entropy article. Sadi is not an Admin, and even if he were, he'd be in violation of the following:

:From WP:PPOL

::Administrators have the ability to protect pages so that they cannot be edited, or images so that they cannot be overwritten, except by other administrators. Administrators can also protect pages from moves only. Administrators have the additional ability to protect pages from being edited by unregistered or very new users.

::These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful.

::Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.

:Clearly this is a problem. I've contacted several Admins to get their opinion on how best to deal with your behaviour. BTW: KillerChihuahua, the person Sadi reverted, is an admin.

:Also, the transparency of Sadi's talkpage archiving is rather clear, and needs to be dealt with -- his primary purpose is to squelch the discussion. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entropy (energy dispersal) Finally, his edit summary is rather misleading -- there is no clear-cut consensus -- there are 5 people who want his version, and 4 who want the other version, or want that version to remain until the issue is resolved. As I explained to Sadi, even if there were consensus, it would not override WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV nor WP:NOR (which, as pointed out by KillerChihuahua (see WP:LA), User:FrankLambert is in no danger of violating). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

:When you mentioned WP:RFA (requests for adminship) did you mean to refer to WP:RFAR (requests for arbitration) instead, perhaps, or am I missing something? 207.145.133.34 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, I meant RfAr -- brain cramp. •Jim62sch• 00:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

See User_talk:69.50.208.4 -- Someone has been using a bot to go through and request password resets for accounts that are not his over and over and over through an open proxy IP address. The IP addres has already been banned from editing, but not apparently from causing massive email floods into the mailboxes of accounts it requests passwords for. This has been going on for a few weeks and seems to be escalating across more affected accounts and more requests made. Just in a few hours today I had some 200 emails alerting me that my password was being reset because someone, "probably you", wanted it reset... which would be fine if it was accidental and a one time thing ("ooh, what was my account name? me forget"), but some of these are some 65+ requests IN LESS THAN 60 SECONDS. It's like a denial of service attack kind of thing.

Seems to me that there needs to be a change in how these things are handled, otherwise lots of innovent people's mailboxes will get full. Of course I could just filter it, but Wikimedia really doesn;t want to be sending out this level of bad email. I know AOL starts to block the whole server after a while if it sees suspicious emails, as one example.

Banned IPs should not be allowed to attempt password resets. No account should be allowed to have more than one password reset per hour or day or whatever. And so forth and so on.

Somebody please take care of this. DreamGuy 22:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:Did anyone submit a feature request to put a throttle on that thing already? One password request per use per day should be enough for any legitemate use. --Sherool (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::Ah great, another reason to discourge people from getting usernames. "Don't register with wikipedia, your email will get flooded with 200 password requests a day." I undestand telling people to ignore this when its infrequent, but really, 65 request per minute is insane and should be taken care of by more than just pointing people to a Bugzilla report. This is getting to be frequent complaint. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Email] pschemp | talk 22:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::A throttel feature has aparently existed since May already (per bugzilla:5370), we just need to poke a dev to actualy have it eneabled (I suggest setting to max one mail per 24 hours). --Sherool (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I dropped a request to eneable it at the wikimedia-tech IRC channel. Hopefully some of the devs ideling in the room will take a look at it. --Sherool (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I'm not so sure how helpful this will be, but the same thing happend to me. I only received about 35 requests, however. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Killfile them. Set your spam filter -- different depending on the software you use -- to either reject any messages with subject lines of "Password reminder from Wikipedia" or send those messages straight into the trash can. That's what I do. The malefactor doesn't have the option of changing the subject line, which is automatically generated. Antandrus (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've also received hundreds of these.--Robbstrd 21:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:This belongs at WP:PAIN. Thanks. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. --VinceB 01:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that was your third attack, accusing me of sockpuppetry. I know that I didn't used sockpuppets, beause I has a username here. So your action is against WP:FAITH and can be considered as a personal attack. I consideret it as one. The others are clearly against WP:CIV. My userpage is rubber friendly, as you can see wich is legal here. (As far as I know, I can do whatever I like to with my userpages, untill I don't harm others.) So calling my action vandalism is another personal attack from you. Not to mention this: this is obviously a kind of revenge. (WP:FAITH) Well, obviously not. I just want to reach that you stop these actions against me. --VinceB 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Users are allowed to blank their talk page or archive it, you should however not selectively remove just warnings unless you feel they are unjust (I think). Can another person weigh in? I know they can blank and archive and the always fun "speedy archive", but can you selectively delete? --NuclearZer0 12:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::No, you can't selectively delete. You either archive, or delete all. Not selectively delete. Daniel.Bryant 12:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Users are allowed to remove comments from their talk page as they see fit (as evidenced by the fact that many long-time users do), and that includes insults, irrelevant rants as well as warnings. Editing one's own talk page is not disruptive to the encyclopedia. Of course, removing a warning does not protect you from a later (escalated) warning, nor from a block for repeating the thing you were warned for. >Radiant< 14:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::What Radiant! said. Talk pages exist to promote conversation - not as a 'wall of shame' with items that the user is not allowed to remove. --CBD 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Apparently he's moved on to {{vandal|Luzadii}} Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've sprotected for now; let's see if they get bored. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for your note. I've blocked him for a day. NCurse _work 13:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::All spam reverted. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Uploading clearly racist and denigrating photos of individuals purported to be Armenians with comments such as typical Armenian. All the images that were uploaded by the user using obscure 19th century anthropological sources and unverified modern images were deleted and the user was warned numerous times by administrators on his userpage. The user reuploaded the images severeal times nonetheless.
• In one instance seen here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=80169907], the user blamed the entire Armenian population of Glendale for 80% of all crime in Glendale with the following edit summary: Armenian Crime wave in Glendale over 30 savage murders in the last 18 months
• The user keeps reverting the Armenia article erroniously placing Armenia in the Middle East, for obvious reasons.--Eupator 15:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him again. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-09 18:39Z

:Isn't this just an obvious troll? Danny Lilithborne 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::Feel free to block him the next time he disrupts. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-10 06:03Z

:Fully protected now. Joelito (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::In the future protection can be requested at WP:RFPP --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

: Done. In general, such requests are better sent to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - TexasAndroid 18:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the semi-protection, however, {{User|RCT}} has successfully circumvented it by moving the page back and forth 5 or six times to {{Article|Italian-American Heritage Day}} destroying the edit history. I don't think I can move it back now that it is no longer redirect page, Admin help requested. --Dual Freq 19:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Everything has been fixed and I left RCT a stern warning. Let's keep monitoring this, shall we? Grandmasterka 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

: This should almost certainly be brought to the foundation's attention. I have left a note on Brad's talk page about this. JoshuaZ 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:As a side note, one of the "Drug dealer" phone numbers is a McGill [http://www.mcgill.ca/engineering/resources/staff/ Network Administrator]'s number. I'm guessing it's not an actual solicitation for narcotics, but vandalism similar to the "for a good time call" numbers on bathroom walls. --Dual Freq 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::My opinion is that I don't think it's anything worth taking more serious than normal spam and posting of private info... I've deleted that revision from the article history. Thanks/wangi 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Looks like a content dispute to me - he's calling you a vandal, you're calling him a vandal, but neither of you are vandalizing that I see. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shelbourne_F.C.&diff=80247554&oldid=80176158 "Nazism. :("]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelbourne_F.C.&diff=80509811&oldid=80507872 "Revert to version before vandalism"]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnDai&diff=80511203&oldid=80510226 "...facist..."] (I suppose he meant "fascist", as per previous "nazism" comment)
• When I ask for clarifications, after another user has made some comments on my edits, he answers and ends with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shelbourne_F.C.&diff=80510310&oldid=80507025 "Please refrain from editing what you do not comprehend."]

On a side note, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=213.202.161.141 an IP user] edits Shelbourne F.C., Talk:Shelbourne F.C., and User_talk:Panarjedde according to EnDai position, insulting me and my edits. They hold the same position (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shelbourne_F.C.&diff=80506872&oldid=80506135 anonymous IP's comment] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shelbourne_F.C.&diff=80510310&oldid=80507025 EnDai's one]), and both call me "nuisance" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelbourne_F.C.&diff=80511585&oldid=80510439 EnDai] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelbourne_F.C.&diff=80505253&oldid=80455049 AnonymousCoward]).

What should I do? When other editors commented with civility my edits, I admited some errors and changed them, but EnDai and his "friend" showed no intention of collaboration at all.

--Panarjedde 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Addendum. We still do not agree on something. His constructive way of pointing out his position is to mock me, calling me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Football_kit&diff=prev&oldid=80513174 Muppet and "nuisance"]. This is getting heavy, I am a little annoyed by his behaviour.--Panarjedde 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:this is known about. Other than posible copyright issues there is little to be done.Geni 00:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::Stay off IRC? Or periodically post a warning/reminder? Thatcher131 00:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::It's still a major breach of privacy though, especially since it lists IP addresses. And btw, it isn't everyone's "favorite" anti-Wikipedia site. My vote goes to [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Main_Page Wikitruth]. Gotta love a site where it's impossible to get ahold of anyone and when you finally do, they don't correct anything you tell them to correct anyway. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::::We can all try and amuse ourselves with the irony that Brandt is supposed to be a leading internet privacy advocate. We can also mention this irony in the press next time someone asks us about critics. --bainer (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::: To respond to Thatcher, let me paraphrase Mark Twain: I would rather take my time to compose a post on a Wikipedia Talk page & risk everyone wondering if I'm idiot, than to participate in real time on IRC & remove all doubt. I suspect a lot of people would benefit if they considered that. -- llywrch 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

-de indent- They have my IP? How ironic that brandt considers himself a privacy advocate, yet posts hte ip's of hundreds of people. This reinforces my conviction that Brandt is a certifiable kook. And my ip there is old anyway. ~crazytales56297 O rly? 01:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Aha. I have it figured out. Brandt is concerned with privacy. Solely his own. That's why he blocks Gmail because they don't reveal your ip. He doesn't give a flying ratshit about the privacy of others. Certifiable kook. ~crazytales56297 O rly? 11:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion on blacklisting Wikipedia Watch [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#wikipedia-watch.org here]. Please share your thoughts. MaxSem 14:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As a person interested in researching and understanding the phenomena of Wikipedia, I comletly support logging the IRC chats, as they contain invaluable material for researchers. As misguided s Wikipedia Watch is, by logging the chats they have actually done us a service.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another reason not to do anything serious on IRC... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:Which articles? (use the {{tl|article}} template to list them) Thatcher131 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:: {{article|Vic Grimes}} is definitely one of them. Both the article and talk page were taken out of semi-protection within the last week, and both have now been placed back under semi-protection because of the AOL vandalism. - TexasAndroid 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::{{article|Texas Wrestling Academy}} and {{article|Extreme Warfare}} are the other two. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed as well at Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy#Semi_as_a_defense_vs_linkspam.3F and Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy#What_is_the_point_of_short_term_semi-protection_for_long_term_vandalism.3F.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'm quite inclinded to agree. This is harmful and deliberate. --InShaneee 19:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::It's obvious. A longer block is needed. NCurse _work 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::I agree. That kind of editing threatens the project. Bad enough to do it in the first place, but to revert when it's removed compounds the offense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had past conflicts with him, so I'm reluctant to do it. Would somebody else mind doing it? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I have placed a warning on his talk page. If he persists I will block. I am keeing an eye on that article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I gave him 24 hrs, since he'd already been called on it before. FeloniousMonk 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I must say, I'm a little puzzled. How could WP:BLP be relevant? He's saying here -- and correctly, I might add -- that Bush has been labelled a Satanist (and a lot of loony ultra-weird-religious sites have indeed said that, as well as some insane conspiracy sites, and some sites which combine the two), but that he is not one (the entry is in the section entitled "Mislabeled Satanists".) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::The sources are unreliable, so they shouldn't be used for any claims about living people. Furthermore, Liftarn was using original research to assert that these unreliable sources were "mislabelling" people as Satanists, and getting a further dig in about them being "self-professed" Christians. Putting someone on a List of Satanists (even in the "mislabeled" section) is no joke. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with Jayjg, saying someone is not something is an end run around BLP. If we do not allow into the article that "Person X calls Person Y a satanist", then we should not allow into another article "Person X calls person Y a satanist, but that is false". Its basically restating the same BLP violation. --NuclearZer0 03:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I gave him a warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AColin4C&diff=80567708&oldid=78475875]. NCurse _work 06:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I won't protect the page now. Please next time, when this anon vandalizes the page, give him a warning template, because with a blank talk page, I can't block him. NCurse _work 06:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:*Looks more like a content dispute, to me -- do you have reliable sources to verify your edits? Have you attempted to discuss this with the user, or go through the dispute resolution process? Luna Santin 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The user is a well known Asylum member. Previously, his edits have simply been to erase all information related to the program. His most recent edit is an attempt to suggest that there is no information. The Asylum program is well known, is not at all hidden, but its members prefer to hide its existence. The fact that he would erase all information, and later simply include a line denying information being available, shows that he KNOWS he is blanking (and therefore, with the latest revision, trying to get around it).

:*This page is for obvious vandalism. This isn't obvious at all, especially considering that the information isn't verifiable in the first place. As Luna Santin, please read the dispute resolution process. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Read the talk page of the movie gallery article. The following is posted at the end:

"Asylum

To any Who view this page there is a Guy who was upset with Gamecrazy so he says he will continue to post about "The Asylum" even though it is a breach of contract when he joined and posted on said site He agreed to certain Terms and conditions,

the first rule is "Dont Talk about the Asylum"

so if you see a posting under the Game Crazy Section about it Delete it ASAP"

I think that's obvious. They are insisting on blanking the information. It should be mentioned, also, they are blanking it not because the information is inaccurate, but because "the first rule is, 'don't talk about the Asylum.'"

• "Obvious" vandalism tends to refer more to "LOLZ PENIS" and the like. In this case, the edits being removed aren't verifiable and likely constitute original research -- please consider dispute resolution or take this to WP:AN/I, because it's not likely to result in action from this particular page. Our definition of vandalism is pretty narrow. Luna Santin 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::I've opted to move the above discussion here from AIV, since no one's acted on it yet, and it seems to be clogging up the page. It seems more appropriate to place it here, in any case. Luna Santin 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

While I'd typically call that vandalism, it is well worth noting that essentially nothing in this article is sourced. --InShaneee 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've no compunction with Asylum being posted in the article, the beef everyone is having lately is the contributor 206.162.192.39 was a former Asylum member and his additions to the articles have no source merit to them, except based on his personal experiences. The only problem I've got is the accusation he makes about GameCrazy employees "buying up" rare games with high online value and selling them on auctions. Especially since 206.162.192.39's source is severely limited to one store in a whole franchise. Though he's attempting to make it appear objective, he has blatantly admitted to the company in general that he would purposely post the "truth" about the company, all because he failed in receiving a hard-to-find video game.

As a journalist myself, this shows lack of maturity and responsibility on 206.162.192.39's part especially when you read his own History pertaining to this article, he's not attempting in being informative but actually vindictive, and I feel this is not what Wikipedia was designed for. When I come here for articles, I want to be informed, not deal with editorial comment from a person who wants to ruin a company for his dissatisfaction. And though I've heard some members have attempted to go through your dispute resolution process with 206.162.192.39, he doesn't want to respond or negotiate, and he has made caustic, unverifiable remarks pertaining for his additions in this article. Here's some proof in his history:

1. 23:24, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Movie Gallery (I am no longer an Asylum meber or Game Crazy MVP member. Ask Mr. Asylum to confirm this. I am not bound by the rule anymore. And remember, this text stays in the history so you never really remove it.)
2. 04:17, 9 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Movie Gallery (I'm gonna print out copies of that paragraph and put them under windshields at Game Crazy store parking lots too)
3. 04:16, 9 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Movie Gallery (I warned you. And Ive posted extensively at the Asylum boards about this. They want the text gone? Then they can send a C&D letter to me.)
4. 01:48, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Movie Gallery (Lame Lazy failed to deliver on my FF7 special order as well, no doubt some employee bought it after I paid the $6 fee, hence my blabbing of Asylum)
5. 01:44, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Movie Gallery (I'm keeping a copy of this text. If Game Crazy wants to sue me for revealing this info then let them, but leave it!)

Not complaining, mind you, but giving you a source to go back on demonstrating 206.162.192.39's behaviour.

As I said before, I really don't care one way or another about Asylum or the MVP Program being mentioned, but when you read this as a whole, it really degrades the Movie Gallery Article into something you'd find in a tabloid or forum board, rather than a respectable information site where one can share their knowledge on information. I really don't want to cause trouble, but I do want to let you know what's really been going on with this particular article, and the battle really originated with 206.162.192.39's insensitive attitude. Basically, I'd just like the mods or admins here to explain to this guy that you don't go and "tell all" on a website, just because you can't get your way. Thanks for at least hearing me out, and I hope Wikipedia can find a way to resolve this problem soon.

:It seems to be under control for now...also, just FYI, the 3RR doesn't apply if you're reverting vandalism, placing a justified speedy deletion tag, etc., so don't worry about that. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Ok, thanks! --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• From poking through his user contributions, I'd guess it might have something to do with editing Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts or else Mailer Diablo's RfB; he seemed perturbed on both pages. But I'm just speculating. --Aaron 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:Needless to say, I hope he changes his mind. I've always liked Freak. --Aaron 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder why. --SPUI (T - C) 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry SPUI - I don't see a smoking gun there. Are you saying he left Wikipedia because he was on the minority side of a poll concerning a naming convention? I'm not aware of the history and it seems a bad use of my time to route through histories if you know the answer. Could you please spell it out for me? Johntex\^talk 02:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freakofnurture&curid=1536028&diff=80541870&oldid=80541209 Meow.] The conventional wisdom in dramatic departures is to ignore them, that hopeless a wiki-addict will return to editing like a dog to its own vomit. I always do. I like FoN but if he doesn't want to communicate to the point of even disallowing messages asking people to respect his obvious wishes and leave him alone...
  brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:Woof. Johntex\^talk 03:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:Done. Grandmasterka 09:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks. Equendil Talk 14:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've created a temporary bot, Werdna Sandbox Bot, which will reset the sandbox every hour. If it needs to be faster, bug me. This has the distinction of the only bot I've written entirely between 1:30 and 1:40am {{mono|;-)}}. Code, if really needed, on request. All shouting > my talk page. — Werdna talk criticism 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:There seems to be very little doubt that {{user|Matt Parlow}} and {{user|Mario.radin}} are socks of {{user|Velebit}}, and since WP:NLT is clear, I'm oriented to block Velebit also indefinitely. If no admin objects, I will proceed.--Aldux 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit from Checkuser has confirmed that {{user|Velebit}} was indeed using socks including User:Pederkovic Ante (talk • contribs), User:Ante Pavelic (talk • contribs) as well as User:Matt Parlow (talk • contribs). All socks are now indef'ed and I've blocked Velebit for 2 months. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'll watch the page, and if the spamming continues, I'll semiblock it. NCurse _work

:I'm in agreement with Recury - the user's claims are in complete violation of WP:LIVING, and after the user's last block, he or she immediately came back and began this cycle again. -- DiegoTehMexican 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Also, after several polite requests to prove their case, re-emphasizing the importance of WP:LIVING, this user turns from personal attacks on Erin Crocker to personal attacks on the editors. The history is there. The lack of willingness to stop vandalizing is there. What recourse is left, but to continue to enforce more severe restrictions? -slowpokeiv 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

: Note that I'm reporting this here because the case does not seem serious enough yet to qualify according to the guidelines—there is only one warning so far, from the AntiVandalBot. Please pardon me if this incorrect. DocWatson42 16:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:It seems that every edit is reverted and a range block is not a solution here. So we should watch those pages for some days, drop me a message when a helping hand is needed. NCurse _work 17:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:Bobabobabo seems to not care about what we say concerning fair use images. I just hope s/he didn't revert my orphaning of all of them. Ryūlóng 02:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::Well user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zero1328/Work_Area&oldid=80336661 has fair use images. So why can't I? Bobabobabo (12:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

:::That page is a TEMPORARY workspace. They will all be removed as soon as the work is completed. --InShaneee 16:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::::And that means you should leave it alone in the mean time, Bobabobabo. Ryūlóng 22:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::He's now copying Zero's work area into one of his own. I've blanked it (not the first time that's been done, apparently), and warned him that he'll be blocked next time he tries pulling this garbage. --InShaneee 03:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Temporary workspaces don't make using images acceptable. It's still a fair use image that doesn't fit fair use guidelines. Commenting out the images temporarily would be sufficient, however. Ral315 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:I have not used my Workspace for some time due to some problems with it and I was leaving it there for reference. I've now blanked the page. Even so, User:Zero1328/Work Area is in my User space and I consider it impolite to alter someone's WIP without permission, as it may disrupt the work. Please refrain from copying it again. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::I like how he calls a registered user an anon in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiba_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=80841068 this diff]. As he had in the past to others. Ryūlóng 23:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::And how he's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:AG188.jpg reuploaded formerly orfud'd images]. Ryūlóng 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1. :Image:Avalonenpolognetheatricalpolish.png
2. :Image:Hellhoundsmanga.png
3. :Image:Tome1kamuikerberos.png
4. :Image:Amazingcomicsissue2.png
5. :Image:Patlaborwxiiiscreen.png
6. :Image:Otoko-tachiguishi-poster.png

Let me also add that this user quite possibly is the one who made a personal attack against me with a sockpuppet account (see my discussion page) which had words which stated my edits were "peanuts" and calling me a "dick" . Edit: I've communicated with him several times and he still does not take me seriously. See his/her discussion page; he/she was completely rude as

well. New Edit: I just noticed this user has deleted my no fair use rationale warnings from his/her discussion page.ResurgamII 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:He's incorrectly tagging them, as well, such as describing the fifth image there as a 'screenshot', but tagging it as a Movie Poster. --InShaneee 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

- So can you please help me in this situation? He/she obviously does not take me seriously as I have no power over him/her (as a administrator). ResurgamII 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. I already ran into this user before and he shows no intention whatsoever of reforming or ceasing blatantly violating our copyright policies. Plus, add the usual incivility, incapability of responding reasonably or rationally to issues raised, etc. --Cyde Weys 02:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think you were absolutely right to close of the the 2. Personally, I think it should have gone to AfD in the first place, so I would have kept that one and closed DRV. However, it did NOT go to AfD in the first place, so technically policy says DRV should happen first. Therefore, I can't fault you for the choice you made. Johntex\^talk 16:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Well, Phil Sandifer reverted me back to his own version. I think this is now a mess as the discussion is split between two fora, which may come up with contradictory results. If the AfD comes up with a keep, shall I open a DRV to review it? I invite someone who is not involved in this to try to sort out the mess. One of these discussion should be closed and stay closed.--Doc 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree it is a mess. All may not be lost, however. The question at the DRV is not really whether the article should be deleted or not, but whether it was properly deleted or not (under proceedure). I haven't counted heads, but it is clear that a significant number of people think it was *not* closed properly. Since Wikipedia is not a vote, does it matter if those people end up being 40% or 60%? Either way, maybe the AfD is a good idea. So, we just look at the DRV as demonstrating the AfD should run its course, and we accept the results of the AfD. Johntex\^talk 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::* I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fleshlight_%28third_nomination%29&diff=80703289&oldid=80698392 closed] the deletion nomination pending the close of deletion review, including a note to all participants pointing to the DRV. This will almost certainly bork the DRV beyond belief. However, it was opeend first, so we let it run its course, then hopefully have a more reasoned debate once everyone's passions have cooled. Between this and Powerbook, Snowspinner seems intent on gumming up the works... is anyone going to tune him up? - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 22:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:::* Thanks, I think that's the right course of action. But, I'm sure Phil's motives were good.--Doc 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::** Poorly phrased on my part. I've never doubted Snowspinner's motives were for the good of the project, simply that he often chooses to follow though in disruptive ways. In both of the cases I referenced above, he acted quickly, with little discussion, and contrary to the status quo. It would have been better had I said, "Has anyone whom he will lisen to talked to him about either one or the other of these actions?" - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 10:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:He got a test4 warning. Next time he'll be blocked. Thank you for reporting this. NCurse _work 05:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:Bot blocked pending approval, as per blocking policy. A member of the Bot Approval Group will unblock the bot once it has been approved for use on English Wikipedia. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My concern is this: I warned her about blanking pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrL&diff=prev&oldid=80675149]. She proceeded to remove the warning, claiming to "archive" it (but she didn't put it in her archive: she just deleted it) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrL&diff=prev&oldid=80677128]. I replaced the warning, and warned her about removing talk page warnings (an annoying habit she has). She responded by setting her Werdnabot talk page archiver to only 1 day, and then posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrL&diff=prev&oldid=80685295 this] comment, where she not only insults me (calling me "Byrgleturd") but brags about how her Werdnabot will remove the warning for her. I find this devious sort of behaviour deeply worrying.

Can something be done? Removing the Werdnabot facility from her talk page would probably be a good start, since she is clearly using it for purposes for which it wasn't intended. Thanks. Byrgenwulf 21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I know the Werdnabot banner on her talk page says it is archived every 3 days, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrL&diff=prev&oldid=80677269 here] one can see how she set it to 1 day intervals. Byrgenwulf 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Jeezum Crow how often is this going to come up, anyway. Vandal fighters like to say that removing warnings is vandalism. The user page policy allows editors to remove warnings from their own talk page. This naturally creates a conflict that has resulted in more than one edit war over policy, not to mention many needless edit wars over talk pages. He/she can remove the warnings. The most recent discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Funny problem with false warnings on my talk page. Thatcher131 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• The point of a warning is not a mark on someone's "permanent record", a warning is a message to a user to stop behaving in a certain manner. If the user removes said warning, that should be taken as an indication of having read it. Thus, if the user repeats said behavior, it is time for a stronger warning and/or a block. Removing warnings is not in and of itself disruptive. >Radiant< 22:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Who die'd?

I think this show should be canceled a.s.a.p. Maybe we can vote on it and send a petition? I want to shoot the kid in the bed, right in the face, with a pellet gun, not a real gun. POP POP POPOPOPOP[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friday_Night_Lights_%28TV_series%29&diff=prev&oldid=80723339]

The account was created on 29 September 2006 and has 52 edits. A lot of the edits are to Talk pages or to the reference desk. A few are to articles. Some of the edits to articles are clearly improper, even if they aren't vandalism. E.g.:

*Some consider Gordon an active homosexual, however, there has been no evidence, so it is often disregarded by the public or avoided.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Gordon&diff=prev&oldid=80730478]

Some edits may be OK - I don't know.

Suggestions?

-Johntex\^talk 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think the user should be asked/warned of his behavior and if it consists he may need to be blocked. "Hitman" doesn't seem like an inapropriate uesername to me.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::I have already warned him about both of the above edits, but I am concerned by the combination of his username and the fact that he wants to shoot someone in the face with a pellet gun. Johntex\^talk 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I get a bad feeling about this one. Although he does have some good edits, he's trying to force rumors and innuendo into Jeff Gordon in spite of the actions of several other editors and your warning. Also have a look at his history at Rachel Bilson, its talk page, and the actions of the anonymous editor 68.202.128.153 (talk • contribs • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=move&user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:68.202.128.153}}}}}} page moves] • block user • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:68.202.128.153}}}} block log]). I think we need to be careful about people who edit articles about living people with this kind of malice. No more Siegenthalers. Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:Done. Alphachimp 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:'kay, it's semiprotected. Any admin may revert without contacting me, etc etc... ~Kylu (u|t) 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::Next time, please use the request for page protection page. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:First, any block should surely be explained on the user's talk page. There doesn't seem to have been any explanation there. I'm therefore forced to guess that, yes, it's related to Groucho Marx. I haven't carefully gone through the edit history of the Marx article, but Perosi seems to have made the mistake of disagreeing with PMA. He may also have done something like 3RR (I haven't counted, and it's not what he's accused of), and he may, according to your taste, be too interested in anecdote or too prolix, neither of which is a blockable offense. The talk page of the article contains no argument that he has wilfully ignored. All in all I can't see any reason why he should have been blocked at all. The onus is on PMA to explain the reason, and also to explain why 24 hours (at the most) shouldn't have been tried first as a preventative/deterrent measure. -- Hoary 08:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::(Edit conflict) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Groucho_Marx&diff=79421838&oldid=79396938 This] sure doesn't seem appropriate. I cannot attest to the accuracy of those quotes or sources, but those were the very first attempts at any referencing in this article that PMA reverted without comment. There is no apparent discussion on this issue, except some comments on the talk page from 2005 which would support Lorenzo's additions. I agree with Andrew's assessment from what I've seen. Grandmasterka 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:From a cursory look at PMA's user page and talk page, he/she also seems to have recently blocked User:Misanthrope00 for 31 days without warning, and PMA's user page is protected. I'm sure there may be good reasons all around, but maybe someone should have a conversation with PMA on admin interaction style? Martinp 09:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::Whoa... The images of hers that I looked at looked fine to me, the few that weren't were promptly deleted. And a little warning wouldn't have hurt before this user was blocked for a month. This seems really serious. I was about to unblock this user but I thought I'd wait for more input. (Copyright problems are to be taken seriously.) Grandmasterka 10:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

----

As for the Marx article - that person was also the source of some very POV pro-Groucho material (in the ad-lib section) that was removed by another user. I provided a cite for my part about Groucho being senile towards the end of his life - I feel that Mark Evanier is extremely trustworthy when it comes to matters like this and, seeing as there seemed to be no possibility of "LorenzoPerosi1898" backing down on his/her POV given their history, i saw no choice but to block.

As for User:Misanthrope00, I was planning to put a block notice on her page but real life intervened and i was away from my computer for an extended time - my apologies. Also, there is no guarentee that if i unblock her that she will not return to her image stealing copyright infringing tricks - i've been with this project for nearly five years and know how much trouble such people can cause - DW for example - in these circumstances it is better to be safe than sorry. (looking at the talk page Netsnipe seems to agree with me). PMA 14:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:PMA, I have a lot of respect for your 5 years service to the project and 3 years admin. But your reply above disquiets me. Regarding Lorenzo, you just should not block a user you are in a content dispute with, and the argument "he was making POV edits, I had provided a reference for my side, and I thought he would continue pushing his POV" just does not cut it for appropriate admin blocking behaviour. I see you have blocked a number of users for increasing lengths of time over the past few weeks for "POV edits and article degradation", including an anon who you blocked (for 30 days) 17 days after his previous edit. The lack of apparent communication -- for any reason -- around several of your blocks seems a bit disturbing as well. While I know battle fatigue sets in for all of us, I would challenge you and us all what we can do to limit curt damage-control actions to a minimum and avoid behaviour which make slightly misguided but potentially valuable contributors feel pushed around rather than welcome. And apologies in advance if I have completely misread the situation. Martinp 15:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

----

Martin, perhaps you are right about "battle fatigue" - just i have learned the hard way over many years that with some people you just can't argue with - i wasn't always this way - i gave such people lots of chances once but it was thrown back in my face repeatedly, culminating in what Americans call "felonius impersonation" in order to defame me. What am i supposed to do about people like Lorenzo who ignore credible cites - Evanier knew Groucho in the last few years of his life and i footenoted his articles about Groucho's decline. As for Misanthrope - Netsnipe agrees that she ignored warnings - it seemed like another DW to me - i apologise. PMA 17:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:This was pretty much the definition of a sterile edit war... why didn't you bring the discussion of the credibility of the source onto the talk page, and at least explain yourself there? Georgewilliamherbert 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Refered there after a report at Personal attack intervention noticeboard, I'm dumbfounded. However, my knowledge of this subject is so microscopic I'll make others stupider simply by talking about it. Can someone who knows anything about Hinduism look at it? Otherwise I'll just brutally trim it back to a verifiable stub, cull the external links, and hope for the best. - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 10:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

: That article is an abortion of a thing. Far too many people falling over each other to get their point across. Guy 11:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We really need admin intervention.

Here is his justification for blanking parts of the Tamilnet article:

Sudharsansn the reasons are given in the edit summery. Thats not vandalism. Get your facts straight. Practically everything I removed is irrelevant to the context of the article. The international news organizations don't say sympathetic to LTTE website. Its plain pro LTTE website. That means they support the LTTE. Plain English. Not sympathetic. Support. And stuff like

David Jeyaraj a Canada based freelance journalist known for his neutral stance in the current Sri Lankan civil war had written that Karuna, was personally involved in the murder of famed journalist Taraki Sivaram

is just not encyclopedic and doesn't belon in WP. So again I'm removing irrelevant content and restoring my previous version. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 04:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He claims David Jeyaraj's ( a journalist) statement (with reference) is unencylopedic, so he decides to remove it completely. He also insists on mentioning the LTTE with the list of countries banned in detail. Is the article about the LTTE or Tamilnet ? But he wants to include as much negative detail about the LTTE in order to highlight his POV. He also insists on saying the website supports the LTTE, which is legally vague. Material support, financial support, political support what does support mean ?? The best word as far as I see it is that it is sympathetic to the the LTTE. Furthermore he blanks many other factual statements, with relevant citations without even discussing it. Here is the diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamilnet&diff=80561873&oldid=80558808)

Please also look into the section which labeled as "Time", because there is the added complication of old Sri Lanka time (5h30 difference from GMT) and new Sri Lanka time (6h difference from GMT) with regards to one of the allegations.

:: I had also switched the title of the allegations section from "Allegations of False Reporting" to "Controversy" because:

• Only one incident is where Tamilnet is accused of false reporting, the other two references, it is called discrepancies [http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/1448], [http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20060808_05].

Thanks, Elalan 13:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

: The relevant sentence on his Talk page, made after I simply alerted him to rules against vanity or autobiographical editing is: "I know your identity and if you should seek to defame me any further I will seek legal action in court! And I will report you to The Anti-Defamation League B'nai Brith for further investigation." CRCulver 14:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::Blocked for 48 hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikola_Tesla&diff=prev&oldid=80822593 this diff] which confirms sockpuppetry to evade a block. I have tagged as such, but account is still being used and needs admin intervention. --Satori Son 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about two articles about brands of rolling papers, Bambu and [[Shttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Your signature with timestampmoking rolling papers]]. There has been a sort of edit war between User:Mrtobacco and an anonymous editor for the sake of adding and removing a claim that the manufacturer of Smoking rolling papers did something illegal. Unfortunately, the only reference is in Spanish, and a Google search did not provide any more insight into the matter other than the article in Spanish.

I don't feel that an article I can't even read should be enough to justify damning comments about a living person or working corporation. - GilliamJF 18:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:[http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.20minutos.es%2Fnoticia%2F142583%2F0%2Fpapel%2Ffumar%2Fcancer%2F&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools] Google Translate, there is also Altavista Babbelfish if you want to use that. --NuclearZer0 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you for that suggestion. - GilliamJF 19:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::The article source is legit. There has also been a criminal court proceeding against the company for endangering public health. I would say, this is not just damning comments. They should be mentioned in the article. Regards, --Asterion^talk 21:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

He has also been deceptive, claiming that he cannot be held for his provider's actions - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Afrika_paprika&diff=next&oldid=80684434 alleging that it was not him] on his talk page in 00:38, 11 October 2006. It is therefor that I suggest lengthening his block, watching the articles he edits (preferably semi-protect them), officially warning him on his/her talk page and putting him on a probation period. Best regards, admins and hope that you'll respond soon as you can. With heart, --PaxEquilibrium 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:Afrika just now re-emerged as User:89.172.204.126, continuing the edit-war of Croats in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croats&diff=prev&oldid=80869259 19:31, 11 October 2006] and Travunia in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Travunia&diff=prev&oldid=80870247 19:37, 11 October 2006], as can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=89.172.204.126 on his contributions] (self-confirmation present here as well - please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Afrika_paprika&diff=prev&oldid=80871442 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Afrika_paprika&diff=prev&oldid=80872888] from 19:43, 11 October 2006 and 19:51, 11 October 2006 at his/her talk page). --PaxEquilibrium 20:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::Just noticed his/new annon sockpuppet - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=89.172.232.157 89.172.232.157]. He/she edited [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zahumlje&diff=prev&oldid=80884014 Zahumlje] in 20:51, 11 October 2006, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croats&diff=prev&oldid=80883506 Croats] in 20:49, 11 October 2006 and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duklja&diff=prev&oldid=80884062 Duklja] in 20:51, 11 October 2006. Althogh there is no direct confirmation of Afrika's identity behind this one - the edits show all themselves. --PaxEquilibrium 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::Afrika has been blocked indefinitely by User:Pilotguy for incessant edit warring, sockpuppeteering and violating existing blocks. Separately, I've semi-protected Croats to discourage further anonymous edits from Afrika. I agree with the block and suggest that it be treated as a community ban; he's a frequent edit warrior, he's had numerous previous blocks for the same offence and he plainly hasn't learned (or just doesn't want to learn) from the experience. -- ChrisO 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Lovely reaction... See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisO&curid=344261&diff=80892374&oldid=80779720 this]. --Asterion^talk 21:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=80893999&oldid=80893664 this]... we're definitely better off without this idiot. -- ChrisO 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I fully agree that he fully earned is ban, as I agree with ChrisO that this should be treated as a community ban. I have also extended semi-protection to Travunia, Zahumlje, Pagania and Duklja, also under attack by Afrika paprika through anon. accounts.--Aldux 23:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I gave the entry a minor cleanup and dropped the contesting parties a note on the talk page. El_C 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:Semiprotected, see [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Full Protection of Lidle Page|Full Protection of Lidle Page]] for more information. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

--Charlesknight 20:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:*CNN ([http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html]) is reporting that the Yankees have confirmed it's his plane. A lot of edit-warring on the article. Fan-1967 21:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::*I've added it to {{tl|In the news}} for the main page. I think it is worthy of that... Man, it just had to happen in Manhattan. Grandmasterka 21:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:Semiprotected, see [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Full Protection of Lidle Page|Full Protection of Lidle Page]] for more information. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've removed the template from his userpage. Naconkantari 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:ec In the future, when using templated warnings, it is probably best to put them on the user talk pages instead of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AEinsteinEdits&diff=80503763&oldid=80499705 on the user page]. Jkelly 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Naconkantari much appreciated. Jkelly, seems Philosopher06[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EinsteinEdits&diff=prev&oldid=79571955] may have placed it there by accident instead of the talk page, I did not want to revert out the boxes, so i did a warning revert by hand. Hu12 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just checked this person's talk page and I noticed he has moved his talk page to User talk:EinsteinEdits nonsense and removed some warnings from his talk page. I restored these warnings and warned him not to do it again. When I explained to him that removing warnings is considered vandalism, he left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEinsteinEdits_nonsense&diff=80527218&oldid=80526898 this uncivil comment] on the page. Seems like someone who doesn't understand the problems of what he's been doing so far. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He posted uncivil comments on my talk page as well. keep an eye on this one. Hides under different ip's, heres one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=76.182.42.121] Hu12 02:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've edited as IP at times, there could be a very good reason. I don't log in at all from work unless I have to, as I'd rather not have my coworkers get access to my enwiki account on accident. At home, I've edited and clicked save, to find out that I've been logged out somehow. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems the problems with EinsteinEdits, who also posts as 64.12.116.203 have escilated regarding the blog and spam links on Tickle Me Elmo. This has brought more abusive comments on my talk page, the comments under "new complaint" by 64.12.116.8 must be friend of EinsteinEdits and has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHu12&diff=80754091&oldid=80753292 posted threats]. not sure the policy on this, but some assistance would be appreciated. Hu12 06:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• After some digging looks EinsteinEdits is here to promote sites after all, here's his info. he posts as [http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=1521470#post1521470 MountainLife] at digitalpoint.com, and has recently decided to sell his site, quote: "Would like to field some offers for these, TMX-ELMO.NET, TMX-ELMO.ORG,TMXELMO.ORG, I think it's a pretty potent package". The first noticeable spamming was www.tmx-elmo.org, was Created On:19-Sep-2006, and does not appear in the search engines. and has been added and re-added Eleven times ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=80704790&oldid=80689991],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=prev&oldid=80685894],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=prev&oldid=79871918],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=prev&oldid=79664204],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=prev&oldid=79653567],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=prev&oldid=79545813],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=prev&oldid=79286568],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=prev&oldid=79286503],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=prev&oldid=79180587],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=prev&oldid=78940690],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tickle_Me_Elmo&diff=next&oldid=80744759]) This is an alarming amount of spam, whats disterbing is his other sites are in [http://forums.digitalpoint.com/member.php?u=13417 MountainLife]'s signature, and have been spammed on wiki also examples: www.cocaine-drink.com ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_drink&diff=prev&oldid=79650524] under IP 205.188.116.133, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_drink&diff=prev&oldid=79482581] under IP 76.182.42.121,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_drink&diff=prev&oldid=79287361], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_drink&diff=prev&oldid=79287271], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_drink&diff=prev&oldid=79287160], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_drink&diff=prev&oldid=79286811]), www.dieselsmoke.com ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diesel&diff=prev&oldid=79640668], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diesel&diff=prev&oldid=68492742] under IP 64.12.117.10 and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diesel&diff=prev&oldid=68492677]. www.nascarspace.com ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NEXTEL_Cup&diff=prev&oldid=79580375], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stock_car_racing&diff=prev&oldid=79460950] under IP 205.188.117.5 and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stock_car_racing&diff=prev&oldid=79314382] under IP 76.182.42.121 and www.nitrousdirect.com ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitrous&diff=prev&oldid=80654249],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitrous&diff=prev&oldid=80653312]). Thanks for your attention in this matter Hu12 17:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have zero affiliation with any such sites. I am here to try to help and your nazi type approach has made it virtually unbearable. I copied some user icons to spruce up my user page and made the mistake of copying a user admin icon. I apologize no where did I claim to be an admin? I asure you I am here to help and clean spoam, and add valuable links that I come across on a daily basis. I'm not sure why you think I am someone else or own sites but I do not. I'd appreciate if you laid off I'm trying to be apart of the wikipedia experience and your constant abuse and torment is making it very unpleasant to try and contribute--Edited By a Professor of Life 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I see you removed your links from your signature since i posted this [http://forums.digitalpoint.com/member.php?u=13417 MountainLife]. nice strawman tactic. Hu12 21:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think Hu12 was referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EinsteinEdits&diff=80499651&oldid=80346728 this edit] where you added {{tl|user admin}} to your userpage, which states "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia." Now, as part of assuming good faith I'll just assume you're an admin elsewhere and put it on your userpage by accident, but you may want to read the Wikipedia policy on external links before adding any more of those valuable links you mention, please. We thank you in advance for following the policies and guidelines in place at Wikipedia!

:Oh, instead of {{tl|user admin}} you might want to use {{tl|User System Administrator}} or whichever appropriate other occupational userbox applies. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies i copied a list of neat looking user icons and that was included. Again i'm sorry what is the issue that you can not understand that it was removed, not put back, and apologized for. I had no idea how user icons worked or userpages i thought it was your own place to list stuff. Again sorry. As for other comments I have zero clue who that person is, don't see any links, don't know what you mean by strawman but you guys are really going overboard I was simply contributing, and have no affiliations other than being a member on one of the message forums I found useful. --Edited By a Professor of Life 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for making the admin tag confusion clear. My point after was that when www.tmx-elmo.org was removed, because it had ads, the ads disappeared. After mentioning that the same group of links you have inserted and focused on here at wiki (www.nitrousdirect.com, www.nascarspace.com, www.dieselsmoke.com , www.cocaine-drink.com ) were curiously in a "signature" on another forum, showing their relationship to you, they too disappear after its mentioned. then my user page gets vandalized excessively, along with all but my contribs involving you. An amazing string of coincidences. A straw man argument is a misrepresentation of a position. Any way best of luck in your endeavors. Hu12 02:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Lravikumar 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:It appears to be a content dispute rather than vandalism. Some of the references you blanked are from academic journals, Asia Week magazine, and several other sources. While unsourced material may be removed per WP:BLP, if there is any info from a reliable source, I do not see any problem. --Ragib 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I asked him to reply to this complaint and do not edit that section (Secret Personal life) until that. NCurse _work 17:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• It appears Lravikumar has mistaken me for someone else who might have indulged in personal attacks in the past on such articles. I saw that a certain user named Jjayalalitha had blanked the section in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jayalalithaa_Jayaram&diff=78094689&oldid=76943189 this edit] and a couple of edits later I reinstated it and added more sources for the same. I reworded "conspiracy theories" which has an entirely different meaning to a temporary heading of "Secret personal life". I also provided credible sources for the "mistress" issue and can continue to point to other [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jayalalithaa_Jayaram&diff=27916098&oldid=27915696 edits like this] in the past where I've blanked baseless allegations whenever this article does catch my eye. I've even replied in the talk page previously [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jayalalithaa_Jayaram#blp here] stressing that "Her so called marriage with Shoban Babu unless backed by a proper cite will have to go soon" and retagged the 2nd para talking about her alleged wedding as [citation needed]. I have given solid sources for the "concubine" issue and I can provide tons more if needed. (btw concubine isn't the correct term and was planning to change that until I was notified not to change for the time being) There has been no violation of any WP policies, especially concerning biographies of living persons. The contentious first para's statements are verifiable instantly, not original research and taken from multiple non-partisan sources. I suspect Lravikumar has not fully read the sources, half of which come from reputable Indian publications like for instance The Economic Times or DCRC, a Delhi University research center among other esteemed publications which cannot be dismissed as mere "gossips". Idleguy 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your view. Any mention of derogatory statements like concubine,mistress etc to be avoided on living persons.

You can get umpteen sources regarding personal life of notable public figures.For example,I can find 1000 websites which makes derogatory statements about Bill Gates or George Bush.(There is a website which even says Bill Gate is dead.Will you believe it?).If some website says person "xxx" is gay does not give authority for wikipedians to edit concerned person article saying that he is a gay quoting that as a citation.

Any personal allegations regarding illegal relationship,dating,sexual orientation etc on individuals to be considered wrong unless it is accepted by concerned person even if there is 100 gossip websites writing about it.I wish Wikipedia to remain as collection of knowledge not as a collection of gossips. If we allow this to happen then each article on living persons will be flooded with Junk personal attacks. Jayalalitha is a political leader. I don't mind if you attack about her political decisions/political life etc.I even wish to develop consensus on modifying Policy on living persons to cite my views without any ambiguity. I can argue that each one of your citation is from unreliable sources. I don't want to indulge in edit war.I hope you will agree with my points and remove concerned section.--Lravikumar 18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

: You should have only blanked the page after a consensus was reached. More over, there is nothing called as Gossip Magazine. It is Magazine. And I don't agree with you calling all the sources as Gossip Magazines. You should note that the para is based on well cited sources, which no one in Tamil Nadu can disagree.

: Point two. I disagree with your view that don't mind if you attack about her political decisions/political life etc Even that has to be cited and there should be more sources for that.

: Remember that it is clearly given (in another article) that another Tamil Nadu CM has two wives.

: If people go on blanking all that is not good about their favourite leaders, then we will have no articles in Wikipedia at all.

: There is no policy in Wikipedia which says you cannot write about affairs. (Note that Sexual Orientation is different from affairs). See Princess Diana and Bill Clinton for example. Of course, you cannot write completely baseless affairs. But the para is question is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH and should be maintained as it is well cited.  Doctor Bruno  19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dr.Bruno/Idleguy.

1) As suggested in my Talk page, I will edit only unsourced contents of the page till we reach consensus on controversial sourced edit.

2) Regarding your comments on sourced edit.

a) I did not mean she can be attacked politically without citations.

b) Having two wives is not derogatory term.(which is also accepted by biographer) Alleging affair is derogatory term especially when it is not accepted by biographer.

c) Both Bill Clinton & Diana has accepted their extra marital affairs. So it can be mentioned. But same is not the case with Jayalalitha.

d) I edited many pages of Movie actresses and other celebrities when personal attacks are launched against them. You can see from my contributions. Jayalalitha is not my favourite leader as indicated(I hope you also did not mean that Jayalalitha is my favourite leader and indicated in generic sense.I know you will talk only issue and not launch personal attack)

e) Personal attacks on personal life are common against prominent public figures. They cannot see all news articles and refuse them. So unless otherwise accepted by biographer,we should not consider it as a source.(For example if you search internet, there may be 1000's of personal attacks against George Bush personal life. Do you think it gives right for any wikipedian to add such material in criticism or personal life section of George Bush). Jayalalitha herself launched personal attacks by using filthy languages against people like sonia gandhi,vajpayee,Janaki ramachandran,Advani etc etc without giving any proof. Does it give right for wikipedians to add such personal allegations in respective biographies.

f) I have quoted relevant wikipedia policies on living persons in concerned article's talk page about why it needs to be removed.Pl clarify me if you feel that my understanding of policies are wrong.

Thanks

--Lravikumar 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:first i think u r in the wrong place. See above "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department." and your issue is about the content in which case again this isn't the right place.

:Second, I urge you to go through WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, the three official policy critieria which has to be followed in any article edit, especially biographical articles. All have been followed in so far as the offending 1st para is concerned. That is all that matters, really. I suggest you avoid unnecessarily complicating things. Thanks. Idleguy 13:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I hv come to right page. I came to this page to inform to administrators about editing incident.I read and quoted from above policies. You did not answer my question directly.

--Lravikumar 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:The consensus among those that chose to respond on this seems to be that it is well cited and there is no issue. I have made some changes and added another journal and Shashi Tharoor's article as source. Tx Idleguy 11:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Wow. They almost have to be proxies, don't you think? They're all over the world. Thatcher131 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• This looks like a job for the spam blacklist. And if those links actually do lead to somewhere where the games in question can be downloaded, that's bad news too, as most of them aren't in the public domain and still covered by copyright. Providing links to download spots for copyrighted games is shaky legal territory indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's now 56. I wonder if it is actually a series of zombies, which would be an alarming prospect for the future. Should anyone want to investigate, cleaning up will make it very hard to track back so here is a list of the current 56 articles:

Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards

King's Quest VI: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow

King's Quest IV: The Perils of Rosella

King's Quest V: Absence Makes the Heart Go Yonder!

Theme Park (computer game)

1943: The Battle of Midway

1942 (arcade game)

True Love (game)

The Neverhood

Return to Zork

Mixed-Up Mother Goose

Below the Root

Sanitarium (videogame)

5 Days a Stranger

7 Days a Skeptic

Les Misérables

Wing Commander (computer game)

3-Demon

Prince of Persia

AAARGH!

Abuse (computer game)

Action Fighter

ActRaiser

Captain Comic

The Oregon Trail (computer game)

Mario Teaches Typing

The Incredible Machine

3 in Three

7 Colors

3D Lemmings

Lands of Lore

Pool of Radiance

Abandoned Places

Advanced Xoru

SimEarth

Wing Commander: Privateer

Red Baron (game)

Chuck Yeager's Air Combat

4x4 Off-Road Racing

A.G.E.

A-10 Tank Killer

A320 Airbus

Abrams Battle Tank

Ace of Aces (computer game)

Championship Manager 2

Ultimate Soccer Manager

ABC Wide World Of Sports Boxing

Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Computing/2006 August 20

Jones in the Fast Lane

Transport Tycoon

Star Trek: Starfleet Command III

Constructor (video game)

Panzer General

3D Construction Kit

3D Construction Kit II

Adventure Construction Set

Notinasnaid 16:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I remember abandonware are titles that you legally can download for a certain period of time. While the patter is disturbing if this is true these links are actually helpful, however if its not true please inform me and I will help cleanup. --NuclearZer0 16:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• :I found my own answer its illegal, I will start removing the links starting from the bottom. --NuclearZer0 16:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• ::Got to Ace of Aces and got tired, if someone can cleanup some more its appreciated. --NuclearZer0 17:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::*All done. :) -- Merope ^Talk 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some were missed, and more continue to be added (see the link in my first post). I've done a few more, but when will it end? The abandonware problem seems widespread: Ascendancy had three different links. Notinasnaid 18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:Oh, and :Category:Abandonware websites is interesting... Notinasnaid 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:I see someone is hard at work keeping up, and I've added a request for blocking. Here is something that might be interesting: the editor or program is currently working through their PC games alphabetically, and at the time of writing reached Ecco the Dolphin. It might be possible to anticipate a couple of articles ahead and (a) try rearranging the page to see if a robot can be tricked (just to see if it's a robot or a human; all edits I've seen have been at the end of the last section, but before the trailing stuff); (b) stick a warning in, though someone determined enough to use a different IP for each edit isn't likely to heed a warning. I also speculate that the web site might be creating zombies as people sign up (ironically, the "free" software requires a subscription). Notinasnaid 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::I've been trying to keep up, but I see you're right about the alphabetical thing. If they are only into the E's, this is going to be a long night... Satori Son 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• This needs to go on the meta:spam blacklist. Any meta admins around? >Radiant< 08:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Looks like Notinasnaid took care of it [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#free-game-downloads.mosw.com over there]. Thanks, Satori Son 16:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:I fail to see how this is a situation requiring administrator intervention. --InShaneee 16:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::Same here. This is more suited for the Mediation Cabal. Shadow1 (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Ohnoes! More work! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Type F. I have a suspicion that after being blocked for a week for repeated violation of 3RR, this user continued editing under the name twentyboy. My reasoning:

• IP 65.31.99.71's first edit to WP was to make a small stylistic change to one of Chad's talk page edits, and he started editing after Chad was blocked.
• Twentyboy started editing just after Chad was blocked, and started off by posting a message on the talk page of Chad's favourite article, the "Randy Orton" talk.
• After being warned by me for posting inappropriate content on article talk pages, Twentyboy started threatening me at User_talk:Yandman#Twentyboy, but forgot to log in for his last message, signed IP 65.31.99.71 .

I was told that this wasn't worthy of a checkuser, because 3RR blocks are not "community based blocks". This means I can't really prove they're the same, but the evidence seems pretty overwhelming. Thanks. yandman 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::For this, I would suggest you to report this on the Wikipedia:Request for checkuser, so some admin will take a look on this. Daniel5127 (Talk) 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::No, they refused it, for the reason I stated. Does anyone have a clue as to what to do? yandman 07:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Tell them 'Type E', and provide links to the 3RR violation. They helpfully didn't point this out. Morwen - Talk 10:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::::: It's not up to the knights to tell you what sort of shrubbery ;-) Guy 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Type E asks for 4 diffs showing 3RR violations by the puppets. He didn't break 3RR with sockpuppets, though. He broke it with his original account, and then made another one to continue editing despite the ban, so I don't think E is the right type either. It'll just get refused with the rather laconic "declined" tag. yandman 11:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is supposed to keep up-to-date. This is posted at the wrong place anyway. (see WP:RFPP) --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::I would recommend against full protection for more than 5 minutes as this is a major current event. Naconkantari 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I understand it's a current event. But an encyclopedia is not a blog. I've never seen an encyclopedia that uses the present tense or has things like "ESPN is reporting..." and "The mayor is on TV now claiming...". Those types of things are for the article's discussion page not the actual article itself.--Kester Teague 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes but generally, that stuff is reverted quickly. General rule of thumb is to keep pages unprotected if they are listed from the main page. There are exceptions in extreme cases (Steve Irwin) but this is not one of those. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:It probably means she is believed to have contributed under a username that is not here real name. Did you read the Discussion page of the article to see if the tag is explained? Johntex\^talk 01:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my post carefully? It would behoove you to do that. Thanx UCF Cheerleader 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Oops. Sorry. Either too much caffeine or too little. I've removed the tag since no justification for it was given. Johntex\^talk 01:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:If either of them edits again re-inserting the link, I'll block both of them the same length. Grandmasterka 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Ok, thanks. —Khoikhoi 04:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Heh, didn't take long. Blocked them both for a week (the IP had been blocked twice before for the same thing.) Grandmasterka 05:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Thanks again, that saves me a lot of time. —Khoikhoi 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he/she has returned as {{user|83.242.153.70}}... Incidentally, it appears to be an [http://vcn-proxycheck.homeip.net/?ip=83.242.153.70 open proxy]. —Khoikhoi 06:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And again as {{user|72.65.76.183}}, also an open proxy. [http://vcn-proxycheck.homeip.net/?ip=72.65.76.183] —Khoikhoi 06:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Both blocked. I don't know how much longer I'll be around here tonight, I hope someone from the Eastern hemisphere can help you if this keeps up. Grandmasterka 06:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:It appears that this user was blocked for personal attacks, and all of his contributions to date are such (including his user page which I recently blanked) as well two articles that were speedied (Duke Street Firm and Ryan mcgowan). Ryūlóng 09:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's getting quieter. Some users were upset because a history merger was done that was poorly understood. I'll keep an eye on it. (not an admin though). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• The problem is that it's not just that article, with that page merger, with that particular group of users. The edit wars revolve around more articles and involve more users. This is a chronic dispute, of which the article on TRWT/RoG is simply another expression. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, we had a period of relative peacefulness about Greek-Turkish topics during the summer, but somehow it's been flaring up again lately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, that's right. We'll try to build a consensus on the talk page of Fut.Perf.. Fut.Perf. is trying to compromise the disputed issues in a very reasonable way. We, the wikipedians, will solve the issue. Cheers! E104421 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Not a defense but your dif shows him promising to follow 3RR not promising to break it. --NuclearZer0 12:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Not really. He has promised three reverts a day: "Okey, I will not edit in the next hours. But I will edit 3 times each day, you can be sure!" That would constitute disruptive behaviour and a violation of WP:POINT. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 13:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::I didn't block him for 3RR, but decided to just warn him. I blocked him for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuja&diff=80995099&oldid=80965182 the reply]. The point raised by Aecis was just an additional factor. Duja 14:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::: I fully endorse this block and I'm pretty sure other admins who previously delt with User:Hahahihihoho (like User:Bishonen) will too. --Dijxtra 15:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm going to decline this latest unblock request -- clearly, the user has a history of disruptive behavior. Immediately returning to that same behavior, with phrases like "You obviosly cant read and understand english." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mostar&diff=prev&oldid=80986513] and "Look, your dirty Yugoslavi doesnt exist anymore!!!" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duja&diff=prev&oldid=80995099], doesn't seem like a good indicator to me. Instead of acting to solve a dispute, their efforts were directed towards continuing the problem and making it worse. Luna Santin 20:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Fine by me. I fully support the indef block. Joelito (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Hahahihihoho is a nationalist POV-pusher. He's also a young user. There's something disarming about him, and he has in fact been extended vast amounts of patience and special newbie-consideration, especially by kindly non-admin users, in the hope that the penny would eventually drop. My one-month block was a last-ditch effort, where I explained to him that if he hadn't figured out the difference between a blog and an encyclopedia when he returned, he'd be blocked indefinitely. I guess he still hasn't. Support the indefinite block. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

I support the indef block. There's only so much disruption the community needs to tolerate. FeloniousMonk 20:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:The schol IP in question has been warned 4 times, so should be blocked anyway. --Alex (Talk) 12:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Done, Aza. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Blocked for 48 hours. NCurse _work 14:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Try reporting that on WP:AIV, next time. — Nearly Headless Nick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Sir+Nicholas+de+Mimsy-Porpington ^{L}] 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Semi-protected. NCurse _work 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks... the other user in the dispute is a good editor, and I didn't want to see him getting bad-faith accusations for 3rr vios. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:I blocked the IP for 48 hours. NCurse _work 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• He says there's "no such thing as too much trivia". :/ Danny Lilithborne 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Blocked, and I have to say: You've gotta be freaking kidding me. Why wasn't this guy username blocked a long time ago?! I respect my fellow administrators a lot but this user was unblocked in July 2005 with the summary: "not a sockpuppet, just a member of a trolling group. If they actually cause problems, then block." Well yeah he's a member of a certain trolling group, that doesn't warrant an immediate username block? I'm really sorry, I just can't believe this guy has been around for two years under this username. Clearly not here to do much good. Grandmasterka 21:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:I started to fill out a 3RR about it, but I realized how stupid this edit war is. You can request semi-protection of the page if it's really that bad, but there is no acute POV warring or modifications of large amounts of text (it's one word!). If I were you, I'd contact the editors involved and encourage them to discuss the dispute on the article's talkpage (which, coincidentally, hasn't been done yet). If things get out of hand, go for the red tape, otherwise, talk it out first. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::I posted on the talk page, and told both users about it. We will see if it helps any. A 3RR might need to be filled out about this, they simply shouldn't continue to do it (without making a compromise: which they have yet to do). I somehow don't think it will help much, because there was an issue about this before...and it never got solved. RobJ1981 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Now a third user is involved with the war. I've told him about the talk page post, but he simply doesn't seem to listen. If a compromise is going to be made, people need to stop the editing and reverting of it! RobJ1981 22:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Ha, gimme a break, I'm trying to come up with a solution to the problem and you're accusing me of not listening. Choose your words a little more carefully. I actually (hopefully) convinced one user to stop revert warring for now. I am writing a proposal on the talk page for anyone who cares. — Moe 23:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Camilo Sanchez

:The username and IP address used to make every edit is already recorded, so that information is available to certain privileged users if required: that's how Checkuser works. What would making the IP addresses of usernames publically available achieve in terms of disuading vandals? Gwernol 23:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JarlaxleArtemis&oldid=76162421 This version of JA's page] lists his numerous other-language user pages. I chose the one in French. There's no sign on it or its talk page that he's blocked. As I'm not an admin of fr:WP I can't check if he actually is blocked. If there's a simple way to protect other-language WPs from this person (and I really don't know), I'd recommend it. -- Hoary 08:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_checkuser%2FCase%2FJarlaxleArtemis&diff=80829467&oldid=80754936 The checkuser requests have just been confirmed]. If it's possible to block the IPs used by JarlaxleArtemis to perpetrate this vandalism and to evade his blocks, then please do so. —Psychonaut 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:User:4.168.180.251 needs blocking; was established by checkuser and by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AKreplinnnn&diff=80944822&oldid=80833302 user's own admission] that it was being used to operate User:Kreplinnnn, an account created in violation of a community ban. —Psychonaut 14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::It's a dial-up ISP number and can't be blocked for more than 24 hours normally. If Jarlaxle is using dial-up to contact wikipedia he will probably hae a different IP address every time he connects to the internet. Thatcher131 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Understood. If someone could supply me with a list of recent IPs, I will contact the respective ISPs to report the abuse. (In addition to 4.168.180.251, he's been using addresses in the 71.107.137.201/16 range, which is Los Angeles-area Verizon DSL; there may be more.) —Psychonaut 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::The only people who can provide that information are CheckUsers. You would have to try WP:RFCU or contact one of the others individually. Thatcher131 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:Would suggest giving them a warning first.--Andeh 13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::Um, did you actually read the attack against Gollin? This user is obviously no confused newbie; s/he knowns what WP:PROD is and how to use {{fact}} tags. People writing stuff like that shouldn't be warned, they should just be told to go to hell. up+land 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:The same person seems to be editing as {{user5|75.31.70.13}} and has been warned by somebody else. It also appears that Gollin himself has now registered and edited as {{user|G-gollin}}. up+land 05:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Some attention from an experienced conflict resolver would be welcome here. Apart from the edit warring on both articles, it seems conflict external to Wikipedia has entered to a sufficient extent that all recent versions of both articles contain sufficient detritus to be unencyclopaedic in tone. Martinp 11:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, I (George Gollin) did register as {{user|G-gollin}}. Thanks for your attention to this. Please feel free to contact me via email or phone at the University of Illinois if more information (or recent history) would be helpful to you-- G-gollin 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richardjames444&oldid=80917170 old usertalk page User:bucketsofg and user:Wildthing61476 have also been vandalized along the same lines.

This whole thing stems back to his hurt feelings about deletion of a vanity page for a little-known and non-notable art project of his. Various users tried to work with him to a compromise solution but to no avail. He has not shown himself particularly understanding of what Wikipediais about or how it operates. I am starting to resent his periodic vandalistic lashing-out, which is boring and tiresome to deal with, and frankly, really really old news at this point. If admins could put their heads together or have a serious talk with him, it would be appreciated. Richardjames444 13:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I remember this guy. I don't know - something about a guy submitting an article *about* himself, and then when it's removed, wanting to excise all traces of the fact that he did so... seems disingenuous. Almost WP:POINT-ish. Danny Lilithborne 21:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just received the following email from this user:

Date: Fri 13 Oct 13:01:02 EDT 2006

From: ion aurent" <.com> Add To Address Book

To:

Stop whining, get the fuck out of my life, my business and my art!

I don't have time for your shit, your games and your harrassment. I have asked you nicely several time to stop fucking with me, and now it is to the point of really pissing me off.

I have repeatedly asked this guy to stop referring to my name, project name in any regard, and have yet again edited his comments that refer specifically to me. I have the right create on my user page in a form of computer/new media art, to comment in whatever language or form I feel free to express in. I have done nothing to the above but request that he not mention my personal info. in his posts, but he insists on continuing this bullshit. I am not editing anonymously as there is no secret as to who I am. Yes, I attempted to expunge my earlier username and still prefer to, but this fucker keeps harassing me and insists on mentioning my name, project and username , all of which refer to personal and private info., and ultimately have turned to slander and libel, after repeated requests for him to stop. My use of language is free speech, I am an atheist, though spiritual I think god is the santa of adults, I don't think fuck is a bad word, nor nigger or white nigger dependent upon use ( see chris rock or george carlin) I was a white nigger for the 6 years that I traveled and painted my way across asia, and it was good. I don't give a shit what a conservative little twat thinks of me or my work, my use or words, symbols and expressions. I have no issue over a few teenagers blacklisting one of my works of art from wikipedia. I do have an issue with the manner by which it was done, the red-neck good 'ol boy behavior of their klan, the hypocrisy of their actions and continued actions. There is no reason for you to delete my use of combined words and symbols, and no reason not to expunge as requested. btw...on the advice of buckets, see comments, I attempted to drop first username and logged in a new one, but these gays kept referring to and using earlier name...so I am responding to discussions that refer to both until this is resolved. As posted by buckets, this is the principle upon which my requests to expunge and remain anonymouys are supported.

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Such posting can cause offence or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia.

If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. REMEMBER: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you.

The first para. is the money quote, I guess, as to defining where ion is coming from. I imagine that must be in violation of some Wikipedia policy. Richardjames444 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the money quote is that I'm fucking pissed off at the insistence of Richard James continually harrassing me, refusing to stop identifying my personal info. (as with posting my personal email above with website). I have vandalized nothing but to take a letter or two off of my personal name and words that lead to my personal info. in the slanderous and libelous and defaming posts of richard james. I don't give a shit that my project is not listed here. I found the whole process interesting and hilarious, though quite hypocritical. WHo can take the piss out of who here. THe article was about an art project, not me. I don't care that it's not there. It doesn't exist, nor does Bigfoot! His compromise was on day two of the original posting of the project article, a one man band who decides fist down who gets what and when, like a fascist pig. I could have campaigned for votes, but what the fuck...Before final vote and deletion, Richard James posted an article about me without my desire nor consent, and then deleted it in a violent fit of rage when I jokingly said the first article is dead at another's insistence that it should be deleted then at seven days. He's had the same hard-on ever since. As I said, I don't give a shit but that his posts are defaming, slanderous, libelous and outright insidious. His high and mighty accusational tone is what is weird and strange. All I have done in the past two days is to delete letters of my name and project, and the old username that I was attempting to expunge. Why?

"Such posting can cause offence or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia."

"Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia." How is it vandalism to attempt to remain anonymous?! and to attempt to separate personal and professional reputation from libelous attacks?

Has been repeatedly reverting edits of mine with the obviously inappropriate edit summary "RVV":

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Scientific_Investigation_of_Claims_of_the_Paranormal&diff=81062293&oldid=81062073], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Scientific_Investigation_of_Claims_of_the_Paranormal&diff=81060072&oldid=81059498], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Scientific_Investigation_of_Claims_of_the_Paranormal&diff=80859734&oldid=80859243], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telepathy&diff=81054158&oldid=81053529], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telepathy&diff=81019891&oldid=81016994], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telepathy&diff=81013524&oldid=81011265], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telepathy&diff=80682698&oldid=80641188]

After I opened this incident, he's switched over to reverting me with no comment (or discussion) at all:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Scientific_Investigation_of_Claims_of_the_Paranormal&diff=81233652&oldid=81212297],

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telepathy&curid=29923&action=history]

Has refused to engage in a discussion of disputed edits:

• Talk:Telepathy#Recent edits and mediation
• Talk:Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal#"citation needed"
• Talk:Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal #disputed edit
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATHB&diff=81059445&oldid=81058320]

Made a laundry list of false accusations against me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarlBunker&diff=81023248&oldid=81019449] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATHB&diff=81143733&oldid=81127531]

And has made personal attacks against me by referring to me as a "vandal" in Talk page comments: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACommittee_for_the_Scientific_Investigation_of_Claims_of_the_Paranormal&diff=80876019&oldid=80875565], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACommittee_for_the_Scientific_Investigation_of_Claims_of_the_Paranormal&diff=80883460&oldid=80880744]

KarlBunker 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

: I agree with the statement made by Karl Bunker. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:: THB is also removing other user's comments from his/her talk page, somewhat against WP:Talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, Karl just violated the 3 revert rule himself. I don't see any particular reason to prefer one version of the opening paragraph over another, and I suggest you talk about it, and leave it at one or the other version until some other contributors weigh in. Sterile reversion and reversion without discussion is never a good thing. Thatcher131 16:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:Have reblocked following discussion on admin chan. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he was upset by something he'd read. But [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&curid=7140456&diff=81062550&oldid=80571004 this post] on the 'evidence page' of an already overheated RfAr is simply unacceptable, no matter the provocation. Experienced wikipedians simply do not behave like this. I've blocked him for 3 hours to cool off - although I was tempted to make it a lot longer - if anyone wants to extend it go ahead.--Doc 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

: I definitely endorse this block. Before anyone complains, look at the diff. Kelly's recent withdrawal is no reason to overtly insult her, especially at a time when its hard enough maintaining any degree of civility. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

: Thirded. - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::* With the admonition that if Cyde had not copied the off-wiki attacks from the blog in as evidence, Gianno would not have had reason to comment on them. Some comment as to his behavior there is warrented. - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

: Fourthed Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why block? Is that the best method for solving issues on Wikipedia? Did you discuss your concerns with him and ask him to revert? --FloNight 23:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Oh come on. We need to say 'unacceptable' to that louder than just a note on a page. He's not a newbie that needs WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA patronisingly pointed out to him. He knows what he's doing - and the likely damaging effects the harmony of our community. A three hour block is very restrained, it is just a signal, he may even sleep through it. Yes, I have posted a note on his page. If he indicates any time in the next 3 hours that he's got the message, and sees the unaccptability of the post, then by all means unblock him.--Doc 23:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:It's due to the nature of blocking being preventative, not punative. A short duration block is usually intended as a cooloff period. It's pretty much also the strongest signal that the community can give a user that certain demonstrated behavior is unacceptable. The idea is that with this signal and resultant cooloff period, it will prevent disruption through ensuring that there will not be "more of the same" at a later point (whether in an immediate or long/mid-term sense). With this diff, I really don't see a problem with the decision. --Crimsone 23:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am sitting here with my head in my hands. I thought we had all learned something during the past several weeks. Giano's post to the RfAr evidence page was inflammatory, untimely, and completely unnecessary. The resultant 3-hour block for Giano to "cool down," while well-intentioned, sounds in some ways like an echo or a parody. The arbitration case resulting in large measure from the last round of this, which I feared would wind up as a complete nightmare, seems to have reached some reasonable conclusions (save the ban on John Reid, which I find troubling and may bring before Jimbo). To all concerned, do we really want to start all this again? Newyorkbrad 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• I thought we all had learned something from this too, but as long as Giano is perpetually incivil this is going to keep flaming up. The problem lies with him, not people trying to hold him to the same standards of civility as all of the other editors. --Cyde Weys 00:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news. Giano has been unblocked -- Drini 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Despite the consensus here, and without any attempt to discuss it with me or here, bishonen has seen fit to unblock. I'm not going to reinstate the block, but given the consensus here, I find here wheel-waring very troubling. I invite others to consider reinstating the block per the consensus here.--Doc 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Unblocked by Bishonen: Blocking the nominal centre of the RFAr for evidence added to the evidence page is not right. He gets to speak freely there. Excuse me? Is policy in abeyance on the evidence page? I'm stunned. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted at User talk:Doc glasgow before seeing this. User:Bishonen has also commented there. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::The block seems to me both unmotivated (since Giano's edit was surely not the start of any kind of a rampage, it was one edit, on an evidence page, surely the place of all others where users may speak most freely) and somewhat provocative. There was no warning, either. I've unblocked, with a pretty full [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_glasgow&diff=prev&oldid=81107270 comment] on Doc's page. I didn't realize it was being discussed here till Drini told me, thanks, Drini. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

:::And you didn't think to post to my page, before reversing me? You think Giano needed warned that we have a civility and npa policy? Your wheel-waring is unaccpetable. I've replied to your ridiculous justification on my talk page--Doc 23:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::* Argh... I hadn't noticed the time stamp on the original post showing it was hours ago, and had presumed from the words "cooling off" that is was fresh. That is indeed suboptimal. In light of that I'd have preferred a warning and the chance to redact. But this post was well beyond what is acceptable. - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 23:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Shall we add to proposed principles that Giano/Giano II is exempted from WP:CIVIL? That's the unmistakable impression I'm gaining here, and I don't like it much. Personally, before unblocking, I look to see if it's being discussed. Then I discuss it if it isn't. Then, only then, do I unblock. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::::So you do support blocking established users without so much as a warning? You should obviously revise blocking policy first. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::* To be honest (as per the personal attacks userbox on my user page), I never consider that there is either a place for personal attacks, and there are rarely circumstances where they can be excused. Evidence page or not, that's pretty vitriolic. It's all well and good saying that an established editor won't take much notice of a "cooloff" period, but as per my previous comment, what else can the community do to send the signal? All the unblocking has effectively done is to legitimise what can only be described as unacceptable behaviour --Crimsone 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

: Looks like some admins still don't get the idea that a "cool down block" is not a good idea... One could think that after pages and pages of discussions and explanations it would be the case, but looks like it isn't... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::And it looks like some well-established editors don't get the idea that persistent incivility is unacceptable. What can be done? If he cannot control himself but blocking isn't appropriate either, what then? Can we just ask him to leave? --Cyde Weys 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Cyde, despite my previous admonitions, you and Doc still engage in old good IRC-style incivility. Given the background of the arbitration, Doc's block appears to have been a deliberate povocation. He was aware that the block will not have a cooling effect, rather otherwise, and he defiantly chose to open this can of worms again. I don't see how such admins may be valuable to Wikipedia. I advise everyone more interested in politics than editing to move their activities to IRC (where Tony and Kelly are already profitably employed). Please don't involve Giano and other contributors into your games. You know that they can't respond to you symmetrically. They don't have a block button at their disposal. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::No, the problem is with editors who think they can say whatever they want. If that's allowed to slide, we might as well abolish the civility policy or anyone trying to enforce it will be accused of having a double standard. Cooling off blocks can work. Blatant incivility, especially on an arbitration page, is never acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::You want agreement? I'll agree with Giano's comments about the blog. That's what he commented upon. The blog became germane when it was allowed as evidence, and therefore the blog became subject of review. Giano looked at it (and I shan't) and found it to be foul. He was correct in saying that it wasn't a personal attack, because it was a blog attack. Since that blog had been lodged as "evidence" to attack him, I'm not sure what's so surprising. He felt that a person who would write so toxically was not a person anyone should thank. About that I have no opinion, but I find it disgraceful that an off-wiki attack can be entered into evidence, but no one can say that it's a horrible blog and that it shows a bad personality without being blocked? Why is someone trying to protect the integrity of an off-wiki blog? I have worse things to say on the subject of people who blog about their screen names than that, perhaps, but I'm a "primo don" (correcting the Italian, there). Someone tell me that the blog isn't a private voodoo doll, that it is somehow Wikipedia, that it is, in fact, a Wikipedia editor and not an extranneous artifact. Geogre 01:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Let's come round to this concept that keeps cropping up: Giano was blocked for criticizing evidence. Ridiculous. He was blocked for making a vile statement of the sort I thought we all deplored ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&curid=7140456&diff=81062550&oldid=80571004]). Why all the talk of voodoo dolls--this is a straightforward case of incivility and ought to be treated as such. Mackensen (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::If anybody has a better suggestion, I'd be more than happy to hear it. As far as I can tell, a cooldown block is about the strongest thing anybody can do with the exception of an indef or long term block, which would be inappropriate in this case. In the mean time though, should wikipedia really be turning an effective blind eye to unacceptable behaviour on the basis of whether a user is established here or not? If the user is established and thus knows the policies, it just makes such behaviour all the more unacceptable. --Crimsone 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

: A few comments: First, undoing a single admin action is not generally considered wheel-warring and to call what Bish did wheel-warring seems inaccurate. That said, while I understand that one would want evidence pages to be closer to allowing free speech than other areas, I have trouble seeing how anything in evidence or workshops could require the need to be uncivil or make personal attacks. Unlike Giano's earlier comments that Tony blocked for, this comment seems to be a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and therefore the block was arguably appropriate. Also, whether or not Giano was blocked earlier for a less than optimal reason is not relevant to whether this particular block should have been used. JoshuaZ 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::I posted on Doc's talkpage and here on ANI as quickly as I could after unblocking. I'm not clear on why the order of my actions upsets Doc; please note that he himself posted nowhere before blocking—not on Giano's page, and not here. I undid his admin action; anybody's free to undo mine. I don't wheel-war. Now, I'm seriously asking if anybody thought that Giano's far from recent single post was the beginning of a rampage? We don't block punitively, or do we? Bishonen | talk 00:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

:::That does depend a little on the definition of recent though. The diff in question here was only timestamped six hours ago. --Crimsone 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, I'd say they're part of a long, sorry history of incivility that many of us are only too familiar with. I think he was way out of line–but I don't think he holds that opinion. I think he felt his comments fully justified. That's what troubles me. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure User:Bishonen is sorry she didn't check before unblocking. But is it is permissible for User:Cyde to post material [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&diff=79353586&oldid=79328893 like this] to the evidence page (Kelly, apparently, calling various people "primadonnas" and "raving on spewing forth falsehoods") but not permissible for User:Giano to respond in the same place? (He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=81062550 said] he had looked at Kelly's blog for the first time, did not find it to his taste, said he was grateful she had gone if that was the best she could do, and expressed displeasure at the nature of Kelly's comments.) -- ALoan (Talk) 00:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're confusing the issue. Kelly's comments were off-wiki, and she's left the project. If she'd made those comments on wiki I have no doubt she would have been taken to task and possibly blocked. Giano was commenting on evidence. There is no tu quoque here. He doesn't get to be incivil because somebody else was, much as sysops aren't allowed to block people who block them just cause they're annoyed. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

: That is arguably different in that that is what Kelly wanted placed there (and we can't really block kelly at this point). Certainly some refactoring of that by Cyde might have been more responsible (or if Kelly considered that not an option, Kelly could have posted it on her blog and Cyde could have placed a note about it). Regardless, I have trouble seeing why Cyde should be blocked for simply reporting what a user wanted to say. JoshuaZ 00:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::So were Giano to post the same thing to a blog and I to copy that post to the evidence page at his request, that would be immune? Nonsense! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, I apologize if posting those comments was inflammatory, and had I realized that they would be taken as a blanket license for all kinds of on-wiki incivility I never would have posted them here. But I don't think it's appropriate to rationalize Giano's incivility by saying, "But Cyyyyyyde....". --Cyde Weys 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:This doesn't excuse him in any ways, but... argggghhhhh... Man, you (and Kelly) effectively wandered right in swinging and pushing buttons there. Kelly could have logged in herself if she really felt she had to, and that would have limited the damage a bit, but now you're tangled up in it too.

:The community is too big now. Admins have to avoid throwing fuel on the fire better than this. I agree with the original Giano block for his reaction, but what you posted was in the same regime of badness and was clearly provocative. Admins doing provocative stuff and inflaming a situation in wholy new, different manners is terrible for the project... Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, in light of everything said and the favourable concensus formed, along with Bishonens statement that she will not replace the block (on Docs talk page), the remaining question it seems would be that of who's going to re-apply it? --Crimsone 00:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Before we start saying that there is "consensus" let's let some time elapse. Obviously, there wasn't consensus if Bishonen and ALoan were against it. Second, before we start saying there's a "pattern," let's see where that "pattern" comes from. Lar is upset at Giano, who is upset at Lar, and the "evidence" has never been ruled to be accurate. Third, it is the heart of the "contentious Rfar" that "cool off blocks" don't work and aren't sanctioned. Giano was blocked for what? He was blocked for posting evidence to the evidence page, while Cyde and "Pizzahut2" and Kelly Martin were exempted from all civility rules when posting a blog entry to the same page that called several respected administrators all sorts of names and which attacked Giano to boot. Therefore, if you want to suddenly thin your skin and want to police civility on the evidence page of an Rfar, and if you want to appoint yourself Patrolman of ArbCom, then let's get with it and block all of the people who have been uncivil in their evidence. So, this comes down to the following:

1. Justification for the block? Civility where the civility policy either doesn't apply or where it has been waived by the attrocious and absurd "evidence" "on behalf of" Kelly Martin.
2. Validity of the block type? None, as the Rfar has demonstrated with its suspension of Tony Sidaway.
3. Validity of the unblock? I'll see your AN/I consensus and raise it with an AN consensus against "cool off" blocks.

Therefore, the blocking was inflammatory (and therefore a form of baiting, according to the consensus on AN and the Rfar) and the unblocking was to reverse that wrong. This has nothing to do with whether Giano was right for posting that evidence. However, that evidence page has a precedent for calling established wikipedians "trolls" and "prima donnas," so it's already a charred document and a poisoned well. Any further blocking to "cool off" would be another example of trying to provoke, in my opinion. Geogre 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Forgive me Geogre, but you really lost me here. How exactly does the civility policy not apply? Is it open season on the evidence page? Furthermore, Tony hasn't been suspended yet--you can't cite precedent where it doesn't exist. Going beyond that, Tony was considered to be in a dispute with Giano, whereas Doc was not. Finally, you're mixing apples and oranges. Consensus demands context. There was a developing consensus right here, right now, that this block was justified. Let's talk about the issue here. The issue is that Giano is using the kind of language that got Tony blocked, and you're standing here saying it's okay. I'm appalled. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• If the blog is valid evidence, then civility must not be applying to the evidence page. Secondly, Tony was telling people to fuck off, was calling those who disagreed with him a boil, etc. Giano called a blog nasty names. It's on par with someone calling Something Awful forums bad names: it's not us. To defend the honor of an off-Wikipedia website by throwing the civility policy at someone is illogical. I am saying that the blog entry should have been kicked off instantly. If it had been, it wouldn't have been sitting there for over a week calling everyone who took Kelly to task horrible names. However, the lack of action by anyone to mention it, sanction it, or remove it was certainly suggesting that it was time for someone to talk about that blog. Again, I do not agree with Giano's having said what he said, and I do not endorse his conclusions about the people in their on-wiki life, but I would go further than him and suggest that it's the height of pride to believe that your blog should be used in a case or the height of disrespect for ArbCom to think that the arbitrators will be moved by name-calling. Had the blog's use been sanctioned, I doubt Giano even would have wanted to say anything. Once it's there, though, attacking the blog entry is not attacking a Wikipedia user. Geogre 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Geogre, you seem to be taking the position that evidence of incivility, if introduced, means that commentary on the evidence may also be incivil. I don't buy that for an instant. Furthermore, there's precedent that the use of inflammatory and incivil language, even if not directed at a specific user (which is arguably was, regardless), is improper. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by this line of reasoning. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am all for holding everyone accountable to consistent standards, however, IMHO Giano's post was not evidence, was not reasonable debating talk, but crossed the line into unacceptable. It was a proper block for incivility.
• You have an active RfAr available to make the point for equal treatment for equally provocative attacks, which (unlike ANI) is actually an appropriate and potentially effective venue. Georgewilliamherbert 01:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bishonen that the block was premature. Still the Giano's comment was incivil and I left a stern warning on his talk page. I hope the issue is settle by now abakharev 01:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• It will be if he takes it to heart, unlike all the other pleadings and warnings. I confess my good faith has been sorely stretched. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:#The justification for the block was personal attacks.

:#The validity of the block was per the spirit of NPA - an experienced editor broke the rules with full knowledge of what he was doing.

:#The "cool off" block thing, well- maybe, maybe not - what other message is there to send?

:I've not got any interest in becoming a policeman but there's a whole grade (a few actually) between "primadonna" and "oh look, I've got to wipe my shoe becasue it seems I've trodden on something".

:Do you propose that such behaviour is acceptable? --Crimsone 01:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::I second that. We don't need groups ganging up on either other. We don't need more hard feelings. But it's a mistake to be this uncivil, and anyone who is so uncivil needs to agree that the mistake shouldn't be repeated in the future. Period, end of story. --Interiot 01:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::He called a blog something nasty! That's not calling Kelly Martin something nasty unless we start saying that Kelly Martin's blog is part of Wikipedia. It isn't, I hope. I hope that I can form a negative opinion of it, too. Also, I think the stern warning is enough, but not because the substance of what he said was uncivil, but because it was incredibly poorly timed and unnecessary. Geogre 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::So, let me get this right. you are saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&curid=7140456&diff=81062550&oldid=80571004 this] is not substantially uncivil?--Doc 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I just wonder how you would react if I attacked some of your much vaunted featured articles in the same language that you claim Giano merely attacked Kelly's blog over. --Cyde Weys 01:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Have at it! I don't think I provide offense with them, don't think I use them to settle scores, don't think they're all about me, but I won't be blocking anyone for saying something about me. I don't believe in blocking for NPA in the first place. However, I also know the strength of my FA's because a community assessed them and that was on Wikipedia and they're written by several people and are not just by me about me for me and to me. Geogre 10:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::In fairness, not blocking for NPA would indeed drive good editors away. It's the bad ones that tend to make most personal attacks. If they were allowed to drive the good and established editors away through wiki turning a blind eye, what would we have left?. The internet can be a nasty enough place as it is. (not that NPA blocking is under debate here - just an analogy) --Crimsone 10:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, the rhetoric bores me now. Let me cut to the chase. Is it more important to criticise an expired three-hour block, than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&curid=7140456&diff=81062550&oldid=80571004 this]? --Doc 01:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think we can all agree that Giano's comment was unacceptable. I think that most of us agree that Cyde's posting of Kelly's blog was unnacceptable. I think all of agree would agree that one mistake does not excuse another. Any (short answer) disagreement with that? - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:I am sorry that you find the discussion boring. Perhaps you would like to spell out what you think the personal attack was, because all I can see is Giano criticising the content of the blog. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::Oh, come off it. That won't wash. --Doc 01:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, I have set out my analysis of his post above. Washing (off the soil, on one's shoes) is entirely the correct metaphor to use, after walking through the muddy field. It is expressed in rather stronger terms than I would use, but I agree that the blog is unpleasant. I really don't see how the blog postings can be added as "evidence" but criticism of it cannot. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::(Sigh) The issue is not the criticism. The issue is the language he used. Put this way: if Kelly made that post on-wiki, she'd be blocked (justifiably). There is no license to incivility here. Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::: That's not an intellectually sound parsing of Giano's post. "If this is the best she has to offer, etc." is clearly an enthymeme, with the implied premise that it is, in fact, the best she has to offer. Arguing that Giano should not have been blocked because other parties have, up to now, had a free hand to be uncivil and the block represents favoritism, cabalism, surrealism, or whatever is reasonable. Claiming that his message conveyed nothing or was intended to convey nothing about Kelly's character is shameful and disappointing, coming as it does from people both intelligent and principled. Choess 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Edit conflicted. Hate that. ALoan, you may wish to go back and reread Giano's post. It is not criticism. It is insulting and demeaning. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 01:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::ALoan, I hate to speak "against" you here, as you're one of the Wikipedians I respect most, but Giano's post is perfectly analogous to Tony's "boil" post on ANI or AN or whatever it was. It was destined only to escalate the situation, and while it could be read as innocuous, it was clearly not. The "I seem to have trodden in something very unpleasant" was every bit as bad as the "boil" comment. I do not endorse this block, but let us not grant free permission to transgress the rules of civil discourse in retaliation any more than we would in initiation. All must be held to the same standards. This isn't about Cyde. This isn't about Kelly. We all need to behave ourselves so that we can have constructive discussions. --Robth^Talk 03:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::Naturally if you don't see anything wrong with the diff then I'm not going to convince you otherwise. I'm not content to see such language employed, particularly with the insinuations of character, but that's just me and I suppose I'm old-fashioned in my sensibilities. Doc's response is curt but to the point–you might not be offended but others obviously were. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Then why didn't you put a block or ban or vote for a block or ban for those responsible for the "lying prima donnas?" Seriously: if the response to writing that ("off wiki loophole" just like "I said you were a bastard bitch from hell on IRC so that's a loophole") is occasion for thanks, then how could Giano anticipate that calling the blog offal would occasion a block, except, to quote above, that you like one offender and not another (which he shouldn't believe)? How was that vicious, attack-strewn post not censured? It was breath-taking. Also, if Kelly has left (although she's on IRC every day), then putting in a block for repeated personal attacks won't harm her any, and it would do a great deal to show that civility is expected on all sides. Geogre 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On one hand he called it an unpleaseant nasty smelly little journal, and on the other compared it unfavourably in not only describing his opinion, but doing so through the proxy of the opinions of others of her... Then to continue and describe it as excrement haveing basically compared the blog to its writer, and better still, that he'd have to clean his shoes after steppring in it. The whole thing is a personal attack! Crimsone 01:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, he said that anyone who writes that shouldn't be thanked (a current proposed remedy), and he asked why the thanks was being agreed to. Evidence for the thanking motion was not presented on the evidence page. Again, I agree with a harsh warning, and I clapped my head in my hands the same as Newyorkbrad, but if the posting was a repetition of the mistakes of the past, then so was the "cool off" block -- the wording of which was eerily similar to what got Tony blocked. Geogre 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Don't you people learn anything? "Cool-down" blocks are good for only one thing: generating drama. They serve only to piss off the (usually good) contributor at hand and further the bitching rather than actually resolve the dispute.

Giano's response may have been harsh, but the material he was responding to was a downright vile personal attack on him. It was hardly uncalled for. Rebecca 01:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

: Vile it was. The best response would have been to ignore it and move on. Tu quoque is never an acceptable defense, and I'm surprised to hear it coming from a former arbitrator. I hope we're not encouraging this kind of thing. Mackensen (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

: Again, I don't see anyone defending either Kelly's comments or Cyde's personal attacks in the posting of them. Giano is right to be affronted, but the manner in which he chose to express it was just too much. - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think it's well established by now that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Would you please stop trying to justify bad actions by saying, "Ohh, but someone else did it?" That certainly doesn't fly on AFD either ... "Ohhh, we should keep this non-notable article, because we have all of those other non-notable articles". --Cyde Weys 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:"Us people," as it were, are trying to end the cycle of incivility. Good contributions don't give someone a free pass to be incivil whenever he feels like it. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::No, but neither do you have an excuse for being uselessly provocative and stirring up pointless drama instead of finding someone with actual conflict resolution skills. Rebecca 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I second Rebecca in that the block was not expected to have a cooling effect. Giano's subsequent comments were absolutely innocent. The block was scored to escalate drama and it obviously succeeded in doing just that. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

When I tell my six-year-old off for being nasty to her sister, she often responds with the riduiculous defence of "but she called me a [insert nasty word] first".--Doc 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:Yes. Although obviously the system would work better if the degree of equity were increased. For this matter, I would feel worse about the block if Giano had actually posted some evidence, but clearly that wasn't the case. The quality of the blog is not relevant to the arbitration case at issue. Denigrating its quality was a completely unuseful attack. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:Then, wise father than I am sure you are, you will surely chastise both of them. Or are you saying that retaliation is worse than a first offence?

:Why does Cyde get one of those fabled "free passes" to post uncivil text containing personal attacks from a blog? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::Whatever Cyde did or didn't do, two wrongs don't make a right - you condemned Cyde, will you now condemn [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&curid=7140456&diff=81062550&oldid=80571004 this]? ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::And just to add to that, Cyde admitted that it might not have been a good idea to post the blog excerpt, and taken some responsibility for it. Kelly took some responsibility for her actions in the blog and seemed sincere. I think that Giano should take a step back and acknowledge his edits were not in anyone's bests interests.

:::More importantly though, where is this going to end? Who is going to be the first person to let a perceived slight pass them by? More and more editors are being drawn into this everytime it flares up and the sniping isn't accomplishing anything. A lot of pent up frustration was released over the last month but now it's time to stop I think. Rx StrangeLove 06:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW the lasting damage of a personal attack depends upon the prominence of the place. E.g. his block log is with a user forever. An incivil comment on an obscure arbcom page removed in a three hours would have almost no damaging effect if not advertised all over the Wikipedia space. I would suggest to cut on the advertisements of [some diff|If you want to see the most shocking attack in the wikipedia history - click here] -type. abakharev 06:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, listen, everyone take a deep breath. Really. Do it now. In.... out... There. Doesn't that feel good?

Now then. To work. Without getting into the minutiae of whether Kelly's blog post was vile (it was) or whether Giano's post on the evidence page was a personal attack on a former editor (it was), the only point I'd like to make is that blocking someone who is currently in the middle of an arbitration case is not the best thing to be doing. If it was, I can promise you that there is at least one person recently active on this same RFArb who I would have been blocking for 3.6 minute stretches every 4 minutes. For fun. Until he cried. But I held off because it's an arbitration case, and because the arbitrators get to determine what is "too far" in that context. Generally speaking, I don't see any utility in blocking people for comments on arbitration cases unless they are engaging in behavior that is actively disruptive, as opposed to just nasty.

So please, everyone, on both sides of this question, dial down the indignation. If you think the other guy is clearly wrong, just remember that time wounds all heels. Nandesuka 02:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:Without getting into the minutiae of whether Kelly's blog post was vile (it was) or whether Giano's post on the evidence page was a personal attack on a former editor (it was): I haven't seen the former; I think there's a case for claiming the latter is a personal attack but I'm not persuaded that it is. Still: the only point I'd like to make is that blocking someone who is currently in the middle of an arbitration case is not the best thing to be doing. Warmly seconded. -- Hoary 03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:A wise posting. Thirded. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:Of course. I think Giano's post was an effort to express sincere disagreement with the proposed decision, based on the practices he saw/personality he saw in that blog and was not a personal attack in any sense. However, we've all made our statements, except for the assumption that "incivility" is a reason to block someone or that "cooling off" is a valid type of block. Geogre 10:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano should have been blocked for a minimum of 24 hours, not to "cool down", but to let him know that basic standards of civility are enforced here. The fact that Giano has supporters among respected admins does not relieve him of the responsibility to be nice, or at least minimally decent, and the support he gets simply teaches him that he is untouchable. Well then, why should I block some anonymous lady for calling other editors liars, vandals and thugs just because she never had the fortune to befriend a senior administrator? Thatcher131 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thatcher, I see that there have been good grounds for opposing your RfA. Concerns about your facile interpretation of the blocking policy are valid. You seem to be unable to see a difference between a stray troll (whose edits you cite) and a "high status contributor" as Fred Bauder termed Giano. Since incivil comments by non-editing admins are still allowed (see examples below), your denigrating attitude towards prolific editors will lead to massive exodus of quality contributors from Wikipedia to rival projects. Since I've never seen you active in mainspace, I don't think such a perspective bothers you, right? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't want to see anyone blocked, even the anonymous editor I have been dealing with lately. And Interiot's comment below (the second one, at 04:49) hit me right between the eyes. However, I am at a loss over what to do about it. (It is for this reason that I never commented in the first Giano thread, and will probably avoid this one from now on.) Let's say we only block "when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia". Well, slagging off on someone is only disruptive if that person or that person's friends take offense. So should we all turn the other cheek, and let some editors make crude personally disparaging remarks? There wouldn't be any disruption that way, but Wikipedia would be a less and less inviting place to hang around. Or, if disruption only occurs when people take offense, then the disruptiveness of a comment (and hence, its blockability) becomes a function of how many friends the target and offender each have. Regarding your specific concerns about me, my approach in this case would have been to ask Giano nicely to reword his observations. It's a fair question to ask if the arbcom should really be thanking someone who writes such things on a public blog. And my opinion is somewhat different now than when I started this subthread, thanks to Interiot, although I now have no idea how to deal with cases like this (and will nothing to do with them myself any more), and clearly the 50 or so principles and findings of fact haven't helped a damn thing. Thatcher131 11:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Thanks for your detailed explanation, Thatcher. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:This is a fair comment. But unless we start to apply the same standards not to friends of adminstrators but to the adminstrators themselves we'll keep having this problem. - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman ^{L}] 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::Okay, let's do it. I've really had enough of this now. Time to start blocking everyone who lowers the level of discourse around here. Giano shouldn't get a free pass because some people perceive some admins as getting free passes. --Cyde Weys 03:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Okay, should we start from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&diff=79353586&oldid=79328893 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FMONGO&diff=74219301&oldid=74201367 this] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=79610892 this]? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree. We're all human, we're going to slip up, but anyone who gets in the habit of incivility should be strongly reminded that civility is important, no matter who they are. --Interiot 04:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::: I see... In that case, can we start with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=79610892 diff]? When someone tells someone to "get the **** off" a talk page, it is incivility. Yet it was not done... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We should block for incivility. Otherwise, we can take WP:CIV and delete it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:Seconded. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

YES! Why would this ever be in doubt? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

: Well, WP:BP doesn't really reflect it in its current form. It says "Block are only to prevent disruption" and "Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia", and WP:NPA says "In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the 'disruption' clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial." --Interiot 04:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that Kelly Martin is no longer a member of the project, does WP:NPA apply to her? (I don't have a dog in this hunt; I'm just trying to find an cheap-and-dirty bureaucratic way to excuse Giano's statement and put an end to this argument.) --Aaron 04:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::How about WP:BLP? Does that apply to her? Tom Harrison ^Talk 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, because the whole point of WP:NPA is to maintain a collegial atmosphere. Sniping at people who aren't here at the moment doesn't really serve that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::You don't create a collegial atmosphere by trashing former colleagues. She obviously has many supporters here who think she was badly treated, and Giano's comments obviously set them off. Plus, pissing on someone who's left is about as civil as poking a caged animal with a stick. Shall we now tolerate all of SPUI's former opponents slagging him? How about Freakofnurture, or Gator1? Thatcher131 04:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Or even Katefan0 or RickK? Scobell302 04:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I see no point in shouting that Kelly left Wikipedia, especially after reading the thread about "drama queens" on her talk page. I'm sure Kelly will return whenever she thinks it's time. From what I know, both Kelly and Tony are busy on IRC, where they may be more helpful at the moment. Since comments about "bitches from hell" are tolerated there, civility rules apparently don't apply to IRC and people who spend most time there. They are applied only to those who is active in mainspace editing. Nobody is disputing that incivility is blockable. The question is who determines which comments are beyond the pale and deserve blocking. As interpreted by Dmcdevit, Cyde and Thatcher, only defenceless prolific editors are guilty of incivility, while IRC regulars are given a free pass. And that's disturbing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I would appreciate if you would not use my name, for absolutely no identifiable reason in this context, to make exaggerated and insulting insinuations against me. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Sorry if I hurt you. I was thinking about this, of course. Since you are here, I would like to know your opinion about incivility on IRC (which is rampant). Is it really good for Wikipedia to have a special off-wiki venue for personal attacks? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I regret that I still have no idea what you're talking about, and I suspect it's because you don't either, but you'd like to make insinuations about me anyway. I'm pleased to have everyone (including you, if you really haven't) look at that RFC. You'll see that 1) it has nothing to do with incivility 2) I made a well reasoned argument which 3) had overwhelming support. IRC is often stupid and off-topic, and it's not my job to defend it to anyone, but it's clearly not a venue for personal attacks. In any case, I will point out to you that I was the one that removed Tony Sidaway's access to the admins channel for incivility, and I'll do it again if need be. Let me ask you something. Is it good for Wikipedia to be used as an on-wiki venue for personal attacks? I'm confident you'll answer in the negative, but you'll have to remove your own incivility from this page if you want to remain logically consistent. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 09:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Either we discuss issues openly and robustly, or we have a maiden aunts' tea party. As with every subjective (not to say speculative) concept, the discussion of civility is prone to degenerating into mutual accusations of incivility (which it does below). It's very easy to hijack any discussion in that direction. You can't measure incivility by meters and tons. What is incivil for one person, is quite civil for another. Therefore I apologise to everyone who thought my comments were incivil. I consider further discussion of the subject counterproductive and suggest the discussion to be archived. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually if I can remove the personal attack and the user does not re-insert it, or if the PA was in the edit summaries but the editor apologized, I see the matter to be closed. Otherwise I act if there is a number of incivility warnings already or the incivility is really gross (do you really need examples of gross incivility?). abakharev 06:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this would be to make it very clear that Wikipedia will not allow gross incivility from anyone while ensuring that every block does not need to result in or result of an ArbCom case. If the whole thing is engineered to be as kind, but firm as possible, I'd hope it could prevent the huge drama which seems to result from situations such as this.

This is what I'd hope to see:

1. A decision on what to put as a block reason that isn't "HAY LOOK AT [WORST DIFF EVER]" nor that puts the user in any great disrepute, as the block log is permanent, as others have said.
2. A set amount of time that isn't controversial, and a set way to come to the conclusion that the editor should be blocked.
3. No amount of favoritism as to administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, FA writers, vandal fighters, anyone. Everyone should be held to the same standards of civility.
4. An extreme disinclination to undo the block. Editors should ideally sit out their blocks and if they dislike the inconvenience should note doubly not to repeat the behavior. Current blocking policy says that blocks are not punishment, but if there are no consequences for being grossly incivil, there is no incentive not to be. Wikipedia needs to maintain a collegial atmosphere and needs to give a stern message to those who disrupt that, no matter who they are.

Thoughts? Opinions? Condemnations? :] --Keitei (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::Incivil ad hominem comments by User:Ghirlandajo removed.--Doc 08:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Removal endorsed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Please explain what's so incivil about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=81175159&oldid=81175084 these comments]. If my comments are considered incivil and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=79610892 this comment] is a model of civility, I readily see what Cyde-Doc-Keitei's proposal will lead to. Expendable cogs will ever be blocked at the mercy of IRC dudes who "hate cruft". --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::My comment was said to a friend in love - and he's not in the least offended (I checked). Your comment is a nasty attack pouring gasoline on what is already a fire. And if you can't see that, then I've nothing more to say to you.--Doc 08:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::My comments were valid and to the point. There are various civility standards for IRC regulars and quality editors. Incivility blocks are OK. It's just the matter of interpretation. I fail to see how Cyde's posting on behalf of Kelly was civil, while Giano's retort merited a block. Either they both should have been blocked, or both comments should have been speedily removed (as you just did with mine). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Your comments were not civil. Don't crusade to clean up IRC, when you can't clean up your own posts. And that Cyde behaved badly excuses nothing. 'Oh but he did it first' is a silly argument. Cyde has (I believe) aknowledged his error, I would have unblocked Giano the instant he aknowledged his. Will you please aknowledge the fact that your edit was most unhelpful. Then we can perhaps move civilly to deal with any outstanding issues.--Doc 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I do hate cruft. That's why I spend so much time trying to rewrite game-guide, speculation, and nonsense into sourced, encyclopedic articles. I wonder what it has to do with dealing with incivil users, or why you're flailing for out-of-context reasons to smear anyone who is critical of your incendiary tone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think punitive blocks such as these should never be done at a single administrator's discretion (that means, they should be discussed on Wikipedia first), as the block log is permanent and different people have different standards for what constitutes "gross incivility". In the case of blocks that are not meant to be preventative, there is time to discuss first, block later. Otherwise, unblocking will very often be justified. I have no idea how to do anything against the favoritism, though. Kusma (討論) 08:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::The problem with incivility blocks for established editors is that they split editors into two groups. Established editors who are incivil are probably at the end of their teather, and if they find themselves blocked for letting their true feelings show they are just as likely to see this as yet another injustice as they are to pause and reflect, then withdraw their comments. Personally I would suggest incivility blocks only be applied after discussion and last for a token length of time (an hour, half an hour, something like that.) However I haven't applied one. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 08:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I haven't applied a block for incivility either, but I probably have a higher tolerance than many other people. I agree with you that quickly applied blocks often just lead to more perceptions of injustice. That is why I think they should never be applied vigilante-style by a single admin's discretion. Separation of executive and judicial powers is a good thing, and should look and be more fair than having admins act as policeman and judge at once. Kusma (討論) 10:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

=====OK - how about this? yes? no?=====

It seems pretty clear that there is a tendancy to say that incivility is utterly unacceptable. It also seems that some people have some concerns over the effects and the process that would result and be used for incivility blocks.

Personally, on the matter of Giano, I am now (reluctantly) giving in to letting it pass by now - it's a long time in the past, and this entire debate is evidence enough to demonstrate to him the disruption that can be caused by and from and the unnacceptable nature of his incivility.

However, it seems that this heated debate may have spawned some positive results in the form of suggestions of how to improve Wikipedia. It does still seem to be a little overheated though (I say after having just sat out a self imposed 9 hour block lol!). While I accept that neither RFC or ANI are usually the most ideal places for it, in the interests of cooling down and hopefully bringing all concerned back together, might I suggest an end to this particular debate for now, and that an RFC be opened on the subject of incivility blocks in (maybe) 12-24 hours time?

(Just an idea!) --Crimsone 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:The primary problem isn't incivility blocks, the problem is incivility and personal attacks, and people who tolerate them. We should not tollerate such, especially from established editors. However, we've still got people who'd rather wikilawyer and politic rather than condeming [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&curid=7140456&diff=81062550&oldid=80571004 this type of thing]. Yes, at the margins, incivility will be a matter of interpretation - but anyone trying to say that post is anything other than outrageous is simply on another planet.--Doc 10:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::I'm not going to disagree with you Doc (really, I'm not. I agree. lol). However, this long after the event, I'm not sure a block can reallly have much validity. However, if a course of action is decided in dealing with incivility, then the tools will be there should this arise again (and thus, in that knowledge, this wouldn't arise again).

::Only yesterday I removed a report of mild incivility from WP:PAIN, and the user got back to me on my talk page asking what to do about it. Of course, the only answer I could give was that of "contact an admin if you like, though the norm is to reason it out between yourselves" - not so good.

::I really do feel that the wider issue needs to take priority at this point as there seems to be a rather fundamental problem that needs addressing. --Crimsone 10:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:The discussion should have ended when folks had set out their positions, which was yesterday. I have nothing to add to the "block Giano" discussion, but the newly emergent "We all agree that blocks for personal attacks are good" will be another topic. Geogre 10:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:On the subject of personal attacks and civility, I say No. There is a really good reason that NPA doesn't enter BP. There is a really good reason that I don't block for NPA. No one knows who determines the difference between an "incivil" comment and a "provocative" comment and a "debate." I absolutely, wholeheartedly, disagree with this sort of blind plunging ahead. The entire thing begs the question. You cannot block for an incivil comment unless you know what one is. Bishonen, ALoan, and I all thought, for example, that Giano's comments were at least poorly timed, and I thought they were harsh, but they were not an attack on a person. On the other hand, Friends of Kelly see them as vicious attacks. So...where does that leave us? Does the most offended win? Tony and others were previously blocking people for being angry. No, no, no. Explain in detail who is going to determine when and whether an attack has been made, and then we can advocate blocking for attacks. Geogre 10:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::Geogre, there never could have been a moment when his remarks were "well-timed." Futhermore, suggesting that the only people who seek his remarks as inappropriate are "Friends of Kelly" is needlessly divisive. I'm not aware that I've openly placed myself in one camp or the other; I prefer that I not be pigeonholed in such a manner. I would point to the recent precedent regarding Tony Sidaway as evidence that the "most offended" do indeed win. Tony's being punished for his "filth" comment, in case you missed it. I don't support a general blocking policy at the moment, but I do support dealing with editors who think they have a free pass to shoot their mouth off and make inappropriate comments. This isn't the first time Giano crossed the line, and I have little doubt that it will be the last. Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Geogre and would say further that there are many cases where subtle attempts at humour, irony, self-deprecation etc. have been totally misread. Anyone on WikiEN-L will be aware of the recent discussion there about sarcasm and irony. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::I'm trying to assume good faith here. You say you don't consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&curid=7140456&diff=81062550&oldid=80571004 this] to be a personal attack? I'm sorry, I just don't believe you.--Doc 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::where does it say we block for incivility without warning? Blocking Giano in the middle of his (heated) RfAr was stupid, and arguably partisan. If Doc really, absolutely felt he had to invervene to save Wikipedia from Giano's venomous remarks, he could have posted a warning or two "I am going to block you soon" on Giano's talkpage. Protesting a "cooling off" block sounds like a sick joke in this case, and I am sure it didn't have the desired effect. Instead we are having another endless debate here. WP:CIVIL like any policy must be applied with common sense. If you are unsure if your own common sense is sufficient, ask for opinions right here, beforehand. dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:Honestly, I persoally never said ALL NPA blocks are fine. However - blocks for persistant or severe attacks are fine (as per the mention in WP:BP). This is however all I'm going to say though, in light of my opening comment of this subsection. --Crimsone 10:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What's all this about IRC? As my father would say, what does have to do with the streetcar running? IRC isn't part of Wikipedia. It's not. Repeat that until it's firmly ingrained. If people make personal attacks on the IRC channel then I deplore their candor and ask them to cool off. If people make personal attacks on Wikipedia, in full view of the whole world, I remind them that Wikipedia (as opposed to IRC) has a civility policy and that they should consider their remarks more carefully. To each according to its own rules. If I go walk outside and tell my neighbor what a horrible [gerund] that [adjective] [username] is, do I face arbcom sanction? No, because arbcom doesn't have jurisdiction over Michigan (thank heavens). What someone may or may not have said on a completely different site does not, has never, and will never excuse or justify incivility on this site. Any discussion in this context of an IRC channel is an attempt to divert our attention from things which happen on-wiki. I am responsible to Wikipedia for things that I say here, and I am responsible to freenode and members of the channel for things I say there. Enough. Mackensen (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre: I hope it's not coming across that I was trying to implement a means to block Giano as this was not my intention at all. Rather, I intended to provoke discussion as to how one could go about dealing with the incivility everyone seems to take so much offense to (cf. reaction to comments by Tony Sidaway, etc). I apologize if this is the wrong place to initiate discussion. However, the discussion of blocking established editors for perceived incivility had been started here, so I figured trying to begin constructive discussion in this vein was worth a shot. --Keitei (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:Absolutely - and I felt it was worth trying again. Ho hum.... (sigh). --Crimsone 11:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I object to any attempt to suggest that discussion need serve a purpose. Shame Brenneman, for trying to silence discourse. Actually, no, I think we've long moved past the point where anything useful might be accomplished, but the precedent this sets scares me. The ability of editors to insist on on-wiki civility has been severely compromised today. All anyone need to do know is point to or claim "off-wiki" incivility "made him do it" and we'll have to give him a pass. Unfortunate. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Parody not appreciated. Don't paste off-wiki into wiki, and the off-wiki won't be commented. Don't allow off-wiki as evidence, and no one can question the evidence. Lastly, don't use off wiki to manage on-wiki actions unless you are prepared to have that discussion entirely reiterated on-wiki. That's simple enough, isn't it? Geogre 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• I tagged 150 unsourced fair-use image as such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed - Less WikiDrama, more gnome-ing and writing please. - Mailer Diablo 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision&diff=79496271&oldid=79495933 group hug] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision&diff=79515748&oldid=79515494 self-validation] over on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision clearly did not work. Shall we try again?

When this contretemps kicked off with the block yesterday, I had recently created a nice but short article on a whore-hunting gin-hating 18th century London magistrate; had my second article of the day on WP:DYK; and was busy adding references to my next FAC at some stupid time in the morning, and then adding it to (and dealing with prompt comments from) WP:PR. Today, I have been another another couple of current or future WP:DYKs, and considering whether to write up Admiral Sir David Scott or Captain Bill Jewell (both involved in Operation Mincemeat). I also have a collection of redlinks, if you are looking for something to do (containing such neglected delights as tiltyard, Kalamita Bay, Birdcage Walk, Hawaii Territorial Guard, Château de Challeau, red palm weevil, Battle of Roucoux, Charollais cattle, Radio Free Scotland, Sophie Blanchard, Aldermaston March and Thinking man's crumpet). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.