Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive209

Back log at CSD

I've been at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for more than an hour and have only gotten through the M's. Anyone bored? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've only deleted a few, and there are other people helping out, but we are still at about 500 entries awaiting speedy deletion (or being saved). Fram 12:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes if a CSD tag is placed on a template or another page that is transcluded into many other pages, all of them will show up in the category. I believe this is what happened here. One tag = hundreds of listed pages. NoSeptember 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Recreated twice deleted article

User:Cisz Helion has recreated an article twice deleted before. See contribs for link to previous AfD, which has link to previous AfD before that. Also has created several redirects that need to be deleted. Shenme 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it and left a note to Cisz informing him to go through the deletion review instead. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Trigger-happy blocking by Betacommand

The issue of unwarranted blocks in connection with this admin Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been brought up several times, including lately. We now have a new incident. The users Hillock65 and Chuprynka being blocked for no reason by Betacommand yesterday. I commented on that earlier here and here but chose not pursue this further since the user blocked by Betacommand said earlier that he has left. So, ultimately, it did not matter except as another example of eager blocking by Betacommand. Today, however, the user in question posted an "unblock" template. I honestly, have nothing to do with this. Moreover, my interaction with said user haven't been pleasant but purely due to some content disputes.

Anyway, to summarize the issue briefly, Hillock65 was among several users who stood up to trolling by the confirmed puppeteer Yarillastremenog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see list of confirmed puppets of that user. In retaliation for the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yarillastremenog the puppeteer submitted the frivolous report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hillock65 where he alleged that Hillock and Chuprynka are socks. I have edited the article in question and observed the behavior of all users involved. There was no similarity between these two accounts and report was clearly submitted in bad faith. It stood idle and unaddressed by checkusers for a while, and yesteday, when it was already too late for checkuser to give any result, Betacommand, who is neither a checkuser nor has any familiarity with the problem, decided to "close" the puppetry case himself, blocked them both as socks for no reason and placed the sockpuppet templates at both user's pages. Only after I raised the issue, he posted his "report" on the very same page where he merely says that he concludes towards sockpuppetry based on the fact that among the articles edited by the users, there was one common one (!).

My analysis is presented at User talk:Akhilleus#Proper tagging of blocked users and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hillock65#Response to report. As I said, I had my problems with Hillock65 due to the content conflicts but before he decided to leave, he wrote several articles himself. Most notably the comprehensive Battle of Konotop article was written by Hillock single handily. At the same time, user:Chuprynka's entries at the talk pages were clearly civil and measured, while Hillock's was more combative (but this is not incivility we are discussing and incivility was not a major problem anyway).

To conclude, whatever issues one might have with these editors, the sockpuppetry accusations were brought in bad faith (by Yarillastremenog) and decided on sloppily (by Betacommand). The users needs to be unblocked and the unblocking edit summary should include the apology for the inconvenience and false accusations. On a side note, Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should be reminded one more time that block buttons should be used responsibly. --Irpen 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have unblocked both. They do not look like sockpuppets just two editors having some vague pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV. (Chuprinka in more moderate form) Alex Bakharev 22:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I generally concur, especially with Betacommand going commando again. One person asked, "Why else would someone want to be an admin" except to block. I was aghast at that, because people who do want to be admins so that they can block can end up acting like Betacommand and causing the whole project grief. One mantra: discuss, confer, and act multilaterally. That's all a person needs. Discuss, confer, and act multilaterally, and especially in public and not on IRC with whoever happens to be in channel at the time. Geogre 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I had to smile at the quote above. I've been an admin for over three months, and including the two blocks I issued today, I have only blocked someone in 16 instances. I guess I'm just not a good admin. :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 07:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• At this point I suspect many people question Betacommand's ability to be reasonable in his use of blocks. Perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand 2 should be opened on this issue? Friday (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I say, ArbCom. Has there been not enough times Betacommand's unwarranted blocks have been discussed to demonstrate the other methods to address this recurring problem? --Irpen 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Arbcom seems willing to let the community make its own remedies. Do we need to take their time with this issue? Friday (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes we do. Do not forget that unfair blocks do hurt people. Only ArbCom can either restrict Beta's right to continue with blocks and/or desysop him. --Irpen 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we know this, until we try. Why not RFC and see what happens? Friday (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Have you guys asked him about this incident? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked him yesterday, yes. Please read the original thread. --Irpen 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this after someone mentioned Beta being dragged in front of the Arbcom, Irpen, please relax, you seem very aggressive in tone here and there's no assumption of good faith by you on the part of anybody else here at all, it really seems your intent on dragging this to Arbcom, which to my mind is, at this time, unnecessary. We're dealing with usernames here, something that some people see as fine and others see as being excessive, it has been suggested on IRC that Beta stop blocking users for a little while (a couple of weeks) and instead, should watch others performing username blocks and looking through the RFC/N page to see what usernames are being thought of as unacceptable there too. ArbCom is really not the place to discuss the good faith functions of an admin, rather, it should be a last resort if the admin or any editor refuses to change their behavior, is seriously damaging the project, is doing nothing to help the project at all, and all other avenues to rectify the situation have been exhausted. We're not their yet and I think if you try a less confrontational approach, we might be able to make some really significant headway here. -- Heligoland 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

After briefly looking over this issue, I think betacommand's blocks have been made in good faith in this particular instance, there has been evidence to suggest that the 2 users are sockpuppets. However there have been a number of users blocked (once again) for username violations; User:Asdf555, User:Sally catastrophe;, User:B;uedog, User:Ihatechillums which are questionable to say the least RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd wonder whether "B;uedog" was a simple miskeying of "Bluedog", the semicolon key being next to the L key. "Sally catastrophe;", with or without semicolon, is surely no more offensive than Calamity Jane. -- Ben 07:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Asdf555: I see nothing wrong with the username. --Carnildo 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't WP:RFCN but semi colons aren't banned by WP:U and with regards to Ihatechillums well, chillum has its own article, I really doubt it will offend anyone RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for ArbCom, when I looked at the sock case I saw two users who have a very simiar editing pattern and a similar pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV. From the evidence they appeared to be the same user. In regard to those listed username blocks ; can cause some problems with templates like I know = breaks the {{user}} template, I blocked User:Asdf555 as being a nonsense username. Might I note even CheckUsers have misread data, it appears I did the same here given further opinion and input. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom is definately not needed, these are all good faith blocks although there is a concern of newbie biting RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There was absolutely no similarity in their editing patterns and only one of the two has a "pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV". To see this would have taken spending more time on investigating the report. Admittedly, this is harder than just block. And this is exactly the problem. --Irpen 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I point out Alex Bakharev agreed with me, and like I said given the further data I misread the facts, Please AGF as I said I made an honest mistake in this SSPA case, there have been cases where our CheckUsers made the same mistake there is no need to assume bad faith. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, nonsense usernames are not disallowed. Otherwise a lot of Wikipedians would be in deep trouble. Usernames with a misleading or confusing use of characters, usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers, and usernames that consist of extended repetition of a particular character are disallowed. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my slip in proper policy phrasing that is what I meant apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers is what I should have quoted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On the standard US English keyboard, "asdf" is the first four letters of the home row. It's similar to qwerty or zxcvbnm. --Carnildo 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the user of a semi colon violates WP:U at present, if this is a problem, it should be written into policy before blocking RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The good faith issue is a strawman here I think. Nobody's questioned Betacommand's intentions, as far as I know. The questions involve his judgment. Friday (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

if its just my judgment then why was ArbCom the first thing that was suggested? I always try to AGF. if you are concerned please talk to me. regarding the username blocks I have tried to limit them to just the extreme obvious. But in light of this issue I guess I will stop blocking for a while. Like I said AGF and try and discuss it first before threating ArbCom. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following you- of course people are assuming good faith, but this is not remotely incompatible with suggesting that Arbcom take a look at this. Arbcom is almost never required for bad-faith editors- what to do with them is generally easy to sort out. Stopping with the disputed behavior while it's being discussed is a good thing, perhaps you should have done this previously. Friday (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Time for a few links to illustrate why people are questioning Betacommand's judgement in his use of blocks. His block of Irpen in December was outrageous, a quite undeserved smear on Irpen's block log, widely criticized by the community — not just criticized but repeatedly described as "odd".[1] [2], And here is a discussion of Betacommand's (also much-critized) role in Chairboy's "NPA block" of Giano, a block overturned by Jimbo Wales.[3]. These are the two Betacommand blocks I happen to know about. I only hope they're the worst he's done. I advise WP:RFAR rather than one of those RFC timesinks, since desysopping isn't something the community does anyway. Hey, btw, should this be here? Isn't it an issue for the community noticeboard? It doesn't specifically affect admins. But Betacommand's admin actions are affecting the community, not in a good way. Bishonen | talk 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Like I have said before I did not want that block placed or even know about it till later, All that I asked was for a uninvolved user to remind Giano about NPA. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, no desire to go over old ground, but watch the spin. The "block overturned by Jimbo Wales" was explicitly endorsed by Jimbo, prior to his unblocking as a gesture of reconciliation.--Doc^g 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could I just point out Doc, if people bother to read [4] they will see that that block came about following Beattacommand's lying about me on IRC - a blatent fact which those "editors" who advise Jimbo chose not to make him aware. Giano 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A question for Giano; so how many people have "lied" about you on Wikipedia exactly? LuciferMorgan 13:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Watch the spin ? I fucking linked to Jimbo's endorsement in the log, and now I'm trying to hide it? Bishonen | talk 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Your characterization of it is inaccurate. You present it as though Jimbo specifically disapproved of the block and overturned it because the blocking admin was in error--and I don't see how Betacommand is related to that block anyway. Your characterization of the Irpen block also seems to be inaccurate; I don't see how the block was "outrageous", though it does explain why Irpen initiated this complaint. —Centrx→talk • 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Click on my links, Centrx, and I believe these issues will become much clearer to you. I posted for the purpose of bringing these links to people's attention, not for any "characterizations" of my own. The links are part—the most important part—of how I "present" (as you say) past events. They show Jimbo's endorsement of the Giano block, and they show how severely the community criticized the block of Irpen. The community reaction was the point I wanted to make—not that the Irpen block is criticized by me. Bishonen | talk 01:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree with Heligoland that bringing this to ArbCom would be over the top. About a week ago, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand was closed early and delisted "to allow time for discussion elsewhere. If that discussion is not successful, the RfC can be reopened." Perhaps, and I need to emphasize that this is a neutral suggestion, the RFC may be reopened, in order to continue this discussion there. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but for concerns in life I have to log off for now I will be back on later. (will be several hours) I am sorry for having to leave before this issue could be handled. There is no need to escalate this matter yet I hope that we can settle this issue peacefully without the need for ArbCom or RFC. See you later and best wishes to all including those who dont like me. I hope you all have a good day. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but blocks really do affect people, a lot. I don't think we should let this go (and go on and on) just because we're sorry. Betacommand, how about a strictly voluntary undertaking from you to not use the block button for say six months? Just pretend you don't have it. It seems to me that would save you a lot of stress, and all of us time. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Like I said above I am stopping blocking users until there is an agreement on this issue, it might be a month, it might be six months, it might be a year. Also I think you misunderstood my last post I said that I was sorry for not being able to respond to further questions for several hours I had personal matters to attend to. I think this issue needs to be settled too. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand is open. Friday (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Friday. Given that we're seeing the very same list of names appearing in support of Betacommand's blocks this time as last, and some of the same names upset at unilateral blocking (without warning, of course) plus quite a few more, it is time for an RFC, as I don't think that the one important remedy has been accepted: confer. Confer on AN/I. Find an uninvolved person. If your last block got overturned, think twice before the next one. It's no vendetta: it's an attempt to ensure that we don't keep going over the same ground and losing people and escalating into wars. Geogre 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

**In light of recent goigns on, and probably this covnerstaion, Betacommand has dumped about 30 names to be blocked at WP:AIV. Some of them are blatantly obvious but i feel that he is doing this to Make a point and i feel it is innapropriate. Does anybody else have feelings on this? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Never mind, i talked to him. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I did too. I am concerned that many of the names he did submit on this list were clearly block-worthy, a bunch of them were nowhere near blockable. They've since been removed. Proto ► 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If I might ask if you would respond which names you thought were not blockable, Please respond on my talk page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • about a 3rd of the names seemed appropriate for WP:AIV, penis, poop, vandal in the name is generally ok. I am fairly sure Beta knew what he was doing when he flooded the page with the rest of the questionable names. He knows that is not where they go and i very strongly believe he was doing it to make a point. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to make a point I would have block those. If you dont think they should be blocked then we have a difference of opinion that started this issue, and that I am trying to solve. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact you would have blocked accounts such as User:Asdfgrewq purely on their user names is precisely why you cannot be trusted with username blocks at this moment in time. I note now that you have reverted to adding them to WP:RFCN. Perhaps you could stop having anything to do with usernames until this is resolved? Proto ► 16:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proto, Asdfgrewq is a collection of apparently random characters, this is an understandable block. "Productionpaul" is the one I don't understand. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If i remeber corrently, we closed a recent WP:RFCN as allow with the username qmwnebrvtcyxuz. asdfrewq is much less random than that in my opinion. But, for that reason alone, the controversial state of such usernames, a WP:RFCN would have been very appropriate in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a bureacracy, nor do I remember WP:RFCN being granted any power to create policy and certainly not make binding decisions. I'm not sure it should be making any decisions regarding blocking or not people based on usernames, RFC is Requests for Comment no other RFC can instigate a block or ban on anyone. The normally expected outcome from RFC is for *all* involved (not necessarily just the person being complained about) to consider the views expressed and as a matter of self make suitable adjustments. The whole thing of making votes of "allow" and "deny" seems rather bizarre to me. --pgk 11:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Skoppensboer

User:Skoppensboer has a chronic history of BLP violations, personal attacks, using edit summaries to tendiciously taunt other editors, general incivility, and "soapboxery", particularly revolving around the article and talk page of Matt Drudge. He appears to have no respect at all for WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, or WP:SOAPBOX, and has ignored multiple warnings over time from multiple editors to stop adding material about Drudge's alleged homosexuality, information about his mother's mental illness, (and anything else he can come up with to smear the subject), to stop adding unsourced statements, to stop reinserting previously removed unsourced statements without even attempting to source them, and to stop attacking numerous editors. (And also to stop referring to me as Crackpot). He removed a valid and well sourced NPA warning from his talk page today as well. I have tried to be civil with this editor for months, but last night, he accused me of "obsessively editing" the article in question, when the edit history shows that I had not edited the article since December 7, 2006, so I pretty much lost it and regrettably became uncivil myself. I have calmed down and am attempting to continue to be civil, but this editor just keeps on behaving badly.

Here are a few of the most recent examples of his incivility and attacks. A scan of Talk:Matt Drudge and examination of his edit history will no doubt reveal many more violations. I'm pretty much fed up with being nice and diplomatic with this guy. I have never asked for sanctions against him in the past, but now I am asking for a block. He may try to claim that I have violated 3RR there today, but I maintain that I am protected by WP:BLP from a 3RR sanction.

• Recent example 1.
• Recent example 2.
• Recent example 3.
• Recent example 4. (Even bots doing their maint. duty are not immune.)

- Crockspot 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The user has finally written a neutral and sourced version of the statement in dispute, which I have accepted, yet he continues to attack me, and charactarizes my user page in a completely inaccurate way, violating WP:AGF as well. He gave me what I asked for, and I was about to back off and come here and retract this complaint, but he continues to lie about me, and attack me and other editors. Unbelievable. - Crockspot 17:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's ok! Remain COOL, im looking into it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hvae given this editor a warning. It is generally appropriate to try and confront the editor about their actions before requesting administrative assistance. Should this continue, let me know! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe I have (as have others) confronted him several times about his behavior. I very rarely request admin assistance, and only when I feel I have no other option. I'll cool my jets. - Crockspot 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Sweet, thanks! cooling down always helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I have backed away, but I see the slap fest and cabalesque accusations continue with two other editors. - Crockspot 15:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Clancy2000

User:Clancy2000 is a fresh new editor with all vandalism in all edits. Don't have time to follow this guy around and undo his damage. Left a blatantvandal warning on his talk, he's still at it. Can somebody nip this guy in the bud? Thank you. - Crockspot 20:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not fresh or new... has the hallmarks of a sockpuppeting vandal I dealt with a while back. Blocked indefinitely.--Isotope23 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To my great horror, I discovered over dinner last night that my sixteen-year-old son and his friends make a hobby out of exactly this kind of vandalism on a regular basis. The most horrifying part was that I'm sure he has done some of this from home, which would have my IP address attached... Know any good military academies? - Crockspot 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is funny that you should say that because the vandal above has some "tells" that point to something I dealt with a while back from a group of editors. I suspected it was a group of school kids playing a game where they vandalized articles and then tried to see if they could get each other blocked. As I suspected, their IP resolved to a school. This probably happens more often than it is caught because the individuals are blocked before anyone notices the related editors...--Isotope23 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the editor above? Same sort of edits are being made from an IP that resolves to a school...--Isotope23 16:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is declaring an IP as a school IP a reason to empty the IP Talk?

User:63.88.36.191 has just claimed on User talk:63.88.36.191 that the IP, warned for vandalism for multiple times, is a school IP. That claim might be legitimate, but I can't verify which school it is; a RDNS query replied mail.elsd.org, but the HTTP server in that server is nonexistant. The same IP then cleared the talk including warnings as recent as yesterday; I just wonder what should I do about these developments.

Update: deletion reverted, but identity of school still unknown. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If an IP talk page is too long, just archive everything that is over a month old, and add an archive box. I don't think IPs should be removing warnings, as it is not necessarily their IP. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New update: User:HHS SpartanBaller blanked the talk again, having the same claim, but there is no evidence that he is from any school-- he was just registered very recently. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I archived it, since nobody owns an IP talk page, I would treat anything like this as page blanking. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, where there is no WWW server, do a WHOIS query. —xyzzy_n 15:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation

I was rather perplexed to see this ([5]). I'd be grateful if someone looked into this. --Dweller 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

cryptic (talk · contribs) got him.--Isotope23 17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

User:140.211.69.11 just vandalized the The Hype about Hydrogen article. I see that he has received many warnings. Can you block him? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the report! Generally, vandalism reports should go to WP:AIV - you'll get a quicker response there. Cheers, Yuser31415 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

IP vandal

Sometimes the rules piss me off, like when an IP has nothing but vandalism edits, 12 vandalism edits today alone, and can never be blocked because warnings aren't applied fast enough. I refer to User talk:66.244.215.10 Nardman1 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If they have stopped vandalizing, then a block is unnecessary and unwarranted. If your primary objective is to punish vandals, then, respectfully, you're operating from the wrong mindset. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan

I've blocked Sbhushan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for persistent trolling and edit-warring on Indigenous Aryans, plus a 3RRvio in reaction to a warning. I am also uncertain of his sock status (we get many trolls of that kind that may or may not be identical). Since I am involved in the article being trolled, I am posting this block here for review, and I will not consider any adjustment "wheel warring" but will accept it as uninvolved advice. dab (𒁳) 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

unblocked upon his promise not to edit the article in question for 48h. dab (𒁳) 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as having bee a very poorly judged block. You were one of the ones engaged in edit warring with Sbhushan at Indigenous Aryan Theory and Indo-Aryan_migration, and using the administrative rollback button when in a content dispute is not appropriate. Reverting an editor you are in disagreement with, and then blocking them is an explicit violation of the blocking policy. "Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." Rather than blocking and then reporting here, you should have come here first to request help from uninvolved administrators. I would ask you both to pursue dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I used the rollback button since I do not consider this a "content dispute" but straightforward disruption and/or patent nonsense, see talkpages. dab (𒁳) 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is of course true that it would have been better style for dab not to do the block himself but ask others to do it, I note: (1) that this was a absolutely clear-cut case of a 3RR violation; (2) I cannot but admire dab's patience in defending this and related articles from an endless succession of obsessive POV-pushers; (3) Looking at the talkpage, dab's assessment that this particular POV-pusher had crossed the line into a state of irrational lawyering where he was beyond reach of normal rational dispute resolution is not unreasonable. It wouldn't be the first such case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As a public service for anyone looking into this:

• Sbhushan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Indigenous Aryan Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Grouped edits by by Sbhushman (series of edits in a row without other users intervening), most recent first:
  • [6] ("rv: All additions had proper citation, edit summary expalined reason for each edit. If you have problem with an edit talk on Talk page.")
  • [7] (four edits)
  • [8] (three edits)
  • [9] (three edits)
  • [10] (three edits)

The above is added as a public service. As Dmcdevit said, it's a very bad idea to block someone you are in a dispute with. It may have been POV pushing and probably was 3RR (there are at least four partial reverts in that mess somewhere), but it was not patent nonsense, vandalism, or simple disruption. --BigDT 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

reading the instruction above, it seems I can post this here. He also threatened me on the page. He has been very uncivil also. The issue is WP:OR policy. Dab should be enforcing WP:OR policy, but he is adding orignal research and removing relevent, properly citied material. I have tried to involve third party, mediation cabal, and other editors on the AMT page to help resolve this issue. Every time he is asked to provide citaion, he talks OR without any verifiable content. As an admin he should be held to higher standards.Sbhushan 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My unblock request was to an independent admin. Dab is already biased. I had requested that the independent admin should define how long I should not edit. Could someone look at the issue in detail and decide who should be blocked. All my edits have removed OR and only added verifiable content relevent to topic from acceptable sources. Dab on other hand has removed properly cited material and added OR without citation. One place he did cite, he misrepresented the cited material (2 of my 4 were to fix that).Sbhushan 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sbhushan. Dab is deleting ref. points ( which goes against this theory or which gives more wider understanding of this topic ). His behaviour in this subject is of dictator. He is ignoring ref. request for his words and deletes others ref. sentences as POV pushing. I want to report him for WP:OWN as suggested by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geo.plrd. WIN 05:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As a third party, I request a review of this admin's conduct concerning another article on N.S. Rajaram where he has abused his admin priviledges to revert-war, then sprotect the article. The issues with his edits are:

1.Violation of WP:BLP and defamation of character

2.His assertions concerning Rajaram's work being a "pseudoscience" are not backed by a single source other than propaganda leaflets from partisan personalities (and he doesn;t even bother to source those properly) and is essentially his opinion touted as fact

3.His engaging in poisoning the well with irrelevant information

The diff on his edits are thus [11]. My concerns are also expressed in this diff [12]70.113.122.198 14:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

70.113.122.198 (talk · contribs) is obviously a logged-out established user (see contribs). He can bloody well log in and see eye to eye with "single-account" users (a rare minority in this area of Wikipedia). dab (𒁳) 16:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a blatant abuse of admin powers, and the fact that dab has refused to engage in discussion with sbhusan and 5 or 6 other users on the page merely throws more weight to the allegations that he is using his power to intimidate users in a violation of WP:OWN and admin policies. His raving paranoia of an imaginary armada of chatterbots from BJP headquarters and Arya Samaj trolls may be the reason he has decided to snap and abuse his admin powers.Bakaman 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad unblock?

Per an earlier thread on AN/I, I blocked Jayzel68 indefinitely for making this legal threat against another user. Jayzel refused to admit that he made a legal threat (claiming that "libel" has a meaning outside of jurisprudence, which, while true, is positively Clintonian in its word-parsing) and refused to retract; attacked me by claiming the block was "fraudulent" and "politically motivated;" and finally issued this profane rant, where he once again claimed he didn't make a legal threat. Doug Bell unblocked him with no discussion with me or, as far as I can tell, any other admin. As I see it, the legal threat is still open, Jayzel68 was rewarded for forum-shopping, and he still won't admit that he violated a pretty firm policy. I'm posting here for other admins to review. I'm pretty ticked off at how Doug Bell handled this, and I believe Jayzel68 should be re-blocked until he retracts the legal threat in explicit terms, but I'm going to recuse myself from further actions in this matter. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, he can read minds. --Jayzel 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I object strongly to Mr. Darcy's characterization of my unblock being a result of "forum-shopping". After initially being approached, I completely supported his block. I'd appreciate if he would assume good faith. I will also recuse myself from any further action in this matter. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the unblocking since it does not appear to be an overt threat of litigation by any means...certainly not enough to warrant an indefinite block. Make sure in the future, if possible, to reach consensus for any unblocks here and or discuss the reasons for the block with the blocking admin before doing any unblockings.--MONGO 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, unblock seems arguably reasonable. The followup rant however is so far off of civiltiy and personal attacks, that I'm tempted to reblock just for that. JoshuaZ 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just adding one point - Jayzel68 indicated to me that he had emailed multiple admins, and he used both helpme and unblock templates to get attention as well. I don't believe Doug Bell necessarily knew that Jayzel was forum-shopping and didn't mean to imply that he did. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ec I don't think that I would have blocked for this, although it is out of line, but, seriously, what is it going to take for people to stop undoing other admin actions without discussion? Jkelly 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I apologized and explained to Mr. Darcy regarding not discussing it as soon as he made his objection known. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying htat you have been libeled is not a legal threat. Saying you are going to sue for libel, is the threat. Libel is simply a legal word for lying maliciously about someone. It is not a threat but rather a description of facts as that person sees them. For example, saying that "Othello murdered Desdemona" is not a legal threat. Nor is saying "Othello libeled Desdemona". Simply changing it to second person (i.e. "You libeled me") does not change that to a threat. --Tbeatty 05:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, people here are neither stupid nor slow. Jayzel did not simply say "you libeled me". The threat part was "libel is not taken lightly" (in bold) ... "you better have a strong case". Many reasonable would, and have, taken that as a very thinly veiled legal threat. It was certainly a threat of some kind, and the choice of legal words makes a legal threat a reasonable inference. Derex 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Derex, comments which are "legal threats" in order to be a bona-fide "threat", must pass muster as having two key elements 1) ability and 2) intention. If a person says "I am going to fart the world out of existance", that's not a threat, because it's not possible (ability). If a person says, "I hope you leave wiki sooner rather than later", that's also not a threat, because nothing is stated as to what the speaker might actually do' to cause that wish to come to fruition (intention). Another way of loking at it would be this: A person of faith says to an Atheist "I pray that God strikes you dead". To the prayer-maker, that may indeed be a threat, but since the Atheist does not believe in God, a key element (ability) is missing. From the Atheistic standpoint, the prayers have no effect and therefore, no ability. The point of this is that I feel threats must be only seen as such if A)they are explicit ("I am going to sue you") and B) obviously not rag-time ("I am going to petition the UN to have you imprisoned"). Of these though, the explicit element I feel is most key. There is no threat if the speaker does not state a specific action he/she intends to undertake so as to advance the legal action. Allusions to various legal-themed terminology does not rise to the level of a threat. In this case, the choice of words was poor, but no threat was made. 64.74.153.189 16

06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon, please stop shouting, and go read WP:NLT. Wikilawyering tends to be frowned on here. Derex 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I thank you all for inviting me to this discussion. This user has had a vendetta against me for quite some time. And he has a habit of personally attacking me claiming that I believe President Clinton has been murdering people. Additionally, he has an obsession with the Featured Article I wrote: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. His sock puppet User:AllanBColson has just violated the three revert rule there. This person is on a personal, obsessed campaign to have me permanently blocked from this site for political reasons. --Jayzel 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to back _any_ of that up? I have no desire whatsoever to see you permanently blocked from this site. I would like you to pay a bit of attention to civility, avoid threats and harassment, and perhaps take a peak at npov policy. Please assume good faith and be respectful to other editors, and we'll get along just fine. Derex 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. I have seen nothing but bad faith from you. Wikirules clearly state we are not required to continue pretending good faith when none is given in return. Now, I am telling you and your "friend" AllanBColson to NOT directly speak to me again. If you have something to say, send it through an intermediary. --Jayzel 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayzel, it's time to stop complaining that this is a political matter. You violated a core policy - even the admin who unblocked you agrees with that - even though you refuse to admit it. It would be great if you started following WP:CIVIL, as your behavior has become increasingly uncivil since the block began. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least the cart didn't come before the horse (badabing!) But seriously, folks, your comment above: "'libel' has a meaning outside of jurisprudence, which, while true" shows you need to take a step back and take a deep breath before taking such drastic actions as permanently banning a long-time contributor. The "don't make legal threats" rule is for searious violations like "I will sue you" or "I will call the police on you". Not for uses of a legitimate English word "libel". The bold lettering in my original statement was in response to Jiffy putting in bold lettering # Warning to all concerned User Jayzel is drumming up support on other pages trying to influence the vote and also adding unsigned comments to this page in order to persuade the discussion. Check the history of this page and of Jayzel contributions. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Really think here. I responded by saying: "As for your other charge, libel is not taken lightly. You'd better have a solid case." I am only guilty of carelessly leaving off the word "here". As in, Libel is not taken lightly HERE. At Wikipedia. Lieing about someone can be seen as a personal attack. That was the intention of my comment. As for the political charge, it is being pointed at Derex. Check our histories going back to October and maybe before. He has been itching to get at me. He has been obsessed over the campaign finance article. The same battles I am getting into with his puppet AllanBColson the last couple months are the exact same battles I have had with Derex at the article. In fact, Colson's edits there began the moment Derex's ended. Now that Colson has violated the revert rule I suspect once a admin gets around to blocking him, Derex will be blocked as well. --Jayzel 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, assume good faith. Night! --Jayzel 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush - protection

I have just agreed to a request for full protection of this article, the reason being is that its has attracted a lot of vandalism from non IP accounts recently. Ideally this should be reduced to semi protection ASAP but lets give the editors a break for a day or two. If an admin thinks it necessary to reduce the protection level please do so, just remember to leave the move protection active. Gnangarra 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no edit warring. Semi-protection is enough. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just block the accounts that vandalize as vandalism-only accounts, that's the way to use admin tools here. This article should only be full protected if there are serious edit wars, or perhaps vandalbots (which doesn't seem to be the case). --W.marsh 13:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the apparently indefinite semi-protection there is pretty unusual, as it is. Full protection seems to me like overkill, unless there's some serious problems going on. That's my take, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockblock requested

Checkuser has confirmed as "likely" that CuriousDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one and the same as GeorgeBP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock used for revert-warring and for block evasion. Requesting indefblock for the sockpuppet and, as it seems best to me, a block for GeorgeBP for abusive sockpuppetry and block evasion. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mak (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Protocols: An analysis

Jtpaladin (talk · contribs) added a very long comment to this Talk page, composed mostly of a personal essay on the subject of the article. I removed it, but he's replaced it. I'd be grateful if others could look at this and either confirm that I was right to remove it or explain why I was wrong. Thanks in advance. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's original research and an essay of musings - it serves no purpose in improving the article, I would have removed it as well. --Fredrick day 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

what's the wikicode for turning it into a clickable extendable link - so we can discuss it with the editor without the actual essey covering the whole page? --Fredrick day 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Userfy it, perhaps? -- Avi 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's original research and a misuse, per of the talk page guidelines ("Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.") Agree with removing it. Specific points having to do with concrete changes to the article could be raised concisely, one-by-one, to facilitate discussion - but they should be clearly tied to a suggested improvement in the article, ideally with suggested sample text. MastCell 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Where is it? .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed - see the page history, or look at the bottom of this old revision. MastCell 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If the obvious is considered original research then I'll stick to specific comments about improving the article. Jtpaladin 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

protracted Edit war at Europe with one party refusing to discuss at all

There is borderline vandalism going on at Europe for several days now, with a problem editor who repeatedly blanks out the Norwegian flag with the listings of Svalbard and Jan Mayen from the list of regions within Europe, but refuses to account for this action on the discussion. In his latest edit summary, he said there is no need for him to discuss or explain his views because he is simply right and all the editors who revert him are wrong, so with one party refusing to come to the table for discussion, the edit war just drags on and on. What else can be done? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it borderline? There's no justification for that, it seems to me. Xiner (talk, email) 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I say borderline because he may have some content dispute, but he isn't making it on the discussion page. I had to do my own investigation, and found the same editor has proposed the article Svalbard and Jan Mayen for a deletion, so that sems to afford some clues, but when I asked him (via edit summary) to wait for the outcome of that afd, he replied (via edit summary) that it was "irrelevant"... As best as I can piece together from his summaries, his beef seems to be that because Norway considers them sovereign and fully integrated parts of Norway, there is no need to mention them at all in a list of geographic areas found within Europe. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it seems to be a WP:3RR violation. Xiner (talk, email) 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have probably also been guilty of breaking 3RR myself in reverting him, because it seems vandalism and not the proper way to make his point by avoiding discussion or explanation. What I really want is to somehow get him to discuss the matter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Post a 3RR warning and if he continues, go to WP:AN3. Or maybe an admin will come around soon and help you. Maybe a warning will encourage him to start talking. Xiner (talk, email) 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And if he's deleting the Norway flag, it may be considered vandalism as well as a content dispute. Xiner (talk, email) 01:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A less attractive but possibly necessary alternative is to seek full protection at WP:RFPP, since it's an edit war involving registered users. Xiner (talk, email) 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the only Norway flag he is really deleting is the little one identifying who own the territory, along with the listing of the territory... It's not like he is deleting all of the Norway flags on the page...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit-stalking, harassment¸threats¸ personal abuse

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Continuous edit-stalking, harassment, posting of personal abuse, and wikilawyering relating to me and my contributions by editor that violates WP:COI and that has already been warned [22] --Doktor Who 04:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving this back here, as this is more of an Admin issue than a community issue. Will comment in a moment. Mangojuice^talk 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see it. Gene poole is apparently getting frustrated with you but is pretty much maintaining a civil tone. I don't even see what comment he was previously warned over. As for conflicts of interest, you haven't explained that, I don't see it. Mangojuice^talk 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because there is no "conflict of interest". It's simply something invented by Doktor Who to harrass me. He keeps telling people that I have a commercial conflict of interest because I've been an ambient music radio broadcaster for 18 years - despite the fact that I work as an unpaid volunteer for a not-for-profit organisation. The only reason he's doing this is because I removed a number of unreferenced statements which he'd written into Space music, one article among many in which he continually flouts WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:V.

It should also be pointed out that Doktor Who is strongly suspected of being a sockpuppet of Sky-surfer, who stopped editing Wikipedia after admitting he suffered from paranoid psychosis, and after openly describing himself as being both paranoid and insane. Sky-surfer, in turn, is known to be a sockpuppet of Brian Wilson, yet another former editor whose editing history is characterised by paranoia and aggression.

They all edit/ed a very similar group of articles, hold identical opinions on a number of fairly obscure topics, refuse to supply references, have a history of conflict with other editors, and share the same writing style (including using the same phrases, and making the same spelling errors). Should I take this to RfC, or checkuser? --Gene_poole 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene_poole´s user page: I've been a volunteer broadcaster on Australia's oldest and largest public (community) FM radio station, 2MBS for nearly 2 decades. Since October 2005 I've also been a director of the station, and as Chair of the IT Committe am responsible for driving the organisation towards online multi-channel content delivery.

So¸ no COI here?Doktor Who 04:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. No COI there. As I already said before numerous times I am an unpaid volunteer and elected director of a not-for-profit organisation. Maybe you should look up these words in your English dictionary if their meaning is still unclear. Of course, this is merely a distraction from the fact that you want to include unverifiable, unreferenced content in an artice, in contravention to WP:V and WP:OR. You have been told time and again that you cannot do so. Attacking and harrassing me will not change that. --Gene_poole 05:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK: The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.Doktor Who 04:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anw¸ the history of my contributions proves that I am not such editors¸ with all due respect) I am not interested in Royals. Doktor Who 04:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can make up our own minds once we have the benefit of a checkuser request to evaluate. --Gene_poole 05:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks Left On User Talk Pages

The following usupported personal attacks have been made against me on User Talk Pages "Sethswirsky" and "Athaenara":

"It's quite unfair of one wikipedia contributor to continue to try and label me something other than what i am. as an aside, it's a tad creepy considering the personal email I have also received from this person and the amount of times it seems they continue to try and revert the page to who they think i am. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sethswirsky)"

"i write political articles that this guy has a very hard time with, clearly. i've gotten repeated emails from him --i will post them to prove it. they are quite nasty."

"But, I'm telling you, this guy doesn't have a problem "following guidelines". He knows exactly what he's doing. It started with a very nasty, personal email to me on february 9th, from him . It was very, shall we say, "angry" sounding aboout a political piece I had written. A few days later is when he started changing a well researched Wikipedia entry someone started on me awhile ago and others have added to. For four days, he has labeled me something I'm not without citing a single source."

"Keep your chin up, Seth! You have been subjected to a great deal of unpleasantness through no fault of your own. You are, I believe, behaving extremely well, especially considering the lengths to which one user has gone to cause you to suffer. — Athænara ✉ 09:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)"

I would ask that these be removed. I have not sent any such e-mails to this Swirsky person and the comment about "suffering" by Athaenara could not be more over-the-top. I attempted to address this issue on Athaenara's talk page myself but she repeatedly deleted my responses and left "Seth Swirsky's" slanderous comments about me in place. MoeLarryAndJesus 18:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting the removal of these slanderous attacks. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the subject of the user's interest above has posted pertinent specifics:

• 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC) — "For the record, the date of last harrassing email from MoeLarryandJesus was February 9, 2007 12:49:30 AM PST."
• 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC) — "He claims he didn't but what a coincidence that the email address was from MoeLarryJesus@____.com!"

Diffs, timestamps, quotes submitted by — Athænara ✉ 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: User MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked after another process on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names:

• Rfc opened.   (19:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC))
• Rfc debate.   (through 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC))
• Rfc closed.   (23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

Diffs, timestamps submitted by — Athænara ✉ 05:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User block review. Trolling on WP:ANI was referred to in the discussion. Examples:

• (first) "laughable" "self-important" "mealy-mouthed editors" "getting into tizzies"
• (third) pulled the "chuckles" ploy on an administrator.

Diffs, links submitted by — Athænara ✉ 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Request block for Commanderspock

I am reporting this user for recreating deleted articles after last warning and for this personal attack. The Evil Clown 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Desist / friendly final warning note issued. Deiz talk 06:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fighting for Justice

Latest incident in long-standing content dispute on David Westerfield article [23]. The above user has repeatedly removed (see [24]) a short but important and well-sourced addition to the article which was approved by a third party (Girdag) a month ago (see [25]). Interestingly, FfJ’s response at the time to Girdag’s suggestions was “I think that is an excellent proposal”. But he has now done an about-turn.

This user has a history of misbehavior. Just a few days ago, he deleted all recent criticism of himself from his Talk page (see [26] and [27]), then promptly archived the CENSORED version of that page [28]. (That criticism was by LexiLynn, NowIAmGeorge and Wooyi.) So a casual observer would think he was perfect, or at least that he had reformed. (He apparently tried to do something similar on the Westerfield Talk page at about the same time, but then claimed he just “messed up” - see [29] and [30].) In early January, Wknight94 referred to him as “the king of personal attacks” [31]. He seems determined to retain his crown, as can be seen from his latest descriptions of me: “troll” (he’s used that several times) and “child-murderer fan” [32]. I am a TRUTH fan. Some of his comments are just plain childish, such as “impressive you can use the caps lock button on your keyboard. ME TOO. <----- see??? ” and “ooooh all capital letters like you use” (that was because I put ONE word, “truth”, in capitals).

He first appeared in Wikipedia in September last year, soon after TripleH1976 was banned and, even though he denies it, I still suspect he’s just another sockpuppet of that user. They have such similar interests and methods, for example: both hold strong views, both launch frequent personal attacks, both are active on the Westerfield and Eric Rudolph articles, and both delete or archive whatever they don’t like.196.15.168.40 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked both users for a week concerning the ongoing editwarring at David Westerfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 68.203.151.76

• 68.203.151.76 A person from this IP has made numerous nonsens edits in Celine Dion related articles (even after last warning): Live in Memphis, Falling into You Tour, Celine Dion, In Some Small Way, A New Day... and others. And it's not the first time. The same edits were made earlier by this IP 72.177.198.57. Can you block this user? Big thanks Max24 03:14, 02 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't block. However, you should report vandalism after last warning at WP:AIV; the vandal will be blocked more quickly. · AO ^Talk 11:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ampersand or And?

124.186.224.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been trawling through pages, mainly those related to The Simpsons, changing occurrences of the word and for an ampersand &, and phrases like do not are becoming don'ts. I have left a message on the Talk Page asking them to stop, but have had no response and the activity continued. Any opinions/ideas/suggestions welcome. Chris Bradshaw 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe and should always take precedence over ampersands, and the same for full spellings over contractions; it's an encyclopaedia, after all. I've never heard of something like this... perhaps you can continue to warn, until it gets to the level where they'd be blocked, like with say spam or vandalism? That's the only way you'd go about it, I'd say, block if it keeps up... --Dane ^~nya 11:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Block review of User:MoeLarryAndJesus

MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs) was given an indef block for trolling by Proto (talk · contribs). I reviewed the block and declined it per his comments on WP:ANI#User:One Night In Hackney's signature as well as his requested username change. To me, both of these indicated that the editor doesn't "get it" and is just trying to be disruptive. Per his talkpage however, he seems to feel that I was trolling him here on ANI and that I should not have reviewed his block. So... I'm bringing it here. If anyone wants to review the block again, feel free to. I'd suggest contacting Proto before unblocking. I assumed that the block had nothing to do with the username and was more related to the series of unhelpful comments User:MoeLarryAndJesus was making on ANI in the midst of some admins trying to difuse the situation.--Isotope23 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the user was making poor comments here, however, in that thread there were comments that were saying he was close to a username block. I think possibly the block was for trolling and a username violation. Anyway, I requested a name change for MoeLarryAndJesus but if the block is to stand, let me know and I'll remove it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to say we should good faith with him, but looking overhis talk page, there is way too much trolling for that so I would support an indef, I'll remove the request for changing username now RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Correct, I blocked him for his blatant and self-evident trolling. For a purported new user, this was a very specific and unusual place to suddenly show up and start sniping at editors and making disruptive, smartass comments. Nothing to do with the name - I'm probably one of the more lenient on usernames. If someone has a urgent, burning need to undo or reduce the block, fine, but as far as I'm concerned, it can stay. Proto ► 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my comment on ANI was misunderstood; I wasn't making a judgment either way on his username. My point was that while you are undergoing a username review, drawing attention to yourself with disruptive, unhelpful edits is probably not a good idea. My decision to endorse Proto's block had way more to do with what he said here on ANI. The fact that he chose another provocative username to change to just suggested to me that he was trying to make a WP:POINT and an unblock was probably not the best idea.--Isotope23 14:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks by User:Raul654

Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Could someone please review the recent blocks (last half dozen, say - I haven't checked the older ones myself yet) made by User:Raul654 ([33]). He has repeatedly blocked IP addresses for prolonged periods following very small amounts of vandalism with very few if any warnings. Raul654 is one of our most experienced administrators, which makes this all the more concerning. WP:BLOCK says: "Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism." That description definitely applies to at least some of Raul's recent blocks. I have discussed this with him on his talk page and, while acknowledging he may have overreacted is trying to come up with various excuses, none of which are particularly persuasive, and he still hasn't unblocked any of them. Am I overreacting, or are others equally concerned by this apparent "policy does not apply to me" attitude? --Tango 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd characterise the brief discussion on his talk as a "policy does not apply to me" attitude, though your own attitude seems to be a bit off (IMO). I haven't looked closely into the blocks, but as a general note the block stuff is often a guideline and a judgement call needs to be made, looking at individual blocks in isolation can miss patterns of vandalism the blocker may note (though Raul654 hasn't suggested this to be the case). --pgk 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Raul is fine here; a lot of that vandalism was made to the main page, and he was just making sure they wouldn't do it again. The last thing we want is to give a person three chances to blank a main page FA - one of our key publicity points. I applaud Raul for having the correct mindset when it comes to TFA vandalism. — Deckiller 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That justification works fine for a 24 hour block, it doesn't work for a 1 week block, and certainly not for a 1 month block as some of Raul's blocks have been. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you do look closely into the blocks. Take the block of User:129.67.128.222, for example. One edit, blanking the day's featured article, is the only thing in the IP's contribs, and Raul blocked it for a week with no warnings. As I said on his talk page, it being the featured article may justify not issuing a warning first, but it doesn't justify a longer block than 24 hours (the article is only featured for that long, for a start). It's not the discussion on his talk page that suggests his attitude, it's his logs - policy says one thing, he's done the other and apparently has no intention of changing his ways. I can't see any reason for him doing that unless he feels above policy. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP given looks static to me, it's an Oxford Uni IP blanking a featured article about an Oxford Uni College. Policy doesn't give absolutes, but even if I agree it seems a long block one on it's own doesn't seem to indicate a huge problem. I'd have to look through mutiple, filter out ones where similar vandalism is going on and so maybe connected, filter out any where there is suspected "sockpuppetry" (I'll assume Raul marks those resulting from his checkuser privileges as such). I'm not sure how you can divine an attitude from looking at a block log. What I can see from the dicussion is Raul admit an overreaction, you following up with some rather patronising comments a bit more discussion where Raul doesn't appear to be being obstructive and again your comments seem far from constructive in trying to reach a reasonable conclusion. --pgk 21:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse blocks • This post seems a bit vexatious. And the "I suggest you explain yourself there" line was not very nice. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain your endorsement, please? If you are endorsing blocks which go against policy you must have a specific reason. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated badgering of Raul, and now it seems anyone who disagrees with your position, kind of justifies why I say this post is vexatious, methinks. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to explain that, I asked you to explain your endorsement. --Tango 20:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I trust Raul's judgment; and your badgering just reconfirms this for me. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  To quote the oft-repeated phrase: "comment on the content, not the contributor." Tango is looking out for adherence to policy on blocking, not attacking Raul. Your comments, meanwhile, aren't doing anything but turning this into an argument - do we really need more of those around here? Picaroon 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I also trust Raul's judgement. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  And that's why admins get accused of being a cabal. All you have to do is click on the link I gave, check out of couple of the blocks and see what you think. Saying you trust his judgement doesn't help anybody. --Tango 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I trust his judgment too, but it wouldn't be a horrible idea to have a reasonbale explanation. Without prejudice, I went back over his recent blocks and made the list below. This list contains all of his blocks over the last two or so weeks. The bolded ones look, on the surface, like they could use additional explanation. I flagged those blocks that were either of a likely dynamic IP (in which case the block is useless) or where there was only one edit and no obvious reason to block. --BigDT 22:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 129.67.128.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - only contribution was blanking Oriel College, IP part of a large block from Oxford University, so probably static
  • 71.31.47.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Vandalism) - only contribution was replacing Free speech zone with "Star Trek rocks, IP allocated to Alltel, so it might be a hotspot
  • 67.173.128.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Vandalism) - I don't see any non-vandalism edits from this IP, most are November and before, maps to Comcast, so almost certainly static
  • 217.41.28.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Troll known as 40 year old tenured professor) - IP requested unblock immediately after another user was blocked, almost certainly a static IP
  • 68.220.23.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Spamming) - three edits, all spam - IP is Bell South, though, which is probably dynamic
  • 72.254.8.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - only edit was to blank Avatar: The Last Airbender
  • 75.21.241.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - I don't see any vandalism here at all ... it looks like this user was simply involved in a dispute and was discussing it on a talk page.
    • Deleting large chunks of cited material from an article is vandalism (or, in the most optimistic light, very POV editing). Raul654 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Um... Raul, he gave a reasonable explanation of his action in his edit summary and expanded upon it on the talk page. That wasn't anything remotely approaching vandalism. Four days later you came along, reverted it, and blocked him for a week. That was wrong on several levels... blocking without warning, calling a good faith content dispute vandalism, blocking someone you reverted, making a punitive block (four days after the fact it can't be described as preventative), and blocking for a week on a first 'infraction' (which actually wasn't). --CBD 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I just looked at the segment that was removed. It was sourced by denverspiritualcommunity.org, therazor.org, and newshounds.us. Two of those are editorials that Some Guy On The Internet (tm) wrote and none of them are what I would call reliable. Jimbo himself has said that instead of slapping a "citation needed" tag on unsourced facts, we ought to remove it. One of the passages started off with, "It is unknown whether the number of supportive or critical letters is indicative ...". Well, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball - our job isn't to guess what Bill O'Reilly's letter selection process might be. Unless I'm missing something, not only was this a good faith edit, but there's little question that it was the right edit. I have removed most of the passage that the IP removed. I apologize for my "vandalism". --BigDT 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • While that might be true of the first paragraph, you have conveniently ignored the fact that he removed *three* paragraphs, not one, and that the latter two were sourced to reliable sources (Media watchdog Mediamatters, and the documentary they produced, Outfoxed), and that those paragraphs should not have been removed. Raul654 01:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
            • He explained his removal in the edit summary. He had removed three paragraphs - I only removed two of them. I left in place the one about "Outfoxed" as it is the most meaningful and sourced of the three ... but even that is barely worth having in the article. That's an editorial decision that I don't see how anyone could be faulted for removing it. There's a whole article on criticism of O'Reilly and a section in the main article accusing him of conservative bias when he doesn't claim to be anything but a conservative doesn't make too much sense. If you have to argue about which paragraphs should have been removed, it's a content dispute, not vandalism. --BigDT 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
              • You removed one of the above paragraphs, not two.
              • There's a whole article on criticism of O'Reilly and a section in the main article accusing him of conservative bias when he doesn't claim to be anything but a conservative doesn't make too much sense. - Had you read the article before removing that information, you would have noticed that it says "O'Reilly disagrees with a common claim that he is a conservative, preferring to call himself a traditionalist and a populist." That cited information about his conservative leanings is there specifically because it refutes his laughably-hollow claim that he's an independent. And, in fact, that's subsantially the onus for the "Allegations of Bias" section, which this anon basically shredded. Raul654 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 60.241.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 24 hours (Harassment)
  • Nate1028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indefinite (Nothing but vandalism)
  • 72.10.105.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 6 months (Repeated vandalism) - Nothing but vandalism, probably a school. Maybe {{schoolblock}}?
  • 71.192.43.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 3 months (Repeated vandalism) - Nothing but vandalism, static IP
  • 68.88.7.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Only edit was a partial section blanking of DNA - given where the text is cut off, it may have even been accidental, IP is SBC and possibly dynamic
  • 74.36.76.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Only edit is blanking DNA, IP is Frontier Communications, so probably static
  • 217.42.228.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, but IP is dial up and likely dynamic
  • 70.117.205.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Page blanking - from Road Runner, which is static, I think
  • 65.95.167.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, ISP is Bell Canada, so I have no idea if that's static
  • 142.167.172.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, static IP
  • 68.253.217.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (vandalism) - blocked on February 27, after this whole mess started - this IP has exactly two edits [34] and [35]. One was to remove a statement about Israel's casualties in proportion to the US's experience in Vietnam and another was to say that the statement was misleading. There's no good reason for the statement to be there - this isn't Americacyclopedia so we don't need to compare things to America. The second edit wasn't a spectacular edit, but it certainly wasn't vandalism - it was a newbie making a newbie mistake.
    • This summary is wrong on both counts. The block was for 48 hours, and the second edit wasn't POV, it was flatly, factually incorrect (it removed a citation and changed the sentence to say the exact opposite of what it had previously said). This is subtle vandalism by definition. Raul654 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• You have to realize that Raul is a checkuser, and in many cases, you get a user vandalizing TFA from a ton of sleeper socks. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fine and that's a reasonable explanation ... but if that's the case, it should be noted as a {{checkuserblock}} so that if the vandal later comes along and claims that their IP is dynamic, an admin won't unblock, not realizing that there was a checkuser reason for the block. --BigDT 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Precisely. The blocks I'm questioning have block reasons like "vandalism" despite the blocks clearly being for something more than that (assuming they are justifiable blocks). If Raul has a good reason for the blocks, he should be including it in his block reason - that's what the box is there for. --Tango 12:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If I block someone based on checkuser results, I note that either explicitly or implicitly (if I state it's a sockpuppet of a certain user, that can be taken as implicit checkuser). One of these blocks was based on checkuser ("Troll known as 40 year old tenured professor"), the rest were not. Nor, for that matter, has there been any evidence presented here that any of them were in error. I stand by every one of them, and nobody here has presented a scintilla of evidence that these users were engaged in anything but the misdeeds I noted in the block summary. Raul654 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good grief, even after this whole mess started, he blocked another IP - 68.253.217.64 (talk · contribs) who made exactly two edits, both in good faith (albeit maybe not good edits, but definitely in good faith), with no warning. --BigDT 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Marked as vandalism in the block summary, too. I checked the diffs, and though I don't agree with the edits, it's not like he put a penis picture in the middle of the article. just a typical POV edit that should have been reverted and the user welcomed to Wiki and given the generic letter referring to policies. ~I notice it was a FA, and wonder if Raul is just very protective of those articles. Jeffpw 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that seems over the top. They looked like good faith edits to me, and certainly deserving of a note/warning first. Trebor 15:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing a cited sentence to say the exact opposite of what it previously said is vandalism. And it's not just ordinary vandalism, it's vandalism that's particularly difficult to spot - aka, subtle vandalism, and that's the kind that needs to be dealt with most harshly. That sentence is not POV, it's flatly, factually wrong. So while BigDT is free to continue looking over my blocks with a fine tooth comb, in the future he should avoid jumping to the defense of subtle vandals. Raul654 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the edit. The original sentence IS misleading... it's a poorly worded statistical shell game. What it really means is that Israel suffered a higher average 'casualties per day' over the course of three weeks than the US did over the course of ten years in Vietnam. Hardly surprising given that those ten years weren't intense fighting every day. If you don't parse the 'proportionately' properly the sentence seems to say, "Israel suffered three times as many casualties in 3 weeks of fighting as the United States did during almost a decade of fighting in Vietnam"... which would be grossly incorrect. The sentence is POV through statistical misrepresentation. You could as easily say, 'Proportionately, Israel suffered only a third of the casualties in those three weeks as the United States did on the worst day of fighting in Vietnam'... just as 'true' and just as obviously slanted to express a particular POV. It would be better to just cite how many Israelis were killed (per day or in total) and leave off the statistically biased comparisons entirely. --CBD 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wildly wrong on what the sentence means. The sentence is saying that if you take the casualties Israel suffered in the war (which lasted 3 weeks) and divide by the population, you get a value very close to what you get if you take the casualties suffered by the US in the Vietnam war (which lasted ~10 years) and divide by the US population. Raul654 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If so, then the fact that the sentence says nothing about 'total population figures' rather proves the point about it being poorly worded and misleading... and it remains a statistical shell game. The US population is roughly 42 times that of Israel... so if Israel lost one soldier and the US lost 14 then 'by proportion of population' Israel lost three times as many. --CBD 12:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The total casualty figures are given in the warbox at the very beginning of the article. But in talking about war wariness and such, absolute numbers like that are not terribly meaningful unless you know either the total population they relate to, or the proportion. So, to rebuff your point, it's not a shell game, it's EXACTLY how you are supposed measure the impact of a war. That's exactly how the cited sources DOES measure it. And the novel aspect of that sentence is that to convey that Israel suffered as many casualties per capita in three weeks what the US suffered in ten years, which is extremely relavant to describing reaction to the war. Furthermore, changing the sentence to say the opposite is not biased, it's simply objectively wrong. Raul654 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is quite poorly worded. Regardless....I'm struggling to get my head around how User:68.253.217.64's edits can reasonably be described as vandalism at all, let lone vandalism so severe and blatant as to merit an immediate 48 hour block without any warning...initially he removed the entire sentence (whilst leaving the bit about high Israeli casualties), was then reverted, and possibly intended the second edit as some sort of compromise. At the very least, this block is really very harsh....unless Raul654 was privy to some line of evidence (e.g. as to previous vandal edits) that is not generally obvious? Badgerpatrol 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's vandalism for the same reason it's vandalism to go to the world war II article and change it to say Germany won - e.g, changing objectively true facts to false ones. And in this case, it's hard enough to spot as to qualify as subtle vandalism. Raul654 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Raul654 should cut this out. We already have a good-sized group of vandal fighters who do the job well. We don't need someone else entirely doling out week-long blocks for single incidents. Ashibaka (tock) 01:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this all disturbing. Almost more disturbing is the fact that some people seem to think that Raul's long standing here would somehow exempt him from following established procedures for warning, blocking and block length. Raul's comment on his talk page in response to Tango "I really don't like people vandalizing my artilces" indicates a conflict of interest in applying his admin actions in at least some of these cases. I don't think this is something to just give a pass on and I commend Tango for persuing this despite the potential backlash. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The conflict of interest page you cite indicates 4 possible avenues:

• avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
• avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
• avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality,
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)

My reverts to free speech zone (and, for that matter, the many other edits I've made to that article, given that I wrote most of it) falls into none of these categories. It's not even conceivable, unless I have some real life connection to them, which I do not. Raul654 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a wikilawyering response if I've ever heard one. Fine, the COI page is about editing, not admin actions. You failed to address the conflict of interest in using you admin functions to block accounts against the blocking policy. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(A) It's not a wiki-lawyering response - it's me refuting a flatly incorrect accusation against my editing that should not have been made in the first place.

(B) I will respond to allegations when someone makes one that's actually valid. Consider the latest one - an anon vandalizes an article to remove a cited statement, I revert, he comes back and changes it to say the exact opposite (aka, subtle vandalism), I revert and block him. Then I have to come here to argue with people who apparently (a) cannot tell the difference between a biased edit and one that is objectively wrong, and (b) are more concerned with the letter of the blocking policy than making sure our articles stay factually correct. Raul654 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Where you see subtle vandalism, I see a newbie making a newbie making a newbie mistake. He made exactly two edits. With no message on his/her talk page before or after the fact, you blocked him/her for a week. Even if we were to presuppose that the edit was not in good faith, a message to his/her talk page could have opened the door to a possible discussion on the subject. Any time you encounter someone with a redlinked talk page, it's important to engage that user. If they are making good faith edits, {{welcome}} them. If you speedy an article they created in good faith, give them {{firstarticle}}. If you revert them and it isn't obvious vandalism, use an appropriate template like {{test}}, {{Uw-delete1}}, etc. The whole idea of WP:AGF is that we give people the benefit of the doubt, at least temporarilly. --BigDT 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now one of the top ten largest sites in the world. Disruptive trolls know exactly what they are doing, and they play it like a game because we allow them to. It flat out disgusts me when I see an administrator, someone who should be setting an example for others, tell someone off for reporting an occurence of blatant vandalism to WP:AIV because the vandal hasn't been "warned enough" for adding what is generally libellous, racist, or otherwise highly offensive material to one of our articles. Raul654 did the right thing here, and troublemakers who intentionally vandalize the wiki in such a manner need to be shown the door immediately. RFerreira 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? I don't think I've editing AIV in a month. At any rate, we're not talking about "libellous, racist, or otherwise highly offensive material". There are two distinct issues that I raised, both of which are unrelated to your point. (1) Blocking of dynamic IP addresses for a week is unhelpful. (2) Blocking anyone when the edits might not have been vandalism is unhelpful. If someone adds "libellous, racist, or otherwise highly offensive material" to an article, don't expect me to shed tears when they are blocked without warning. But that's a red herring here - the blocks in question involve nothing of the sort. --BigDT 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If I had a dollar every time another admin gave the third degree to someone who filed a completely valid report to WP:AIV for the reasons cited above, well, lets just say I would have a lot of dollars. As to the dynamic IP address issue, I also disagree. There is a difference, a huge difference, between a dynamic address assigned to a DSL subscriber versus a dial-up modem user. Anyone who possesses and makes use of the block function should know this, but based on my own observations this is clearly not the case. RFerreira 07:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Attacks and disruption of noticeboards by User:Antaeus Feldspar

This incident is being brought before this board by Justanother 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue: User:Antaeus Feldspar continues his long-runnning attacks of me and attempts to get me in trouble with admins that I am very used to dealing with on Scientology Series talk pages (and in his edit summaries) but now he has brought his venom to the noticeboards and it needs to stop now. Recently he has disrupted the BLP noticeboard, and this board, in addition to his usual talk page performances. He also recently violated 3RR on the BLP noticeboard in addition to making an unjustified allegation of WP:PA against me there. See Incidents section below

History (brief): Since I arrived in August 2006, User:Antaeus Feldspar has carried out a campaign of attack, belittlement, and attempted marginalizing against me specifically and by name for what I can only assume is my being an open Scientologist and editing in the articles to bring some of my understanding to them and to clear out a bit of lurid attack and WP policy violations. While some might feel justified in treating Scientologists like second-class wiki-citizens; we are not! User:Antaeus Feldspar's belittlement and marginalization started in some of his first interactions with me[36] and has continued unabated and with only increasing fervor.

Remove rhetoric. Sorry. This is not about me® or my feelings or ideas. This is about User:Antaeus Feldspar's abuse of noticeboards by using them for attacking me; his 5RR on same, his false accusation of WP:PA on the BLP noticeboard and other specific incidents. --Justanother 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request: I, of course, cannot require it but would appreciate it if the highly POV and involved editors/admins on both sides of the Scientology issue abstain from commenting here. That means the three or more known admins with heavy off-site activity in attacking Scientology and those editors that are involved in the perpetual arguing and edit-warring that goes on in those articles. I mean both "sides". Why? Because all that will do is carry the same poisonous invective over here and this AN/I report is, if anything ,about that invective. Let's let the neutral uninvolved parties have their say, for a change. I promise that I will try my hardest to not say a lot more than I am saying now and, of course, Antaeus will have his say but if we could limits the POV "helpers" for either of us then that would great.

Heads-up: User:Antaeus Feldspar will likely bring up any and all incidents of my being less that respectful to him as a perceived "defense". I am not going to respond to those; if User:Antaeus Feldspar feels that he has a case then he should bring it; but not in this incident report. If I have been short or sarcastic with him, my only defense is that I tired quickly of the attacks and I think it will be clear that my comments are not nearly in the same league as User:Antaeus Feldspar's calcuated disruptions. But this is not about me despite any upcoming attemps to make it so.

Incidents: I am just bringing up the most recent incidents and concentrating on those that are disruptive of the noticeboards as they are off-topic and are, IMO, intended to get an admin to sanction me without due process. Note that no admin has done that to me so it has been in vain.

• Attacks me on AN/I: See the last post by User:Antaeus Feldspar. Not too terrible but illustrating the attempt to take it off-topic (BabyDweezil) and make it about me in front of admins. Abusive of the noticeboard.
• Attacks me on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard: This diff (adding sig) shows a pretty "typical" attempt at marginalization and belittlement of me. I would not bother with it except to show his pattern. See the previous paragraph from him also for more of the same. I brought my questions to BLP noticeboard here and found that there was merit in my ideas (not "fantastical, bizarre" as User:Antaeus Feldspar characterized them after all).
• Disruption and attacking me on BLP: In this posting, allegedly on Tilman Hausherr, User:Antaeus Feldspar starts out with an accusation against me and goes on to imply that I am a liar and it doesn't get any better from there. If he has a real question for the board then he should just ask it without all the disruptive accusations. That is abusive.
• 3RR on BLP: User:Antaeus Feldspar has made the same deletion (4) (5) times in a period sufficiently close to 24-hours to clearly violate WP:3RR despite a non-involved admin doing the first reversal of his deletion. Deleting the same material (4) (5) times is 3RR violation; it is NOT a case of one edit and (3) (4) reversions, it is (4) (5) reversions.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111227099&oldid=111166503
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111236141&oldid=111227765
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111256924&oldid=111254870
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111487495&oldid=111394273
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&curid=6768170&diff=111514306&oldid=111513033 And now 5RR

• Disruptive and attacking me on BLP: As part of his disruption of the BLP board by the above activity, he each time accused me of WP:PA and made sure to leave my sig next to his "[personal attacks removed]" notation. This would lead someone to think I had actually made a PA. In the first removal he accused me by name in the edit summary: "remove personal attacks by Fossa, Steve Dufour and Justanother".

Desired outcome: I want the attacks to stop. I want User:Antaeus Feldspar to understand, in no uncertain terms, that he cannot run roughshod over wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards in his apparent desire to "get me". --Justanother 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you specifically cite these attacks for me? I'm looking at the diffs and I see an editor who clearly disagrees with you, but I fail to see any evidence of attacks on your personally. I'm looking into the 3RR violation now too for you Glen 06:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC) PS; Who's the third admin? :)

Actually, on second thought anything I do or say will be claimed as a COI so I'll step aside. Glen 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I will make this plain and simple. Justanother seems to believe that Wikipedia:Assume good faith simply does not apply to him. He believes that he can make as many personal attacks as he wants, and make them as vicious as he wants, as long as they are in the form of attacks upon the integrity of other editors. To start with just the accusations directed at me: Accusations that I am a religious bigot: "I can only assume [his motivation] is my being an open Scientologist". "While some might feel justified in treating Scientologists like second-class wiki-citizens..." (emphasis added) Accusations that I aid and abet trolls to further this alleged religious bigotry: "Please notice Feldspar's use of the word "our" rather than "your" when describing the trolls claims and opinions"[37] (The post where I supposedly would have made my loyalties clear by using "your" is here, BTW.) Accusations that I have targeted him for "a campaign of attack, belittlement, and attempted marginalizing". Accusations that I engage in "calculated disruptions" and "[bring my] venom to the noticeboards" and "run roughshod over wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards" to "get him". What is deeply ironic is that Justanother seems absolutely horrified at the idea that his behavior could ever be questioned ("As part of his disruption of the BLP board by the above activity, he each time accused me of WP:PA") but at the same time seems to take it as his right to not just question other editors' behavior but declare the question settled and label the other editors on the basis of his assumptions. Note his behavior at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#Blocked_for_a_week where he labels the editors on one side of an issue as "the POV-pushers" and to other editors as "the NPOV editors". I know I am not the only target of this treatment by Justanother but I confess I am getting really damn sick of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me® or my feelings or ideas. This is about User:Antaeus Feldspar's abuse of noticeboards by using them for attacking me; his 5RR on same, his false accusation of WP:PA on the BLP noticeboard and other specific incidents. --Justanother 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In order: 1) Noticeboards are for reporting situations that need attention. Just because you do not notice or do not agree that your actions create a situation that needs attention does not mean they are being used for "attacking" you. 2) As anyone can easily verify for themselves, there was no 3RR violation, let alone a "5RR". 3) It was not a false accusation of personal attacks, it was a true report of personal attacks. 4) As regards your "other specific incidents", you ask the admins to look at AN/I and "... see the last post by User:Antaeus Feldspar ... illustrating the attempt to take it off-topic ... and make it about me in front of admins. Abusive of the noticeboard." I would ask anyone who looks at that thread to see that in less than half an hour you made three posts, each with no content more pertinent than "All due respect but cannot respond", "Sorry, can't respond", or even just "mmmpphhh" -- all because an admin asked you not to edit disruptively. If someone's efforts made that thread "all about [you] in front of the admins" I believe I know whose efforts they were, and they weren't mine. "Abusive of the noticeboard," indeed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: - I would suggest for the patience of the Admins that you both try to keep your posts a little shorter on this board... I do think that the comments about Justanother (talk • contribs • logs) by other Admins on Previous Administrator's Noticeboard are quite telling. Also, his continued re-insertion of his own obvious violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard also seems highly disruptive and non-constructive towards any sort of meaningful dialogue/discussion... Smee 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Can someone else comment on this? It appears that Justanother (talk • contribs • logs) is inappropriately canvassing, in order to solicit/manipulate this process? Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4. I had also thought that this is (generally) a place for administrators to comment? Smee 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

This is not about me® Please note inappropriate attack by highly POV "helper". --Justanother 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, DO NOT use my username and make baseless accusations in the edit summary. That is highly inappropriate. Thanks. Smee 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm feeling strongly inclined to prove that this, after all, is about you® Duja► 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there are some people who hate Scientology and make that the main interest of their lives. But at least insulting you on Wikipedia is better than burning you at the stake. :-) Steve Dufour 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See, this is a very good example of the sort of things we're dealing with here. Steve has just basically said to one or more editors here 'You hate Scientology and make that the main interest of your life.' How can that comment be anything but a personal attack? Is it supposed to not be a personal attack because Steve did not spell out which of the editors in the current discussion caused him to start talking about how "some people" are hate-filled religious bigots? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that your edits tend to violate WP:NPOV and WP:RS and that you edits produce entirely unscientific articles with a clear anti-cult bias. Since there are many like-minded people here and since Scientology has a bad reputation and there are only very few people who actually are interested in Scientology outside of anti-cultists and Scientologists, there is absolutely no chance to get a neutral article here. That's why I at least debunk your proceeding. Call it a "personal attack" if you wish, you do your personal attacks in the article space, which is much worse, I believe. Fossa_?! 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Antaeus Feldspar has violated 3RR, falsely accused User Justanother of WP:PA and continuously violates the integrity of Wikipedia by deleting content from a notice board/talk page. Both parties might appear a bit overreacting but this should not be used to cover up or divert from violations of Wikipedia Policy. "Feelings" should have no weight on this notice board, also Admins please stick to the rules here . Misou 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, just about everything that Justanother is accusing others of, he himself is in fact the person who has done. It is particularly problematic that he has, while in the middle of making heated accusations against others, has labeled others' better-grounded concerns about his own conduct as personal attacks and disruption.

As Antaeus notes above, it is as if Justanother feels he has the right to criticize others' work (and quite forcefully), but others do not have the same right in return. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; it is not acceptable to proclaim (as Justanother seems to be with his "this is not about me") that oneself must be held above criticism.

I agree, by the way, that the problem here is probably largely one of WP:AGF. Justanother behaves as if anyone who disagrees with him on certain issues -- particularly the relevance of certain information pertaining to Scientology, some of which the Scientology operation itself has long tried to suppress -- is thereby demonstrated to be malicious, or at least deficient in good judgment. This is not acceptable conduct for a Wikipedia editor. --FOo 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me® simply means that, while feelings get hot on both sides on the Scientology Series talk pages, Feldspar has decided that it is appropriate to continue his venom on more general noticeboards and has violated 3RR to pursue an attack against me and others with a false charge of WP:NPA. Making it about me here instead of about the incidents that I raise just opens the door to more of the same and I, for one, will not play that game. I will not argue my actions with you here; if you feel that you have a case then bring it and stop the allegations. Please. The incidents I raised speak for themselves. --Justanother 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Side note: Why do you keep putting '®' after everything you bold? John Reaves (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply to call attention to the fact that, rather than address the incidents I bring up directly, the poster is trying to flip this to be about me. Very common tactic. Knew it was coming. That is my way of keeping it to a minumum on this discussion. --Justanother 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you would like to control the discussion and forbid others from bringing your conduct into question. That's evident from your labeling of Antaeus's concerns about your behavior as "personal attacks". However, you are not afforded the privilege of controlling the discussion here on Wikipedia.

When you accuse others, you should expect that your own conduct will be examined. It is not particularly uncommon, after all, that the one who accuses others of misconduct is actually doing those things himself. (See, for instance, Matthew 7:1-5 for Jesus's word on the subject, and "The Criminal Mind" for L. Ron Hubbard's.) --FOo 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Justanother: you appear to have posted a request for comment to the admin noticeboard by mistake. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, not when it involves misuse of noticeboards, 5RR, and a false charge of WP:PA. Then it belongs here. Had it stayed on the talk pages and not involved the 5RR and false accusation then I would have dealt with it otherwise. --Justanother 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Me thinks that Justanother doth protest too much. Really, the diff links are harmless, and no personal attacks. As Glenn said, these are just people disagreeing. "Complaints" like these just waste time of the involved editors, and admins who had to read this. --Tilman 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So I should just shut up and allow it to continue? Business-as-usual? --Justanother 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A material disagreement isn't a personal attack. --Tilman 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! and Justanother should also let user Tilman make his anti-Scientology propaganda on WP quitely! http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html --Jpierreg 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Last call: 5RR and false accusations of WP:PA by User:Antaeus Feldspar

Sure hope that this is not about my being a Scientologist. That would be weird. OK, before this one archives out, I will call attention again to the point that there are abuses here. It is not about my feelings. --Justanother 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears from the discussion above that at the very least, multiple individuals feel that there have been "abuses" from both sides of the aisle... Smee 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Beware of moral equivalence arguments; they tend to favor the worse of two "sides" -- especially when an offender presents himself as a victim. --FOo 05:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already said all I need to say. The supposed "5RR" did not exist and it is challenging to say the least, to try and figure out under what standard (if any such single standard exists) it is perfectly okay to accuse someone of being a religious bigot, it is perfectly okay to claim they're guilty of "calculated disruptions", it is perfectly okay to fulminate about their "belittlement" and "marginalization" and "venom" and "invective", but for the person accused of all this, to identify a statement that similarly makes accusations of bad faith as a personal attack is somehow itself a personal attack. I know I'm not the only one receiving this treatment, but I'm getting ever more tired of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that certainly makes two of us that are tired of "the treatment". You can help by stopping the mendacious (good word, thanks for teaching it to me) hyperbole and attempted belittlement and marginalization on your part. It should be clear by now that it doesn't work. --Justanother 13:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't stop what I never started. If you actually perceive "attempted belittlement and marginalization" perhaps it's because of your tendency (very apparent in this, the section of WP:ANI that you are trying to OWN) that when someone sees a situation in any other way than you, you cannot or will not consider any good-faith explanations but immediately jump to (and loudly broadcast) the conclusion that it has to do with you being a Scientologist and the person you disagree with not being one, and as shown by your continuing repeated references to a non-existent 3RR violation, facts simply play no role in the process. Go ahead and take the last word (you will anyways) but that record's getting old. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can have the last word. --Justanother 15:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Images with spam on them

This image used to have text on it.

Image:Kristi at Bradley1.jpg has a url for the uploader's web forum. Good? Bad? Indifferent? Many similar. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yuck. SchmuckyTheCat 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace (user pages are OK). These are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images.

Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page.

However, if it is truly a free license then derivatives are allowed. If it is the vehicle that is the subject of the photo, crop away the credits. I'll look at where this image is used and what license it has. SchmuckyTheCat 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say get rid of them. We have plenty of relevant images without self-promotion in them. >Radiant< 12:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• In many cases, such text can be quite easily removed with the Resynthesizer plugin for the GIMP. For example, I just reuploaded a version of this particular image without text. Do try to avoid adding too many recompression artifacts, though. It is, of course, always better to get the original author to reupload a clean undefaced version whenever possible. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Don't try this with GFDL images, though; it violates subsections 4D and sometimes 4J. Best just to delete them. —Cryptic 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, how many potential contributors decide to withhold images because attribution doesn't appear alongside the image itself? Dragons flight 16:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Roaster2008 (disruptive editing and vandalism)

User:Roaster2008, has been removing nn and speedy delete tags from vanity pages without sources that he has created, two of his pages have already been deleted today and he just recreated it again. Additional he has been vandalising my talk page, here is the history. Can admin please put a stop to this. Also I believe that IP:199.43.13.101 and IP:199.43.14.101 is a sockpuppet of Roaster and has engaged in similar behaviour.--Vintagekits 13:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He is still removing speedy delete tags for article he has written despite being informed that he cant and has now added a speedy delete tag to the sockpuppet article, here--Vintagekits 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, its just my head is hurting trying to talk to him.--Vintagekits 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see Fiskenator and his new article El Severe in which he calls me a bigot.--Vintagekits 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a {{db-nonsense}} tag to Fiskenator. --Edokter (Talk) 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely.--Isotope23 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for keeping iamges and keeping users off my page

Can I please keep my images on my userpage. My page seems very dull without them. Can I please have a way for the article to only be edited for me, and please let me keep the images.Master Cheif 001 14:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The images on your userpage were copyright violations; Wikipedia only has a copyright justification for using fair use images in articles, not on userpages (read the fair use article for more information). You're welcome to use images from Category:Free images, which don't have a copyright problem, on your userpage (as long as you obey the user page guidelines). --ais523 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not allowing fair use images on userpages is a legal restriction that we are unable to relax on due to copyright concerns. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)