Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:16, 2 March 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Request block for Phasemc and User talk:68.72.123.53 believed to be same user.

This user has been repeatedly deleting merge tags on Mancow articles. The IP address and user are being reverted by many editors who regularly edit the Mancow articles, and has been left warnings by myself explaining why his edits have been reverted, and asking him to please stop. --Masterpedia

User:Nadia Kittel

This user is completely uncommunicative for month and never really reacts to criticism of his edits which are often POV or redundant to existent content. He is uploading copyright violating images since at least December 2006 (the last one I found was Image:MMBLA3.jpg). I tried to reach him in German language (his native language) but my message was deleted just minutes after sending. I'm sorry to say that his ignoring is not caused by language problems but just foully. Maybe someone can solve but I really have no more idea... Geo-Loge 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There was also a situation recently where Nadia Kittel created a user page for User:Kay. Nadia Kittel claimed that Kay was a new username but did not respond when asked to log in as Kay and confirm. Leebo 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well he ignored the ask for verification in this question. This is due this user is completely incurioused to basics of intellectual property law and problems. Geo-Loge 16:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If this person deleted a message, it shows acknowledgement - perhaps it is time to start warning this user for uploading copyrighted images or something? By the way, it's more likely to be a her, than a he, but that's just me. x42bn6 Talk 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nadia used the image of Kay for a long time and replaced that image with the current image of.. I do not know exactly: Madonna? I think he/she lost the access data to the Kay account. But this is speculation which only can be verified by this user. I do not know how to warn him/her? His/her talk page archive is full of warnings. Geo-Loge 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe, I think, but the name is a female name. Either way, see WP:TUSER. x42bn6 Talk 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for some background, I blocked this user in December 2006 for being uncommunicative, blanking his/her talk page and also all of these erroneous uploads. The idea was not to punish Nadia but to get his/her attention, i.e. to be instructive. Apparently it didn't work. There is nothing worse than a user who refuses to communicate with others. Honestly, I don't know what to do next. I could block the user, but I see no evidence of change. --Woohookitty 05:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There are normal and justified edits among his contributions, I know. But his understanding of copyrights is unportable. Some of his upload license information are lied and he knows that this uploads are illegal. I tried to communicate in German language.. I warned him that I will argue for an unlimited block of his account, if he just blanks this message.. he blanked and so I only see one way: Block this user for an unlimited period. Geo-Loge 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the image on User:Nadia Kittel supposedly of her (!?) is a copyvio too: magnumphotos.com vs Image:Kay33.jpg. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice of magnumphotos: Image:MMBLA3.jpg is also a copyright violation to this agency. Geo-Loge 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A few hours after Image:Kay33.jpg was deleted as copyvio, the user uploaded a different photo of Marilyn Monroe with the same filename and a "PD-self" claim. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason to send this to IfD. This is knowing and decpetive circumnvention of copyright laws and should be deleted on sight. I'd say a last warning to the user and potentially escalating blocks are in order. I haven't looked at the positive contributions of this user, but behavior like this is uncondonable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Afwiw, I'm convinced this is a dude. ~ trialsanderrors 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons:User:Nadia Kittel's image uploads also seem quite suspicious. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I speedied a couple that were obvious copyvios. There's also a few with a claim that they're posted by permission that look like possible acceptable fair use images. I'll contact an admin re the Commons pictures. ~ trialsanderrors 20:01, 1 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 (). 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, Misplaced Pages 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 and . 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)

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  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 Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages: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  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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

User:Gene Nygaard

This user continues to flout established consensus on naming and indexing issues, and persistently reverts despite being told beforehand. This is particularly notable in his persistent attempts to forcibly categorise Muslims and Sikhs by their last name , despite media referring to them by first name. He has partaken in previous discussions regarding this (see link to archived discussion, but persists in reverting them again and again - Yuvraj Singh is a particular favourite . I feel that he is violating WP:POINT and is persistently disrupting the encyclopedia. A quick look at his contributions show that a large proportion of his edits are engaged in this sort of activity, and I think he needs to be blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours, especially as he uses malicious edit summaries accusing others and stuff like this . Rama's arrow 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Having seen his edits and insistence on last name indexing, I endorse this block. --Ragib 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as well. Khoikhoi 05:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Next time - please attempt to engage Gene in the AN/I discussion prior to blocking. He's a long time and highly productive editor. --Duk 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

O RLY?. He has been engaged long enough. Endorse block. I think it's time for an RfArb. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe it's enough for some admins to say "lay off the Pakistani cricketers for now" rather than just handing out a block. Gene is a valuable and highly competent editor. And while he gets prickly sometimes, he is usually willing to discuss the topic at hand, rather than making asinine and non-productive statements like "O RLY". --Duk 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Yuvraj Singh includes a link to a previous discussion at WT:CRIC about this issue where Gene was the sole voice arguing for mandatory classification for last name, whereas everybody else felt that it was correct to use whatever the main usage of the term was. That archive also shows that the examples of Indian Sikhs and Muslims who are indexed by first name are noted. When the switch was made to the Yuvraj entry, there was a reminder on the talk page. After another user came and fixed up typos and grammar in late 2006, they weren't aware of the way Yuvraj is categorised, so when I switched it back to Y, I left an invisible comment in late December. Since then, Gene has reverted the article four times, despite the article having a note and the talk page having a note, for a total of six reverts, whereas other articles such as Harbhajan Singh and Maninder Singh, which do not have a reminder notice, have been less frequently targeted. As for Gene's comments that my failure to revert all his edits shows that I have a rationale problem; this is is incorrect - I am categorising them by what they are referred to publicly, per the previous discussions. Robin Singh and VRV Singh are not Sikhs and are common referred to as Singh, while the others are referred to by first name. As for Shah Nylchand and any others, the same applies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note carefully: I was the last voice addressing the issue on that talk page, and still am a month and a half later. Neither User:Blnguyen nor any other editor has addressed the points I raised there, in my only comment there.

Note more carefully that Blnguyen misrepresented what the previous link dealt with:

1. It dealt specifically with cricketers from Pakistan, from Bangladesh, and from the United Arab Emirates—not with cricketers from India.
2. It dealt with indexing all people in the categories related to cricketers from those countries by first name, not some haphazard mish-mash with some indexed by first name and some indexed by last name as Blnguyen proposes.
3. It specifically dealt only with the cricket categories related to those countries, not to categories for cricket in other countries for people who may have played in more than one place, not for categories for people also notable as politicians or writers or whatever, not for the birth and death and living categories.
4. What Blnguyen describes here, in his "I am categorising them by what they are referred to publicly" statement, is a category determination that depends on the establishment of a factual foundation.

1. Even if that were the rule of our guidelines, it would require he establishment of that fact on an individual, case-by-case basis for each person, by proper citation to reliable sources, and not be based on WP:NOR by Blnguyen or any other editor.
2. Blnguyen has not met the burden of establishing this fact in any single case. He has not even attempted to do so.

Discussions on Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization of people have dealt with the guideline there ("normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system") by pointing out that we should not expect to readers to know whether a person is of Belgian heritage or Dutch heritage or German heritage or American heritage whatever, in order to figure out how his or her name will be sorted in categories. It is even more ludicrous to expect that readers should know a person's religion in order to know how his or her name will be sorted in categories.

I am taking this discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization of people Gene Nygaard 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene has made a statement on his user page. --Duk 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm starting to see a big problem here. On the surface there are two serious editors with a content/policy disagreement. Both revert each other and both are sure they are right. One is an admin and complains at an/i; he doesn't take responsibility for his own reverting, he doesn't pursue the dispute resolution process - he asks that the other editor be blocked. The other editor is not a admin and gets blocked before being able to participate in the discussion. Also, there seems to be some article "ownership" issues on the part of the admin. Maybe it is time for an RfArb. --Duk 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not owning any article. I am the principal author of the Harbhajan Singh and Yuvraj Singh article but there is little activity on the main body that is ever contested. It's only the indexing which is contested, and I'm not the lone ranger by any means. The DR occurred last year. It is up to Gene to try and change the consensus established last year in a discussion in which he partook. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. This is a spurious block, in my opinion. This a content dispute, and the block levied against Gene Nygaard is punitive, not preventative. I propose unblocking Gene Nygaard with the conditions that he behave civilly and that neither he nor Blnguyen make any potentially contentious edits until an RfC is opened. It's entirely unnecessary to bring in ArbCom over an editing dispute. A Train 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The block was imposed not punitively, but for prevention. The problem was that Gene was repeatedly undoing other people's edits without discussion, violating consensus on the topic. Additionally, he was incivil - accusing others of intentionally screwing up a version he didn't like - and behaving rudely to those to criticized him. All this is clearly disruptive. Gene has been dealt with fairly - the block is not lengthy either, more a slap on the wrist. If he is the productive editor Duk believes he is, he will understand his error and do something to address these complaints. Rama's arrow 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You admitted on my talk page, and here as well, that it was indeed imposed punitively.

Furthermore, it was User:Blnguyen who was repeatedly undoing my edits, without discussion, violating the guidelines on the subject. The changes were intentionally added in the form of a sort key, not an oversight that involved not changing the default from the article's name. Gene Nygaard 15:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See wiktionary:slap on the wrist. Gene Nygaard 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat - the block was NOT punitive. However, I do not expect anyone to be so naive as to not understand WHY they were blocked and do something to rectify their errors - the "slap on the wrist" was meant that way. I hope you do realize that you made some mistakes and that you won't repeat that behavior. Don't act like a victim, because you are not - you had your "rights." You could have requested to be unblocked, in which case another admin would have reviewed the circumstances. While it is natural for anyone to see a block as a punishment, you should have some faith in Misplaced Pages's policies and try to not see it that way. There is no reason for you to trust me (and vice-versa) but at least have some respect for Misplaced Pages. Rama's arrow 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did request to be unblocked; you know that, you can publish it if you like. And I was not given any opportunity to address the issues before you blocked me, was not given any notice of the discussion here.

A "slap on the wrist" is punishment. Gene Nygaard 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You e-mailed me and I responded on your talkpage. When I say request for unblock, I mean putting this {{unblock}} on your talkpage and asking "another admin" to review. As far as I know, this is an old issue and you've been warned and asked to discuss numerous times. My job was to stop the disruption. You can take the block as a punishment if you like - I don't care, that's your choice. I certainly did not intend it as a punishment. Rama's arrow 19:08, 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 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/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111227099&oldid=111166503
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111236141&oldid=111227765
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111256924&oldid=111254870
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111487495&oldid=111394273
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages: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 "" 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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" (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 " 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/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 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 Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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)

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)

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:
  • ("rv: All additions had proper citation, edit summary expalined reason for each edit. If you have problem with an edit talk on Talk page.")
  • (four edits)
  • (three edits)
  • (three edits)
  • (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/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 . My concerns are also expressed in this diff 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 Misplaced Pages). 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)

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)

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  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  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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

GordonWatts (talk · contribs) blocked

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

I have reblocked GordonWatts (talk · contribs) indefinitely, as the Arbitration Committee has rejected the appeal of his community ban here. A new discussion on whether to change this to an all-out ban may be needed, though I originally reverted back to the ban tag because I interpreted the ArbCom's decline votes as "we endorse the ban" ("no need to alter the community ban"). --Coredesat 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait ... I thought the CN decision wasn't to ban him outright, but to restrict his editing on Terri Schiavo-related topics. Newyorkbrad 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, I misinterpreted, but got edit conflicted before I could fix it. --Coredesat 05:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, trying this again: I have blocked GordonWatts (talk · contribs) indefinitely, as the Arbitration Committee has rejected the appeal of his editing sanctions here. He has been nothing but disruptive since the appeal was denied. --Coredesat 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It would appear he's rapidly spiraling toward indefinite anyway, having failed to absorb any portion of the message sent his way to date. So not to prejudge, but you may just have been a few days early. Newyorkbrad 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... wikilawyering on the arb request... disruptive on his talk page... trolling at WP:CN... unacceptable behaviour, overall. Especially wrt that Arb request. Having watched from far, and approaching him about it today (at WP:CN - the first time I had interacted with him) and getting met with a hostile response (along the lines of "stop harassing me or I'll get you sanctioned"), I can't imagine why he hasn't already been indef'd. – Chacor 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In previous encounters, I've been of the opinion that Gordon has been simply ignorant of his nature of pissing people off, but his recent comments have made me believe that he's legitimately trolling at this point. I support this block, and would be interested in discussing a further block. Ral315 » 05:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the indefinite block. Ral315 » 06:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good for you. He was showing no evidence that he intended on doing anything but continuing a tirade against anyone who criticized his actions in the slightest. And the admins in general, for some reason. I would treat it as literally indefinite at this point (i.e. it will get lifted if he promises to stop), but I doubt that's going to happen. People rarely stop trolling like this because someone blocks them. -Amarkov moo! 06:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Diffs, in case they are wanted: , , , , , , , --Coredesat 06:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• For those of you who thought my initial indefinite-ban request at WP:CNB was premature, I can only say -- HA. --Calton | Talk 06:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Do we really need the gloating? Proto ► 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yes. Next question? --Calton | Talk 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  As phrasing it politely didn't get through: Calton, stop gloating. It's incivil, and it's unhelpful. Proto ► 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Calton, just because it worked doesn't mean it wasn't premature. You abused him, sneered at him, and accused him falsely of lying. He got upset and overreacted. You then asked for a community ban, and he got more upset and overreacted even more. Perhaps someone will accuse you of lying, sneer at you, belittle you, call you Calty boy, revert you with popups, call you a "not-very-bright troll", post a link to a blog that ridicules you, so that others can see it, and then ask for a community ban when you get upset and overreact. Then, if you get even more upset and make a fool of yourself, you might get blocked indefinitely, and we can all say -- HA. Musical Linguist 13:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  And you've done nothing but make ever-more elaborate, convoluted, wild, crude, and just plain false excuses for his dysfunctional behavior, all in the service of letting him continue his crusade. You normally seem level-headed, but in this case it appears you're defending him precisely so he can continue his crusade.

  Perhaps someone will accuse you of lying .... My dear, he's done pretty much everything on that allegedly hypothetical laundry list, either exactly or analogously. You seemed to have overlooked that. Odd how his behavior deserves unlimited slack, no matter how much back-peddling you have to do to acknowledge it. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, coming from me, this may be odd, but I'd be in favor of letting him edit if he promises to drop the ArbCom matter and stop bringing it up. Otherwise in favor. JoshuaZ 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse strongly. It is quite clear this person has no interest in collaborating cooperatively, which is what a wiki is all about. RFerreira 07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I agree with JoshuaZ, even the worst trolls here get a second chance - having said that I don't expect him to be able to conform and expect him to be blocked again with days if not hours but I still think we have to run the process. --Fredrick day 07:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't smart. WP:IAR would come into play. No use unblocking someone who would only go on to disrupt even more and we know we'll end up having to block again within days. Furthermore, it's not like this block was against Wikiprocess™. GordonWatts is a problem editor, and clearly he's gone one step too far. – Chacor 07:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

His behavior on the arbitration request was breathtaking (in a bad way). Thatcher131 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. It was pretty much inevitable that he'd end up blocked, since the whole problem in the first place was that he refuses to accept what he doesn't want to hear, it's just unfortunate that what I see as genuine good-faith efforts to help him avoid this have been killed off by his own behaviour. Even his friends seem to have stopped supporting him. It's hard to dispute that Gordon has a serious problem accepting that people have heard what he has to say and rejected it and also that he really really does not believe us when we say that there is a consensus for restricting his disruption, but I'd still say we could consider unblocking him if he shows that he has put down the stick and backed away from the horse - but not before. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• He hasn't. My guess is that'll happen about the time Satan straps on ice-skates for a spin about the old homestead. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

After that little display, I've changed my mind - he's clearly just never going to get it - any unblock will be taken as encouragement to keep pushing his free-hosted non-newspapers. Enough, he's never going to get it. --Fredrick day 11:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that his first Talk page post in the wake of his rejected RfArb request was to continue lobbying for his links. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept a block, although I'm not sure about indefinite. A month might have sufficed (to show that patience is now exhausted and give him one final chance). But I'm probably in the minority. Gordon was a good editor at times, however it was very apparent that once certain hardline editors had set their mind to it that, we would see the guy banned by hook or by crook. Proto ► 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support that if I saw one iota of agreement that his links are not suitable for wikipedia - I haven't seen his position move since day one - that his links are suitable and if just talks and talks and talks and talks and talks and talks and talks and talks we will all get it. Rightly or wrong - he has a black hole effect on any page he appears on - it's just too disruptive as it stands. --Fredrick day 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need to agree that his links are not suitable for Misplaced Pages. He just needs to stop arguing that they are. Unfortunately, Gordon isn't very good at silent disagreement. Musical Linguist 13:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You think the problem is "certain hardline editors" and not Gordon? You cannot be serious. Gordon is a self-winding watch, and the "by hook or by crook" part is not so much bad faith as it is outright ludicrous--Calton | Talk 11:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. It's not a "one or the other" issue. There's no right side and wrong side - this isn't a courtoom. Gordon's conduct has been awful, and he deserves to be blocked. But some of the behavior of other participants in the whole sorry mess was not exemplary, yours included. Proto ► 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Right on the mark, Proto. Musical Linguist 13:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that. You did, hence the quotation marks, both sets. Let me check. Yep, still there: "certain hardline editors" and "by hook or by crook". Or are you using some non-standard meanings of those phrases? --Calton | Talk 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I said 'certain hardline editors'. You extrapolated that into "'certain hardline editors' and not Gordon", which is not what I said. Proto ► 15:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

it appears that his next tactic is to watch pages like this in order to draw editors into futher debate via goading comments. Can I suggest people don't get drawn into lengthy replies to him on his page over the matter as, again, he seems to take it as some form of affirmation. Of course the next question is - are we going to let him soapbox from his userpage, if so - for how long? --Fredrick day 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless he starts making personal attacks, abusing the {{unblock}} template, or go on and on about issues not even remotely linked to his ban, he can say what he likes on his talk page, forever if needs be. Proto ► 11:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unlike blocked users, banned users are not welcome, period, and that includes the use of their own talk pages. This was recently discussed at Talk:RFAR, and appears to be an issue that slipped through the cracks when the developers changed the software to allow blocked users to edit their own talk pages. Remember that a ban is a decision that someone in not welcome, a block is merely the technical means of enforcing the ban. If and when consensus for a permanent ban seems to have solidified, it would be appropriate to protect his user talk page. Thatcher131 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, got them mixed up. Gordon is blocked, not banned. Thatcher is right, a banned user loses their talk page privileges. Proto ► 13:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. I think it's fairly clear this guy is here purely to POV-push, not to build an encyclopedia. BTW, can someone please fix my faulty formatting at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/GeorgeBP, which is messing up WP:RFCU. Cheers, Moreschi 11:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, though I'd support limiting this particular one to a month or so. After that, unblock him, keep the existing Schiavo-related restrictions in place and see how he does. If he goes right back to the same behavior, make it permanent. I also suggest that he read Ann's comments and really take the advice to heart. This comment explains the facts as straight as can be and I sincerely hope that Gordon views that comment as help from a supporter. ChazBeckett 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose an indefinite block. I agree that his behaviour has been pretty bad recently, but it has been partly brought on because he was upset at Calton's behaviour. Somebody (NOT Gordon) added a link to a website that Gordon likes (but NOT his own site) in January. An anon, very likely Amorrow, made numerous edits in February, with massive undiscussed changes, one of which was to remove that link. Gordon reverted back to the last edit from a previous editor; therefore, the link was reinserted. Calton removed the link, accusing Gordon of attempting to sneak it in. Gordon was upset. Calton was abusive, aggressive, sneering, hostile, accused him falsely of lying, shouted at him (with capitals), called him Gordy boy, reverted his edits with popups, and generally played a role in precipitating this. As could be predicted, Gordon overreacted and behaved very badly, so now Calton is vindicated, and can continue to assert that he doesn't need to treat such editors with respect, because when they get banned, they prove that he's right about them. I suggest leaving this for a week (I'm very busy anyway), and then seeing if someone can nicely ask Gordon to agree to stop arguing, for his own sake, and to agree to stop mentioning his links, and to accept that he can make just one post a day on Schiavo-related talk pages. At this stage, I'd support also restricting it to one post per day on Jimbo's talk page, admin noticeboards, community noticeboards, and ArbCom or RfC pages that don't involve him. I also think that JzG to it wrong in saying that the agreement was that he was banned from Schiavo articles. Everybody agrees either that his article edits are not problematic at all (if he stops promoting his links, which I think he has agreed to do) or that they're much less problematic than his massive talk page posts. The Community Noticeboard discussion showed some support for a complete ban from anything to do with Schiavo and also some support for a restriction to one post a day on Schiavo talk pages and unlimited edits on articles. I think we need to look into that again, though of course his recent behaviour may result in some of the people who initially would have allowed a Schiavo restriction switching over to a Schiavo ban. Musical Linguist 13:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your latest convoluted -- and occasionally wildly inaccurate -- attempt to make excuses for Gordon is noted, and the more you keep this up, the more I wonder what your motives are, given how wildly at variance they are with his observable behavior.

'...accused him falsely of lying... That would be, you know, wrong. Question: how did his links get in there? Pick one: a) Pixies added them; b) Spontaneous generation; c) Gordon added them, and re-added them when they were removed.

...so now Calton is vindicated, and can continue to assert that he doesn't need to treat such editors with respect, because when they get banned, they prove that he's right about them. Your mindreading skills need a bit of polish, it appears. That, or you need to do more than reach for the ad hominem when all else fails.

Of course, the main thing you're glossing over is his behavior since ArbCom rejected his case. Would you mind explaining how that's my fault?

Everybody agrees either that his article edits are not problematic at all... Really. Not my recollection, especially a year ago or so. --Calton | Talk 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Calton, please consider retracting that vague insinuation about Musical Linguist's motives. Proto ► 15:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block. If (after a monthlong block) people want to give him one last, final, we-really-mean-it chance with a complete ban on both article and talk edits to all Schiavo-related pages and talk pages, I guess I'd go with it, but to be honest I think even that's a bad idea at this point. -Hit bull, win steak 14:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I don't really see it as much a question. If you really want to see him editing here, revisiting the issue in a month is probably the best chance for that to happen - as it stands now he's either ready for a permanent block or speeding towards that end. And I wouldn't go so far as to say that the CN was turning into the GordonWatts Noticeboard, but it was getting closer to that than is good. Bitnine 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block. His goals are not compatible with the goals of the project. If others have mistreated him, this is a reason for sanctioning those others, but it is not a reason to let Gordon's unacceptable behavior slide. Blocks are not about "justice", they're about harm reduction. His behavior is harmful and needs to be reduced. Friday (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that there is unanimous support for a one-month block, but two in opposition to an indefinite block. That being the case, and because this user has been the subject of near-enfless discussion for days, and because I don't like seeing good admins throwing spitballs at each other, I move to close this discussion, slap the purple box on it, and reduce the block to one month. Gordons's behavior can always be reconsidered at a later date. Please don't hesitate to unarchive this topic if you think it is necessary, but is there really anything productive that can be added besides poking each other? Thatcher131 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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 - 12:54, 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 - 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)

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-- _{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. InBC 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-- _{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. InBC 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 (). 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)

Edit-stalking, harassment¸threats¸ personal abuse

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 --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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mak (talk) 22:17, 1 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/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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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