Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive373

I don’t know how they’re doing it; possibly

Agreed. Though I'm not sure what that whole cult thing is supposed to mean. What the hell do Unitarians have to do with anything?

(Gmail?)_(u)

21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, J-stan just said "hell" to me! I demand immediate de-sysoping (for him, I mean, not for me)! oh no, they got to me too... --

barneca (talk

) 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Front will never succeed. After all, their own motto is 'ALUUF and Alone', right? HalfShadow (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I closed this thread about 4 hours ago, as I saw this coming, it was being used to poke and prod an editor when the situation that had brought about the thread was resolved. And yet, the principals thought it best to unclose it, if only to continue to poke the bear with the stick. And this is what we get. Does it excuse Mikklai for his incivility? No, but this did NOT have to go this way. If the thread were left closed, there would have been no blocks, and none of this pointless backbiting and bullshit. I am ashamed of this entire thread, and next time, let people work their own shit out. There is no need to antagonize others in this way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm a "principal" but I've moved the block review section outside of your close tags. I don't think the block review part of the discussion is necessarily resolved, although I would agree that the initial section was not constructive and should've been closed before it got inflamed to the point where someone handed out a block.

^T

22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I laid the following on requests for a third opinion: MCVerstappen (talk · contribs) and others have been making disruptive edits to Michael Willis. Please see for the discussion Talk:Michael Willis. They are unhappy that the article about a political scientist by the same name was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Willis, where the outcome was "delete and salt". (the current version about the American was created after the title was unsalted to make room for the current article.)_ Michael Willis (Political Scientist) I deleted because it was recreated as the same as the deleted article and because my pleas for verifiable sources and notability have gone unheeded and and unanswered. I and others have attempted to engage in constructive dialogue. Most recently, MCVerstappen has moved the talk page and continues to make unconstructive edits to the article and accuse others of vandalism for reverting his edits. I'm at a loss has to how to resolve the matter. If someone could shed the light of reason, I would appreciate it. HelloAnnyong felt is vandalism. and vandal warned MCVerstappen. Ernienotsowise (talk · contribs) then appeared, made this remark, which I reverted as vandalism. He made this edit. And I blocked him till I got this posted, but will unblock. Would appreciate y'all's help and insight. Dlohcierekim 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no diplomatic solution, but I commend Mike for his great patience in this matter. Given the lack of constructive input from either user cited, on any topic, plus the lengthy list of deletes applied to the alleged political scientist, then blocking seems appropriate. We might also semi-protect the article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking seems appropriate to me as well, since they seem to be refusing to read the points you've made, dlohcierekim. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if these two new accounts are the same person, but that's probably irrelevant at this point. Natalie (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected Michael Willis, and salted the alternate article names. That should do for the time being , hopefully. Black Kite 19:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

MCVerstappen (talk · contribs) actually move both the article and talk page to a nonsense title (I reverted the move, and CSDed the resulting redirect). That move (not the first move that this user has done to this page) was itself pretty blatant vandalism, and not far short (IMHO) of warranting summary blocking without further warning to prevent further vandalism 87.80.55.193 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a test4 final warning, and not sure if a block is warranted at this moment. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Did not want to come across as an elitist admin bastard. Frankly, it was time for me to take a walk and let others deal with it. My hope was that MCVerstappen et al would see reason and contribute constructively. So far, as per norm, no response to our concerns. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:GHOST-G56 has just created a number of similar accounts, immediately after creating their own account; innocent experimentation, or a prelude for mischief? -- The Anome (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask them on their talk page? John Reaves 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Just be mindful about politeness and civility - don't be accusatory. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a returning vandal - look at User:B0t-myth, one of the accounts created. This anti-Scientology vandal struck earlier under a number of sockpuppet accounts, including User:B0t-Zer0, User:B0t-seph3roth, User:B0t-eXtreme, User:Jarda1221 and a few others. I've blocked them all before they start vandalising again. Hut 8.5 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also User:B0t-Anonymous, User:B0t-Ghost, User:B0t-M4ster and User:B0t-phant0m. Hut 8.5 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You might also want to look at this quacking here.

It hasn't been transcluded onto the RfA page yet, but everybody ought to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EPIC MASTER. Corvus cornix_talk 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:EPIC MASTER. Please feel free to unblock if I am wrong. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block. I believe old untranscluded RfAs can be deleted under CSD G6 (though there's no way in hell someone with a history of abusive sockpuppetry is going to pass RfA). Hut 8.5 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one to notice that sometimes some of us seem to snap for no apparent reason. Fortunately, I live in Florida next to a lovely park. When all else fails, I can always go and talk to the squirrels. Dlohcierekim 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So do I; the difference is they talk back to me, I give them the 4 warning templates, then block 'em indef. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, insanity is there beforehand, WP just gives us an outlet. Perhaps squirrels (vis-a-vis nuts!) wasn't the best choice of animal <g> --WebHamster 23:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah, but the ducks just run away. Dlohcierekim 23:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamsters are cousins of the squirrel. Must block indef... —Animum (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So that's why my nuts are so important to me! ;) --WebHamster 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a policy of not feeding the squirrels. Oops, too late. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't feed Florida's squirrels since one of them betrayed me after giving her a Dorito piece, that bastard... What are we talking about again? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I like to read

WP:NAM and then take a wikibreak for three days to pet my white cat. :-) Bearian (talk

) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah crap in a shoebox. I wanna be where you guys are. As clearly seen above, I've been carried away by the crazy train. Someone rescue me, maybe an {{editor rescue}} tag needs to be developed similar to the inclusionsists' favorite "article rescue" tag? I don't know WTF is wrong with me, maybe its because I'm insanely jealous of your weather Dloh. The high temp where I live? Today, it was 8. Fahrenheit. Tomorrow? 12. I haven't seen an "above freezing" day for 3 months. Crap in a shoebox, I need to get outdoors soon. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

8? Ha! Try below zero for several days in a row. Natalie (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has edited only

A better venue for this would be

WP:AN/COI. Ronnotel (talk

) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a case to look into this. Ronnotel (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Newbie"

Have you left them a note yet? That might be the first step in correcting this

new users mislead actions. Tiptoety ^talk

00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is bizarre, the account hasn't edited in about 14 months and just starts up again with this. Regardless of

WP:AGF, which I find hard to accept, it may be a compromised account and needs blocking as a preventive measure until this gets sorted out, although the tagging seems to have stopped for now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See also User talk:Lostanos for a similar and possibly related pattern. Risker (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What I noticed is that the original sock

talk · contribs) redirects to Hkelkar (talk · contribs), so they are related. Seicer (talk) (contribs

) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

His edits are correct at least. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In view of this, and I trust GeorgeWilliamHerbert's judgement on this, I'll block this indef and let it fall out later. For now, the issue is prevention of damage to WP. We can't have accounts like this running amok. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked as a preventive measure, I will unblock (or shorten the block) if nessesary as soon as we can sort this out. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From my CU, and the edits of other things on this IP address and the edits of this account in 2006, it is certainly Hkelkar's banned adversary BhaiSaab (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Block log. Daniel (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)

This admin and I had an issue in

• Removing photos with an edit summary of "rv vanity" does seem to be assuming bad faith, especially when those photos do seem to be relevant to the subject. Black Kite 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems incontestable to me that

reliable source. Like it or not, New York Magazine published this fellow's name as Bregman. All we need to do is to find one reliable, independently-published source that refers to him without that name, and then we can put the issue to bed by citing that source instead of New York Magazine. Photos taken by Wikipedia editors don't seem to me to meet that (fairly low) bar. Nandesuka (talk

) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not establishing the info with a photo, but with a birth certificate. The photo is merely the mechanism to reproduce that info. Are you really suggesting that a journalist is a more reliable source for someone's birth name than their birth certificate? WjBscribe 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't this be a case for a (sometimes referred to as Adrei Treivas Bregman) notation? That would acknowledge the existence of another name in reliable sources while satisfying the BLP concern (the individual's name isn't actually that). Is there an OTRS ticket somewhere that refers to this? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. Nandesuka (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Has he actually been called "Adrei Treivas Bregman" anywhere other than this one piece from New York Magazine? WjBscribe 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it make a difference whether he sends a copy of his birth certificate to OTRS or has it uploaded locally? If anything, the latter is better for verification purposes... WjBscribe 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was more asking if the subject had formally provided notice of the error, or if he had simply posted on the talk page claiming to be himself. Either way, the birth certificate is persuasive.

WP:OR would come into play if an editor drew conclusions from that document, but using it as a reference to say "Michael Lucas, born Andrei Treivas, is..." in the lead. The birth certificate documents a birth, and that birth involves the name Andrei Treivas, so it could source a statement that an individual was born and, at birth, had a given name. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that current practice has passed me by, but I will simply say that I don't believe this is a correct interpretation of our policy against original research. Wikipedia is, at its core, a tertiary sourced encyclopedia. Relying on photographs of things that purport to be primary documents, especially when there are reliable sources that claim otherwise, in the absence of OTRS action, goes against our best practices. Nandesuka (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That you so frequently edit war over issues where you don't understand policy (or common sense) really raises grave concerns about your status as an admin. That you are following me around with some kind of bone to pick with me also makes it questionable. At the very least, you are simply hurting your reputation; at the worst, you are hurting Wikipedia and affecting people's lives outside of it who consistently have to tell people that 'Bregman' was never their name (thus, again, hurting Wikipedia since it makes us look silly). I wish you would give more thought to your behavior, since admins are supposed to be examples for the rest of us, and you aren't setting a particularly good one with your behavior. --David Shankbone 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your inability to assume good faith is, in the end, your own problem. I will continue to edit diligently, regardless of your wish that your writing not be edited. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka's a good admin, David. This seems to have boiled up over nothing, and it's a shame to see two good editors fall out over it, because you both have a point. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about themselves, so if the subject puts his name on his blog, for example, we can source our article to it within reason. But Nandesuka's also right that we need to be careful about when we do this, just in case someone's trying it on with us. I'm not saying anyone is in this case, but that's probably Nandesuka's concern -- that, in general, this could be regarded as OR, so caution is required. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked only into the Michael Lucas matter. I find Nandesuka's position there to be absurd. We have a copy of the subject's birth certificate - an official document that establishes his birthname. Nandesuak has instead replaced this information with information sourced from a piece from New York magazine - based on whatever research the journalist conducted. The subject has confirmed the latter is inaccurate and provided us with proof of this? To demand third party publishing of the correct name in this circumstance is absurd, contrary to
  WP:BLP, against the interests of Wikipedia readers, and has the potential to make Wikipedia look fairly ridiculous. I am stunned that someone trusted by the community to exercise judgment could have done so in so poor a manner in this instance. WjBscribe
  18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. "Absurd" is putting it mildly. We have WP:BLP for a reason. Black Kite 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When you say "we have a copy of his birth certificate", do you mean "He has provided a copy of his birth certificate to
    WP:OFFICE" or do you mean "A Wikipedia editor has uploaded a photo of something purporting to be his birth certificate to a talk page?" If we mean the latter, I agree that the situation is absurd, but perhaps not quite in the way you intended. Nandesuka (talk
    ) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you really boiling this down to such a formality? Are you saying that if he sent a copy of his birth certificate to office (either a photocopy or photograph would I believe satisfy the OTRS respondent) that is somehow better than allowing that same copy to be uploaded locally where it can be looked at by anyone? WjBscribe 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're driving at. Are you suggesting that the birth certificate is fake, the photo is (brilliantly) PhotoShopped, or that the uploader managed to find a Russian birth certificate from someone born on the same day and with the same name? Black Kite 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that the provenance of the document in the photo simply isn't verifiable. But see my response to SV below. Nandesuka (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• We do allow subjects to offer us sources regarding issues like that -- names, birth dates and so on. If the subject has written his name on his website or blog, that would be enough for us normally, even without a birth certificate. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about that source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd always considered such things to be original research, but I'll take your word that I'm behind the times on this. Thanks for the correction. Nandesuka (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And please stop following me around. Are you open to recall? You still received edit warring messages (the same way you edit warred on Pubic hair), and some of your judgment that I outline above, and some of your edit summaries, are hardly what I would call admin behavior User:Nandesuka. --David Shankbone 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Have a nice day. Nandesuka (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Being familiar with the

That's a good idea, to articulate that his father is Bregman, but that he was never given that name at birth. Good suggestion Benji. --David Shankbone 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point here is that the birth certificate is the source? If it's an official government document, and anyone can walk into the appropriate office and pay for a copy, then it's both reliable and verifiable. Of course any online image or physical copy of it could be faked, but since we already accept offline-only sources that can't be an issue. On another topic, I'm confused about how a scan of a birth certificate can be released under the GFDL. Surely the scan shares its copyright status with the original, which presumably rests with the government in question. Are they releasing birth certificates under the GFDL? Bovlb (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The birth certificate is a primary source, and we're hardly in a position to gauge the meaning and/or authenticity of a photograph of it. Who know what the rules are for the issuing of Russian documents? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The alleged birth certificate in discussion is printed in the Russian language, using a Cyrillic alphabet. Who here is claiming expertise to read Russian, Bregman? The interview with New York Magazine was conducted with Andrei Treivas Bregman present and answering questions, was it not? The notion that one party in a court case used Wikipedia to identify the other side is preposterous. --72.76.88.140 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We can rely upon reliable sources to deal with this and I have little doubt that someone will be able to interpret what the birth certificate says. Is it a false document of some sort? I'd bet we'd find out sooner than later if so. It can certainly be noted in the context as presented as such and I'm quite puzzled as to the

boi

10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Cross-posted to article talk) Hi, I read cyrillic, as a matter of fact. I transliterate his name in the documents supplied as "Andrei Lvovich Treivas" (or "Treyvas" would work as well), "Lvovich" being Mr. Treivas'

IronDuke

23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can read the Russian Cyrillic alphabet as well, and can verify IronDuke's reading of it. I'm much more familiar with printed than handwritten, so am unsure of the second character in the patronymic, but can see "Трейвас - Андрей Львович". I'd have interpreted the first word there as Treyvas or Trejvas. Seems the book IronDuke cites has done so as well - "'I feel the blood of generations in me,' says Michael Lucas, born Andrei Treyvas in Communist Russia in 1972." Orderinchaos 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

One does not read cyrillic; cyrillic is not a language. The word "cyrillic" is an adjective used to describe the alpahabet invented by Saint Cyril. The Russian language is written in the cyrillic alphabet. Already the veracity of your post is in question. Further, though you use the term "transliterate" correctly, you did not actually transliterate the documents supplied -- you may have correctly transliterated the words in a photo of a document purporting to be a birth certificate, which has not been certified in any reliable way. The book you reference is an unauthorized bio of Lucas of which he has completely disavowed himself. Thus, the only remaining reliable sources say that Lucas was born Andrei Treivas Bregman.--72.76.80.193 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page of the article. And quite frankly I can't help but note that

boi

18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it's harassment of DS or an agenda of some kind, latest diff. R. Baley (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

One does not read cyrillic; cyrillic is not a language. The word "cyrillic" is an adjective used to describe the alpahabet invented by Saint Cyril. The Russian language is written in the cyrillic alphabet.

• Thanks very much for the “correction,” though it is at best meaningless, at worst incorrect. One can indeed speak of reading “Cyrillic” and have individuals of even modest intelligence comprehend what is being said, as you ably demonstrate. Want proof? First hit on Google: [5]. I know, I know, it’s only
  Yale
  , but still.

Already the veracity of your post is in question.

• It is a troubling thing to me when drive-by anons question my veracity. I suppose I’ll find a way to soldier on, though.

Further, though you use the term "transliterate" correctly, you did not actually transliterate the documents supplied -- you may have correctly transliterated the words in a photo of a document purporting to be a birth certificate, which has not been certified in any reliable way.

• Ah… What? Are you actually serious?

The book you reference is an unauthorized bio of Lucas of which he has completely disavowed himself. Thus, the only remaining reliable sources say that Lucas was born Andrei Treivas Bregman.

• You are essentially using Lucas as a source here to trash the bio. Assuming that is correct (and I have no idea if it is), you are therefore using Lucas as an authority on himself. Lucas maintains that his last name is not Bregman—but we can’t take his word on that? I am now quite concerned at your veracity, oh anonymous one.
  IronDuke
  01:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please add a link to the secure login site to the mediawiki text displayed on the main log-in screen? It is a good option for extra security and should be listed there, I think. I don't know which page to edit. Thatcher 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. east.718 at 19:17, February 20, 2008

Note that last time a link to the secure login site was added to the interface, it was reverted; see MediaWiki talk:Loginsuccess for what happened. --ais523 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to relate to a problem with staying logged-in and advice given on the login-success message, and not to the pre-login screen. We give so many other tips on security on MediaWiki:Loginend that I don;t see why adding the secure sever there would be a problem. Thatcher 14:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well on MediaWiki talk:Loginend there is some discussion that the secure sever is not designed for heavy use. Is this still true a year later? I'm normally a mac person but when I log in from a library PC I get a warning that the login is not secure and my password is being sent in the clear...that's probably not good for a checkuser, so I appreciate a link to the secure server being at the most logical place, where other security advice is given. Thatcher 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem with the secure server is if you log in through the secure server, you have to use the secure server. Which is awkward; there are any number of links that aren't translated (even the upload link in the sidebar is only translated via javascript) so if you click on them you're back on the regular server and not logged in. Lots of other sites have a "secure login, normal http usage" system, why not wikipedia? —Random832 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a script to fix the links problem, if it helps – linked from my user page. • Anakin ^(talk) 14:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In the past I have always trusted that user, however after todays events I see no way other than to report this. I spend the whole day writing the Danubian Sich, the article is still not finished, and one of the points correctly pointed out was to refrence the text. However just because the pilot version still has none Is that a reason for a full revert by an administrator. Essentially a whole days of work down the toilet.

Yet after my following of the

It should be noted that

underconstruction}} in the future to communicate clearer that the article is in an in-between state, and still under work. Mikkalai's edit summaries were incivil, but since he has fixed his own problem, I say we call this a "no-harm-no-foul" situation, and move on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be noted that Mikkalai's incivility and tone on

t/e

16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack's edit summary is no better and probably worse. If they're working it out there's no need to point fingers. WilyD 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? History. "rvt plain vandalism" in response to "respectfully reverted. Kazak, you have been quite long here to know CITE YUR SOURCES!!!!!" is somehow worse how? The admin Mikkalai is patently in the wrong here, when combined with his high-handed and inappropriate tone on the talk page. Let's not defend a fuck up.

t/e

16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Content-wise, it's far closer to name-calling, and it's the departure from civility. WilyD 17:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And taken in whole, if an admin swoops in, reverts your work, swears at you in the summary, and then takes an obnoxious and inappropriate tone on the talk page with an implication you can be "blocked", which is worse? People will certainly lash out if attacked randomly, and a one-off calling an edit "vandalism" is certainly not that bad. The admin was in the wrong here. There's no other way to shake it.

t/e

17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, Mikkalai didn't swear "at" him and only responded to rudeness with rudeness. No denying that Mikkalai was wrong - but Kuban Kazak was too, which is what I said in the first place. WilyD 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The point as I keep saying is that none of this excuses or gives Mikkalai license to use his admin tools, nor to threaten or imply their use.

t/e

17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Next thing and you are going to demand to stop beating my wife. Learn to read and comprenend what other people write then come and teach others. `'Míkka>t 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame he can't self revert his attitude. --Kbdank71 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, the edit summary isn't telling you to fuck off. It's emphasizing in a crude way the importance of the edit summary. So far as I'm aware, although maybe frowned upon, such a statement doesn't violate community standards - certainly it came up in my RfA that "fuck" shows up in my edit summaries on occasion (usually in the context of "fuck up") and people didn't object much. I will say that your work isn't lost - it's still in the history. Consider using User:Kuban kazak/sandbox to work on the page until it's ready for the show. I'm not sure how helpful it is, but there it is. WilyD 16:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This kind of deletionism is becoming a running annoyance. I've had several article starts

inuse}} tag is helpful but people do forget to put it in, for instance because they are interrupted and have to save material before they are ready to do so. Mangoe (talk

) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) The problem isn't that, it's Mikkalai's attitude and tone. Did you see him on

t/e

16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC also) I would respectfully disagree - "Oops I fucked up" is alot different than "read the fucking edit summary," which is direct profanity specifically at someone that he's twice-reverted. I came here only to post this, for the record (since I happened to recall it coming up), but I have to say, it's not just the use of the word "fuck" but the way he directed it, in hostility, at another user. Perhaps not his intent, but that's a fairly obvious and reasonable way to take it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict X 8). IMO, both of you jumped to conflict and incivility, and neither excuses the other. He shouldn't have cursed, but nor should you have said he went mad, etc. This is a very simple incident that could be handled with a little tact, communication, and assumption of good faith. A better way for you is to politely explain in the article talk page or his page that you are in process of editing it and will add sources. If someone prods or speedies a new article I'm creating I'll just revert them, add an "inuse" tag, and leave a note that I hear them and will make sure it's a proper article by the time I finish. I see no indication that Mikkalai's being an administrator has anything to do with this issue. He did not use his administrative privileges or threaten you with administrative action. If nothing happens in the next few minutes, this matter is probably resolved. Wikidemo (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I take that back, in part. this comment by Mikkalai could be seen as a threat to block Kuban kazak for not using sources. A block would be incorrect in any event, and an abuse of administrative privileges if done by an administrator who is a party to the underlying content dispute, so the threat too seems abusive. And in a later comment he continues cursing. So yes, the attitude is wrong. But you goaded him into it, so I don't really think you have much cause to complain. Wikidemo (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly did Kazak "goad" Mikkalai into flipping out in a disrespectful attack, disallowed threat to block, and nasty tone? By writing an article?

t/e

17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By restoring all of the material with the edit summary calling Mikkalai "pure vandalism" Wikidemo (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is what is considered goading, then Mikkalai has far too short of a fuse to be an administrator. The point is that Mikkalai's actions and threat of admin action has zero basis in policy, zero justification in policy, and are not acceptable. Combined with his bad attitude and high-handed tone, he needs to tone it down for his own good.

t/e

17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

?????? What's wrong with you people? Cool down and read the "RTFM" article. Of course I am not a smooth piece of cake, but I suggest you to think a little bit of this sequence of events.

• (cur) (last) 20:23, February 21, 2008 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) (3,753 bytes) (read the fucking edit summary.) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 20:21, February 21, 2008 Kuban kazak (Talk | contribs | block) (13,177 bytes) (Undid revision 193057863 by Mikkalai (talk)rvt plain vandalism) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 20:20, February 21, 2008 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) (3,753 bytes) (respectfully reverted. Kazak, you have been quite long here to know CITE YUR SOURCES!!!!!) (undo)

If Cuban Cossack and you all think that my calling my own edit summary "fucking" is an itnolerable offense towards Cuban Cossack that it must be discussed in AN/I, then y'all need a larger pill than me. `'Míkka>t 17:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that you have here, and in the past, taken a dismissive and high-handed tone to your peers. You need to turn that down yesterday, for the sake of your career here and longevity on this site. Rudeness is not acceptable.

t/e

17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, warning someone that edit warring can result in blocks is not inappropriate. WilyD 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you take the small pill then, Mikkalai. You're right about it needing sources but calm will get people to do what you want a lot surer than cursing. Plus, when you flash the administrator's broom, a user who is already testy can get worse. I know people don't like it when I compare admins to cops, but the cop who wins the most conflicts is the one who knows how to use his voice, not his gun. Kazak is an easy one; there are users who are a lot more trouble than that. Wikidemo (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. When Mikkalai as an involved editor initiates the edit warring then clearly it is inappropriate. Mikkalai has no right to use or threaten the use of his tools here in this circumstance. Why is Mikkalai as the initiator of this problem entirely being backed up?

t/e

17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Other than making everyone just feel bad, what is the point of this. Someone cursed. Boo hoo. Now let it go. The involved parties have moved on, why can't we?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary of "fuck" or whatever is trivial. I'm concerned that Mikkalai is threatened admin action (blocking) when he is not allowed, and when he is involved to boot. His ongoing admitted nasty tone is just another factor that is a problem, but I am asking for the community to properly to tell him to mind himself. His disregard for the way of things is upsetting. Mikkalai should acknowledge he made an error, and concede he is not to use tools here.

t/e

17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, Mikkalai never said she would block Kuban Kazak, only that they could be blocked for edit warring - any admin can fill out a 3RR report on someone they're in a conflict with, and policy says its just as appropriate as the greenest IP doing it. WilyD 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, myself: there was no edit warring mentioned in the warning; references were. This is clearly inappropriate admin conduct. We do not block people because they are two hours late providing a reference. As for fuck, I have no problem with it's use. I use it all the fucking time: for emphasis, interjection, or a joke. But don't use it toward someone. Obviously. Marskell (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is subject to interpretation. If an admin came in and initiated an edit war with me on an article, and then started talking about the possibility of my getting blocked, I would be very concerned--especially combined with the unneeded vulgarity and very hostile language and tone. Admins ARE held to a higher standard, and Mikkalai needs to be aware that his choice of words will cause disruption if he does things like this. I've been seeing people roll about Wikipedia using high-handed tones like his, and some of them admins: this needs to stop. It is completely disruptive and aggravating to users, and causes pointless ill-will, just so that someone can get the satisfaction of typing out a message in a gloating or superior tone. Mikkalai was wrong, full stop, for 1) initiating a short edit war; 2) implying blockings are possibly forthcoming for the other party's response; 3) not acting civil; 4) carrying about in a haughty tone that is only going to incite people to "flip out" in response. Mikkalai is not entitled to defense here, and should simply apologize and say he'll tone down his tone.

t/e

17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that, you know, you don't threaten to block people you are in a dispute with. That seems to have forgotten.

masterka

17:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the situation makes your remedies seem more reasonable, but the facts remain that Mikkalai did not initiate an edit war, and yes, Mikkalai is entitled to be defended from this mudslinging. Two experienced editors were incivil to each other, but seemed to have moved past it (and neither were really all that incivil). The rest of your accusations are just false, and dragging Mikkalai's name through the mud for shits & giggles is simply not appropriate. WilyD 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"dragging Mikkalai's name through the mud" — Mikkalai is well-known (not say infamous) to be perfectly capable of getting that job done all on his own. User:

Dorftroffel 17:59, February 21, 2008

It's a quiet open joke that on any borderline matter on ANI that an admin gets the benefit of the doubt over a non-admin. However, in this case, the matter wasn't exactly borderline, and the fact that the admin has their name draged through the mud but the other party hasn't is a comical farce. Mikka messed up today; Kazak did not. How is this even up for debate? We need to get over ourselves and begin to weed out haughty nonsense.

t/e

18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not editing wikipedia to gain someone's trust, respect, love, or barnstars. I have been seeing quite a few people having huge fun in wikilawyering instead of writing articles. It feels so good, banging other people on their heads, isn't it? Especially when they give you a minimal reason. Since people are not robots, wikiHeadBangers will always have an opportunity. And I am not ever going to talk to them. `'Míkka>t 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand when an admin slips up, the line forms up to punch him, but you also have to bear in mind, that they are human and human patience is limited. That is quite understandable in the case of Kuban Kazak. He already posted it at Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements even before Mikki came along[6]. Who would post an unfinished article,as he claims, on the notice board? In my view, Mikki was right, because the indications were such, that he was never coming to finish it. The choice of words could have been different, but it is time some users take responsibility for their actions and don't put blame on others. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So someone who has long been able to register any minor comment as a

Kuban Cossack

18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's what this is all about, right? The choice of words. In my opinion the underlying issue is just plain trivial. But I do think that everyone should try not to use bad language (except for occasional, obvious humor), and administrators all the more so when they would reasonably be perceived as acting in an administrative role. We can't really codify that because we don't want censorship, but as a community norm I think it's fair to ask people to be polite.Wikidemo (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is fair. And a proper solution would be to say: "hey, I felt offended by your remark", rather than throwing a whole tantrum. In this particular case IFAIU Cossack was offended by my revert. I restored the text myself after an exchange in the article talk page. I was even going to apologize. But once a wikilawyer aggressively jumped in the whole idea of apology just went with a smoke. `'Míkka>t 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Politeness is not just fair, it's

policy. Note: [7] --Cheeser1 (talk

) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mikka is a grumpy old bastard. In other news, bears shit in the woods and the Vatican confirms that the pope is Catholic. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• So? --Kbdank71 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, that's funny, and tongue and cheek. People being bastards is not acceptable. You. Me. Mikka. I can be cross, but I go out of my way to not let it bleed through in my writing here as much as possible. It's time to weed out people who act like asses to their peers, or their behavior.
  t/e
  18:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And I say it's time to weed asses censors who run around policing other people for every single word. Cossack has a right to demand an apology, you do not. By the way, since you say you "go out of my way to not let it bleed through", I demand you to strike the word "asses" from your post, then I will strike out it from mine. `'Míkka>t 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done. The point Mikka is that sounding calm and non-inflammatory, ESPECIALLY if you're an admin, is very important. Contrary to Guy's tone above, acting like a bastard or sounding like one really isn't acceptable, especially if coming from any position of perceived authority. Would you be willing to try to moderate your tone going forward?
  t/e
  18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Next time you start policing, please be advised than in some cultures calling someone "ass" will have your throat cut. And no I will not stop beating my wife. `'Míkka>t 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is just a wildly inappropriate response.
  t/e
  19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Harrass Mikkalai long enough and he makes rude comments - I'm not sure you should find that surprising. WilyD 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Retract or refactor this at once. I have done no harassing of any sort. You are out of line.
  t/e
  19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, no. My comments accurate reflect reality, whereas yours simply don't. WilyD 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Then I consider a false accusation of harassment to be a personal attack, and consider yourself warned. Provide evidence or this is a violation against me.
  t/e
  20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fortunately, I haven't made any such false claim - but feel free to make baseless accusations about my behaviour. I shan't object. WilyD 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• You accused me of harassing Mikkalai. Where is the evidence of my harassing him? I asked him to tone down the language on the article talk page after seeing this thread, and that's my entire involvement here beyond this section of ANI. How is that harassment? Are admins not to be challenged by non-admins for their behavior? I have made no false assertations, while you may be trying to poison the well here. I want to AGF that this is not the case.
  t/e
  20:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you guys cut this out? This isn't helping anything. John Reaves 20:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Okie dokie, would Lawrence and WilyD both kindly leave the room please? Both clearly off topic as none of your last several posts have mentioned the subject at hand. Both leaving now would be best for both good editors.

• Let's not make Wikipedia into the kind of culture where saying the wrong thing will get your throat cut. This is a collaborative project. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Would Mikkalai agree that we do not block people for not immediately adding references? That his or her block suggestion was unwarranted? The use of fuck should be apologized for, sure, but as for what's pertinent to AN/I, I think we could just wind this down if Mikkalai agrees there was no need to suggest blocking in this situation. Marskell (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Writing an article without providing good references may be bad editing style, and it may result in substandard or incorrect content, but it's hardly

a blockable offense. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak)

19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai block review

• arb · rfc · lta · socks
  )

My stomach turned. I have blocked for twelve hours. If someone knows this editor, I'd suggest contacting to see if there isn't some personal matter that is upsetting them. I have absolutely no ill-intent and am completely uninvolved. But this is absolutely not acceptable commentary. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree based on that comment. I've never had any kind of innuendo or threat like that leveraged at me before. On

t/e

19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not endorsing the block (or unblock) but blocking historically has proven to do exactly the opposite of "cooling someone down", so much so, that it even says not to do it in the blocking policy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. He'd been responding extremely negatively to any commentary here, including saying I'd get my throat cut (!). Is this block to stop him from saying something even worse that will get him a longer block or desysopped?

t/e

19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this the block should not be for a cool down period. It should be clear that the block is prevent language, that when used, tends to create a hostile environment and makes it more difficult for the community to function. Ronnotel (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know this guy, that can say something to him?[8]

"Solemn pledge of muteness

Since wikipedia is full of sickos happy to jump at conclusions, and since the adminship is infested with trigger-happy cowboys, I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever."

This isn't helping.

I think this is a sound block, I doubt he'll come storming out of it with more comments like that. John Reaves 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm concerned for him. I posted a message to his talk page [9]. Moments later, he erased it leaving a comment "P.S. And no I will never stop beating my wife." [10] Everybody has bad days, but this level of anger isn't like Mikka. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a good block, in my opinion - what part of blocking policy justifies this block? It wasn't a physical threat, in my reading, and I think that while his edit summary wasn't sooper-civil (it contained a swear!!) it also isn't necessarily justification for an AN/I thread.

I stand mute on the overarching issues of this thread, but I do note that threats of violence do qualify as personal attacks per

WP:NPA are blockable. I concur that the block probably won't be a net positive, but the alternatives of a warning or ignoring the comment altogther are, in my mind, even less palatable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it was an ill-advised comment, among other ill advised comments, and he's clearly a bit worked up at the moment... But I don't think the "throat cut" comment qualifies as personal attack or physical threat, more like a tit for tat about language and what people get offended by.

^T

19:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The block is for preventative reasons I believe, as he seems to be having a go at anyone who tries to have a go at him, and his comment "Since wikipedia is full of sickos happy to jump at conclusions, and since the adminship is infested with trigger-happy cowboys, I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever." seems to be a classic case of projection at the moment. Admins are not immune to being blocked I hope, or there'd be a clear caste system on wiki. Everyone says this is out of character. As I said of myself once in the one instance I was warned for disparaging another editor, and I believe is the case for Mikkalai if what you say bout this being surprising from him is true, he will soon be saying that "normal service has been resumed." :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The block is appropriate to prevent Mikka further poisoning the atmosphere and throwing any further toys out of his pram. Playful characterisations of "oh, he's a grumpy old bastard so it's okay" are ludicrous and unhelpful.

☎

20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Hammersoft’s point, I’m a little concerned for Mikkalai too. As I tried to suggest above and on his talk, this person may need to someone to talk to right now. That was my immediate impression. It’s just a twelve hour block, precisely because it’s preventative. If he or she was willing to post a sentence as reprehensible as the one I repeated above, what would the next comment have looked like? For Mikka’s own sake, it’s better that Mikka isn’t posting right now.

So no Avruch, I cannot agree with you. That the editor is an administrator has nothing to do with whether the post is acceptable. One doesn’t have to say “I will kill you” to be making physical threats; this was obviously an unacceptable reference to physical assault. The block may not be a net positive (that will depend on Mikka’s overall state of mind) but as UltraExactZZ says, simply letting something like this go is even worse. Marskell (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I didn't really mean to imply that he should be immune from a block as an administrator - I just don't see a reference to a physical assault as the same thing as a physical threat or personal attack. It was just a dumb comment, and it by itself isn't enough to warrant a block in my opinion (which is the minority here, it seems!).

^T

20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As an administrator he should be held to the same standards as general editors. If he makes a personal attack. He gets warned. If it continues, he gets warned again. This page is wholly appropriate for discussing the behavior of another administrator, especially in this case from what I have observed. However, the block was a relatively poor idea for the reasons already stated. Cool down blocks are a no no. An admin should know that. Finally, I do believe after the release it will continue or escalate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And so you just keep warning him ad infinitum, and that solves the problem? Of course a cool-down period is warranted, maybe even longer than 12 hours. A new editor would be blocked indef in a heartbeat for a comment like that. Seriously.

masterka

20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty cynical. I've never seen a new user blocked immediately for making such a comment - It would be construed as a personal attack and taken from there. And who said anything about incessantly warning. I'm saying the admin should have been warned as normal and THEN blocked under policy. I also disagree that this form of block was "preventive" I think we're splitting hairs here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all condoning this behavior. I believe such vitriol coming from an admin is sickening to say the least, but there are channels. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this again several hours later I'd say you're probably right. :-|

masterka

23:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the received wisdom on "cool down blocks," and broadly agree—but this wasn't, precisely, a cool down block. It was preventative, as stated above, and also done because some comments are egregious enough that you simply have to block, fellow administrator or no. My comment before this one should serve as a sufficient reasoning. Marskell (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And yes, "A new editor would be blocked indef in a heartbeat for a comment like that." Marskell (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is disgusting behavior, for an administrator no less. Per

Looks more like a 'Solemn pledge of

soapboxing' to me... HalfShadow (talk

) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone should probably go ahead and pull his bit. It reflects very poorly on the project to have admins running around, acting like this. Friday (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a "cool down" block. A cool down block is usually in the range 1 to 3 hours, applied to regular editors and pass mostly without comment. One may protest them, but usually by the time anything can be done (wikitime can be glacial), well. . . the block is over, so see, no reason to be upset anymore. Why this would be ineffective is anyone's guess. R. Baley (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling Mikkalai mad was certainly as bad as anything Mikkalai did if not worse (its been refactored out of the header by some calmer individual), and I think Wily is right on this one. How come we tolerate the behaviour of some people (ie the original complainer) and not of others especially when it is an experienced contributor like Mikkalai, if this thread is bringing wikipedia into disrepute we shouldn't be blaming Mikkalai. Thanks,

Kazak has been around since 2005, Mikkalai since 2003. Both have been blocked before[11][12] but this entire situation was caused by Mikkalai's arrogant tone, initiated edit warring, implication that Kazak would be blocked on the article talk page for writing an article without immediately sourcing, and for implying I could get my throat cut.

t/e

21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

None of those things should amount to a blockable offense, IMHO. If you were to attack a knife wielding person in a country with no laws or police, you could get your throat cut. Is that a personal attack?

^T

21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think that Lawrence Cohen needs to move on. Anybody agree? This was a content dispute between two users (neither of which was LC), and everything has now been completely derailed and blown out of proportion. I looked at your contribs list LC. Just today, you've made posts regarding pictures of Muhammad, Mantanamoreland, Cumulous Clouds, waterboarding, and now Mikkalai. I didn't look at your posts, just the list. It seems you have things to say wherever controversial and wikidrama rears its face. At some point, a common denominator shows up. You seem to be drawn like a fly to a bugzapper to controversy, always seeming to have this urgency about your posts which, frankly, are filled with OMGs and "I'm so offended." In this case, nobody said they cutting your throat. Mikkalai should not be blocked. Move on, LC. For the wikilove, take the wikibreak that your userpage says you are in the middle of right now. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it speaks volumes that a thread titled "Mikkalai gone mad" can generate so much response when other threads are left virtually unanswered for long periods of time (relatively speaking of course). To be entirely honest, how many of you came here for the drama rather than a quick resolution to what was initially a minor issue?

talk

) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you going out of your way to make such comments

other guy), your "it's so unfair to Mikkalai" seems totally backwards. --Cheeser1 (talk

) 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean, what the hell is going on with this editor? (There's possibly some ironic sensibility in the comments on wife beating that I'm not getting.) Really, is anyone talking to him? Obviously, he doesn't like me right now because I blocked him, but there was no punitive desire on my part. But it seems like Mikka is a little mad right now (not insane, just very angry) and we should find out why. This doesn't make me think blocking for twelve hours was wrong—we need a block, until we have a calm channel to talk to him. Marskell (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

His reference to "beating his wife", to me, is a clear reference to the

Fallacy of many questions argument posted above, and has nothing to do with actually "beating your wife". In fact, type this: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and see where it redirects for an explanation. He was making a logical conclusion basically that no matter what he answered, he wouldbe be condemned by the answer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

22:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, I've seen "When did you stop beating your wife?" used as a rhetorical device. The larger question remains, though: is anyone talking to Mikka? Marskell (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So Mikka has a temper. What's new? Yes, I support warning him; all users need to be civil. I am not sure the block was warranted, and I am sure Mikka is not the only party who is at fault. He does not loose his temper unless provoked, and quite obviously some users have handled this with a sledgehammer and bad faith assumptions. Cool down, and learn from it. I am certainly not suggesting that even prolific editors like Mikka should be treated differently; but I am certainly suggesting some people should be more careful and good-faithed when dealing with others.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly. The solution to Mikka being provoked to anger is not to block Mikka, it's to investigate the background, which is probably (as usual) Mikka fighting for NPOV against a horde of POV-pushers. It's a question of whether one should treat the symptom or the cause. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Absoloutely a good block. We do not tolerate that kind of incivility threats or aggression on wikipedia. Viridae^Talk 10:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• How many warnings is Mikka going to get? I'm disgusted at the amount of leeway he gets every time he loses his temper. People continue to suggest warning him, even though that has proven not to work. If he is so easily provoked, perhaps he should consider doing something else less stressful. --Kbdank71 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears

User talk:HalfShadow#Spears' / Spears's

Now I literally do not care which it is; I just reverted something in the article in question and thought to myself 'Spears' seems to be right, or at least tidier', so I changed all instances of Spears's to Spears'. Oidia changed it back and gave me a couple of examples of this having come up before. Fine. As I said here and in my reply: I don't really care one way or the other, I was just gnoming. Thing is, after Oidia changed it back, someone else reverted it to my version, which means I might be responsible for creating a bit of an edit war. HalfShadow (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A look at the two article talk apges shows that both are correct. i suggest that the entire article be edited one way, OR the other, holistically after consensus is adopted for one, or the other manner. I further suggest that after that, the regular editors can simply refer to that section on the talk as evidence of consensus either way. (personally, I usually hear it on radio and TV as spears', with no hold or emphasis on a second s, as in Spears's, but either way is apparently acceptable). ThuranX (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say Spears', intuitively. Spears's just looks wrong on the page to me. Although I know that both are right, and probably Spears's is more right to some people lol. We should ask User:MrMarmite as he has the opposite view and he alters the article to reflect it frequently, along with other articles which mention her. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Both forms are correct according to reliable sources (e.g., the Merriam-Webster Style Manual), with the terminal apostrophe being more common in practice. Note "intuitively" doesn't always work with that strange cobbled-together language we call English. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it makes no difference to me, I just didn't want to be responsible for maybe sparking an edit war, especially over something so small. HalfShadow (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I don't know if I am doing this right, but I noticed, along with User:Edgarde and User:Aitias that Anonymous user User:99.248.22.88 has vandalized two articles, Eazy-E and Laws of thermodynamics. The vandalisms on Laws of Thermodynamics, [13] and [14] were done on January 28 and hence have been undone, but today he vandalized Eazy-E with three obviously racist edits: [15], [16] and [17]. He was warned by Edgarde about the Eazy-E article, User talk:99.248.22.88, but I am concerned that he might make more disruptive edits. And they were extremely racist as well. If I am doing this wrong, please let me know. I hope the admins can do something to prevent more vandalism. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You've done everything right. His contribution history,

a block. There are exceptions to this, for instance, if the article is being constantly being vandalised, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Seicer (talk) (contribs

) 05:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Small correction: you don't have to wait until a user has received four warnings before reporting them to the vandalism noticeboard. What's important is that they have received a level three or four warning, which mentions that they might be blocked, and vandalize again. Then they can be reported and blocked. Natalie (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We suspect that these IP addresses

Those 59.92.* are PONDHEEPANKAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 05:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to open a case methinks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Was awoken to a message on my talk page today. Found it strange since i was "allowed" to download something. Took a look at the history of the user and finding comments like: "I'm MOD-Genisis. I am an official moderator for Wikipedia, and am joyed to help keep Wikipedia a SAFE and CLEAN enviroment!" which he is not, combined with "script end". I suspect the user was trying to insert malicious JavaScript into Wikipedia pages (and failed luckily). Someone might want to take a look? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what he's doing, but I've warned them that they have to immediately stop suggesting they're Wikipedia staff of any sort, and I'll indef if they keep this up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been indef-blocked by Kurt Shaped Box (talk · contribs) --Calton | Talk 14:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed

Hi. My name is Gabriel "Bong" Daza. and I would like to write my own Wikipedia as all I read about in the Google search is that I am the husband of Gloria Diaz, the 1st Miss Universe of The Philippines. and also that I am the son of Nora Daza, the restaurateur.

I also put up our Philippines Resaturant in Paris after I graduate college in Cornell U in 1973. and helped my mom with our Maharlika resataurant, in New York.At the Philippine center on 5th avenue.

I was also elected twice as number 1 councilor of Makati City, having the most number of votes.

I was also head of Makai Pollution Control Office which I created via an ordinance I authored as councilro of Mkati., etc.. drtc..

if you think i shouldd have my own Bong Daza wikipedia, please reply to this notice or email me at email removed

thank you for your attention and re[ly to this matter.

hoping to hear from you soon.

Bong Daza Makati City Philipppines email: email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.194.40 (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This noticeboard is about incidents that might require the intervention of

Wikipedia administrators. This is not such an incident, and no intervention from admins is needed. You might be better served on the new contributors' help page‎. Aecis^Brievenbus

13:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this the wiki equivalent of a

419 <g>?--WebHamster

13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No. Will ^(talk) 16:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Douglasfgrego was blocked February 16 indefinately for disruptive conduct. He submitted 3 unblock requests over the weekend, and another one today, for which his user page was locked for abuse of the unblock template, with the following explanation:

Decline reason: "Nope. Now your talk page is protected for continued misuse of the unblock template."

A thorough review of the exchange resulting in the block of this user would show a permanent ban to be excessive, at the least.

• incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations;

• accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely;

Perhaps disruptive, but a quick review of the account history clearly shows this account was not used primarily for the purpose of disruption

He obviously disagreed with this decision, and when he tried to get his account reactivated, his account discussion page was locked.

This incidents surrounding the block and lock on this account highlight a strong need for revision, or imposition of formal, indefinate block, unblock protocols.

For example, a user facing an indefinate block should receive warnings, and a direct communication from the admin considering imposing the ban. This communication should be addressed TO the individual, rather then a stern ultimatum AT the individual. Many people do not respond well to ultimatums. Perhaps a checklist of the steps leading up to the block, and all indefinate blocks should be subject to formal review and approval. This being the most severe consequence of misconduct, it should not be treated lightly. A simple one line explanation is inappropriate. Without the checklist, review and approval - or second, an account block should have an expiration, 24, 48, 72, hours, etc.

Additionally, the structure of the unblock review procedure is far to casual. All unblock requests, but particularly of an indefinate block, should receive a formal review which includes correspondence with the original parties to the block. Approval or denial of an unblock request should at the minimum cite legitimate grounds for the decision. Everyone is entitled to a basic level of respect, including blocked users. Any administrator unwilling, or unable to treat users, and their concerns with the proper respect, should not engage in this process. The follwing Decline reason: "Nope. Now your talk page is protected for continued misuse of the unblock template" does not show the proper respect for the individual, the process, or the project.

It is my most sincere hope that the critical protocols receive the attention and improvement clearly needed.

I nominate User:DouglasFGrego for unblock, or a time limit to the block.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Douglasfgrego --57.69.22.246 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Does this, this, this, this, this, or this strike anyone as an editor that Wikipedia really needs? Thought not. Black Kite 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• One also wonders why Mr. .246/Grego refers to himself in the third person.[18] Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Because, Ray, the hope was to obtain the slightest semblance of objectivity.

And Kite, you seem to take for granted that it's a rhetorical question, when in fact there have been a few understanding participants that disagree your position. Additionally, one of the examples cited was self-censored after consideration. --57.69.22.246 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Two letters. What a thorough, and erudite review and explanation. --57.69.22.246 (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it just? Will ^(talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire. Wikipedia is not a beaurocracy...Users don't get to be a pain repeatedly while receiving successively higher blocks. Blocks aren't punishments designed to correct behavior, and as such, aren't metted out like prison sentances. This account was an unremittent problem, and has been blocked. I see no reason to unblock it based on some perceived lack of "process", since I see no evidence that the account is likely to stop the behavior. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

One picture has been chenged that smoke other people now showing. Therefore, no problem anymore and that picture is my(Yoichi J. Takahashi)original Picture and my friend had taken me at Los Angeles California at 1998. Otherwise I couldn't understand about what kind of Violence so forth. However if you have an any problem, please let me know about this picture. Lawer of the website. <[email protected]>

I think I speak for all of the administrators here at Wikipedia when I say: What?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean: whaddaheck? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is why ANI was vandalised. Seicer (t | c) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Related to [19] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving his forthcoming CV url as a heading is ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No (I removed it) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Debate is closed Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I listed

He being Bwmoll3 (talk · contribs). Seicer (t | c) 17:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Left a note, with a list of incivility, personal attacks (bordering) and general bad-faith assumptions. Seicer (t | c) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He's apologized for the incivility on my talk page. Let me know if there are lingering issues. Seicer (t | c) 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Debate is closed as delete and redirect all titles to their respective albums, per consensus and per

This user is repeatedly deleting CFD templates despite a warning and possibly is the same user blocked earlier today for similar behavior and belligerent, abusive comments. Whoville (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would report the IP to

WP:AIV if they are still active and after sufficient warnings. If it continues under another anon with a similar IP string, I would warn, tag them as suspected sockpuppets and file a case including same user blocked earlier today as the sockpuppeteer. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User seems to just be contributing and statements were clear that user provided refferences on a new article. --ThambeEeE (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved.

talk

) 08:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sonam is not allowing others to Contribute. User:Soman is disrupting important information that was requested by Politicians and others to create. All refferences with pages have been provided. User:Sonam seems to be incooperative by nominating important articles and related articles which must be made. User fails to understand recent activties and Joint Operations which have been taken place recently. --99.238.6.68 (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sonam is disrupting important information that was requested by Politicians and others to create. Excuse me? Are openly admitting that these were created in response to solicitiation by politicians? Can we say

talk

) 08:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)