Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive402

SeattleJoe has just posted this and this, targeting myself and ErgoSum88 over edits made to the Incest article.

I think these warnings are wholly unacceptable; threatening to 'call the cops' on editors you disagree with is practically a legal threat. I don't appreciate being compared to a child molester, either. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He states, in a admittedly very melodramatic way "If anyone insists on expressing, or even implying, the "opinion" that sex between adults and children is ever not criminal, that it is not always sexual abuse, in this article, or anywhere else I may become aware of, allow me to hereby notify them to cease and desist. If they do not, I will, literally, call the cops." Well, I trust that the "if anyone description doesn't apply to anyone. Factually, such acts are normally criminal, and abusive. Who'd argue otherwise, that wasn't here to troll or advocate fringe nonsense? Too hypothetical to be a real threat. But he should calm down.--

Doc

^g 09:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I initially blocked based on the diffs, but reversed myself and am engaging in dialogue. I read it as a threat of police action; I'll watch his reaction. Hopefully this doesn't open a can. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a case of getting a little over-passionate about the topic for one reason or another. It's easy to do, and doesn't really warrent a block, and even if a block was place, it shouldn't be a long one. See if calms down first, and see how he interects before thinking about blocks. A caution wouldn't go amiss though. Lradrama 10:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A little over-passionate is an understatement. A simple look at this editor's contribution history shows he or she is pushing a POV and does not wish to back down. Not only is SeattleJoe trying to own the Incest article, as seen here and here, but this user has clearly issued a legal threat (in addition to attempting to dictate to others how to edit) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. I'd say a block, or at least a strong censure, is more than warranted. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to report this user myself but see someone beat me to it. SeattleJoe has clearly violated WP policies against making legal threats. He's also openly stated on the talk page at

WP:OWN, etc. WP is not therapy. This person shows no sign of listening to anyone outside of his shrill soapboxing and deserves to be blocked. The Quiet Man (talk

) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on the user's talk page seems to show that the user is convinced (and quite paranoid) that people are trying to "downplay the seriousness of child abuse". I don't know where he got this from but it's ludicrous, absurd, not based in fact and whatever other fancy terms I can come up with that mean WRONG. And he doesn't show any sign of letting go of it. As noted at the top, I also do not appreciate being compared to a child molestor just because of style disagreements. The Quiet Man (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this thread and I think the user has all the signs of a fixated SPA with who-knows-what in his thoughts. The notion users are trying to "downplay the seriousness of child abuse" is codswallop. The threat to call the police if he sees any text he doesn't like is more or less hollow but will have a chilling effect on any general interest editor's willingness to put up with such disruption in discussions and editing. After some thought, unless he can be reasoned with (which may not be too likely), I would call for a block, for both the legal threat (which could easily turn into some kind of general threat of civil action) and disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That analysis seems dead on, and I too would support a block should the user not readily demonstrate himself to be willing to comport his editing with our conduct policies and practices. Joe 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not every "threat" involving the law is a blockable legal threat.

• "If you post text-X I will sue you" is a clear legal threat, blockable per
  WP:LEGAL
• "If you threaten violent-act-Y I will report you to the police" is not a blockable legal threat, indeed it is the recommended course of action according to
  WP:VIOLENCE
  .
• "If you commit crime-Z I will report you to the police" is not a legal threat at all; it is an affirmation of responsible citizenship.
• "If you post text-X I will report you to the police" is what SeattleJoe actually said. It's somewhere in the middle. If he sees the act of posting the contentious material as being criminal, of course he would feel justified in calling the police. This isn't a matter for blocking, but for discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The worry would be, it seems likely he'll read something worded in a way he doesn't like and go on about it. Reporting a crime (or advocacy of a crime) to the police is a given, there's no need to specifiy it on a talk page, that's disruption. It's like announcing on a talk page, "If any editor here reveals, or attempts to reveal, any identifying personal information about me, I'll call the police, call their ISP, post it to ANI and have them blocked." Un-needed, unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reblocked SeattleJoe for making the same type of post after I had told him in no uncertain terms not to and for promising to war over it if it were removed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; even if it doesn't entail legal problems, even if it isn't intended to produce a chilling effect, it's still tendentious. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He's just posted a long screed on his userpage, announcing that he's reported us all to the FBI and warning us to purge the kiddie porn from our hard drives and then discard them to avoid prosecution. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all of us, he didn't. Thanks,

SqueakBox

23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice, might it be time to lock down his page and stop

talk

) 14:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was locked last night [1], and trimmed [2] of troll-bait just a couple of minutes after Orangemike posted his message here. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The page was protected last night for a different reason - see

below. I have full-protected it; he's just blown any chance at returning. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko}

) 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This guy has been doing nothing but making nonsense edits on talk pages. Looks like blog comment spam, but without any links.--

) 10:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Might this be related to the discussion here?

talk

) 12:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll. Should be blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

TAMLIN HODGKINSON; It made sense to me at the time - it realises satire of the CIA world factbook terminology approach, but apathy rules metal, so you know, apologies...

repeatedly and summarily reverted valid edits on an article, despite cited supporting comments on the Talk page, and marked the changes as minor.

The initial edit that I encountered was a reversion of two edits that I had made: revision history. The user's edit comment for the change, "reservoirs don't have to hold water," underrepresented the extent of the change and belied the reversion. Simply reverting valid edits without making any effort at modification is in itself is poor form, as described at Help:Reverting. In this case, my edit comments also described basis for changes and referred to comments at the talk page, making summary reversion the more remarkable. The user did not address my comments at the Talk page.

What further caught my attention is that the user disguised their reversions as minor edits, and a check of recent contributions indicates this to be a pattern. Such behavior seems a rather blatant flouting of the guidelines that edits be marked as minor only if changes would not disputed be.

The user's edit comment on the second reversion, "suggest you provide some content, rather than contention," seems ironic, at best, and contributed to my conclusion that engaging them was unlikely to be productive. In combination with the pattern of marking reversions as minor, it seemed appropriate to report the issue here in an effort to address the community concern of an overall pattern in tone and behavior. ENeville (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please follow

dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Death threat?

On this diff User:Camilo Sanchez has stated "Look, you gotta thank god you can hide behind a computer of else I would have provided you with a beautiful Colombian necktie." Personally, I find this slightly disconcerting. Would another admin please warn or block the user concerned. I am far too involved to do anything. Thanks. Woody (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a

H₂O

) 10:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So between us, we've left a chord. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...(no blocks). Thoughts on this?

H₂O

) 10:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've indefblocked this user. Death threats are not allowed under any circumstances. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but I doubt the user was serious, and if he retracts/apologies/doesn't do it again, then he should be unblocked. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Autism

Are there any admins looking to help and mentor an autistic user like me? Is it wrong to edit Wikipedia if you are autistic? I know some of my articles have not been up to parr but I am trying! Plz. respond.

talk

) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jean, some say a lot of editors on wikipedia are autistic, whether they've been diagnosed officially or not.:) I don't think you'll be out of place here. Welcome to wikipedia and enjoy your time editing. Merkin's mum 10:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban

i would like to request a ban for 220.238.94.203 for continually making unneccessary edits to Westfield Doncaster. he has not put references or proved he knows for sure about stats he put on the page. --Thfrang 06:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang (talk • contribs)

Technically - you werent very civilised either. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides. Edit warring isnt really going to help is it? Thats what a

Talk Page is for - to discuss things. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button}

) 06:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving a warning like this isn't being very collaborative either. Talk it out and be

chatter

) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One last thing - fitness first should not be on the page as it is not listed on the official store list. [3] Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 07:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly removed a "cabal" listing from Wikipedia:List of cabals, but User:Allstarecho continues to add it back, telling me I need to "grow up", and accusing me of stalking. This user has been uncivil about this and refuses to actually discuss, instead, preferring to insults. This stems out of a MfD that resulted in a template of his being deleted as an attack template, him re-writing it, me submitting the re-write for deletion because I wasn't quite comfortable with the re-write and wanting other opinions, which I got and withdrew my nomination. Because of this, he has resorted to declaring that I am stalking him and placing this indirect attack on this page.

I am aware of the big purple box at the top regarding the intended humor of the topic, and that there are bigger things to worry about. However, when one user is the sole subject of the humor, it ceases to be humor and becomes an attack. If I'm wrong in placing this here, that's fine, but this user has a [4] history of incivility and being blocked for it]. I don't want him blocked, I just want this attack against me to stay removed. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This has also been listed at

11

15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As a side note,

talk

) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is

the presence of other stuff a valid reason to keep/remove something? I would prefer that the administrators determine if this is a waste of time or not (as I stated in my original posting), not someone who constantly interjects themselves into every discussion I have on this subject and has a pre-existing bias against me. Justinm1978 (talk

) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have left a reply at

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Incivility on Wikipedia:List of cabals. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo

01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As noted

talk

) 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain what the point of you putting this here after you | said you were done with this pointless conversation. If it is so pointless, why do you continue to participate? I'm not sure of what Justin wants in this situation I said in the beginning, I want this personal attack to stay deleted. I wouldn't be beating a dead horse if someone wasn't beating the same dead horse just as much. Please leave this to the administrators and maintain some civility as well. Justinm1978 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Justin, if you want to continue this junior-high game of tattle-tell and screaming for attention from an admin (notice, none of them have replied to you here), then do so on my

talk

) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, go work on your articles and maintain civility. This is only getting dragged out because you continue to participate. You do not own ANI. Justinm1978 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to move the Igorburger and East718 thread to their own subpages, and was reverted. This page is 308 kilobytes long. Please if subpages can't be used in these two cases, I don't seem to find another a solution. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The East718 discussion may warrant a subpage, but we're still trying to attract attention at the Igorberger discussion. Please don't move it off the main page. Thank you.Equazcion •✗/C • 22:29, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igorberger certainly needs wide consensus. Leave it on the main page, no opinion on East 718. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• This page is 407 kilobytes long as restored. Please consider placing them on subpages. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd welcome a proposal at

WP:VPR to start a practice like this, but just doing it with absolutely no prior discussion is not helpful. People currently don't know to look at subpages. Having a discussion take place here means people will see it more in their watchlists, because everyone has ANI watchlisted and can see that the discussion is very active, so they may decide to chime in on it. The practice in general might be something to explore further, but one person suddenly deciding to move discussions off this page is really not the way to go. Equazcion •✗/C •

22:46, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• And it particularly disrupted the impetus on the conversation that was taking place (not to mention the mess it made with edit conflicts).--VS ^talk 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah I was in the middle of commenting when the move occurred. Anyway I hope it gets back on track now that this mess is over. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:51, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer subpages be used less often. Often, as said above, creating a subpage disrupts the impetus of the discussion or limits the discussion to an unrepresentative portion of the community, if only inadvertently. --Iamunknown 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction was that the move helped (as it was meant to), but then I quickly had second thoughts, much like User:Iamunknown's. It broke the thread and because it came without warning, caused a flurry of edit conflicts. It was a long thread but it was ending: Soon after it was restored the incident was resolved and the thread was archived. If a thread gets so long that it's bogging down this page for some, I suggest discussing any move first. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the patern of work and insults it appears, the multi-blocked user Kay Körner has returned after a few weeks of peace and quiet. Under the new username

) 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can vouch for this. I dealt somewhat with the original situation, and this new user and the IPs are using very similar edit summaries ("rv bast. vandalism", etc.). An indefinite block for Shdgh as a SPA is definitely in order. --clpo13_(talk) 02:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The user has been active again, reverting

talk

) 11:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please redirect conversation to correct place if this isn't it. Can an experienced administrator please review the above. I'd appreciated someone placing the strictest appropriate warning on the huge number of vandal editors. Nearly every single edit by an IP was vandalism. Also a couple of them bothered to make accounts so if they could be warned as well. I'm 100% willing to accept a warning on my own talkpage if someone decides it is needed for consistency. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, looking here there has been 1 IP vandal in the last two months, who has received a warning for the edit. There are 21 edits to this article over 5 years only 2 IP's were blatant vandalism. No blocks or further action is necessary. ^Khukri 12:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hangon, it's the redirect that being hit, Oxymoron83 has put semi-prot in place and am looking through the accounts and most have been blocked as single purpose, will put a semi-prot on the main article as well. The IP's most of them have stopped editing or have been blocked so blocks on the rest would be punitive and not to stop disruption, which is not what they are for. Cheers ^Khukri 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Please note I didn't ask for blocks. I asked for the most stringent warning available to be issued by someone who is more experienced (I don't want any accusations against me when I'm trying to help). The history of the page I was speaking of showed it's creation as a redirect and then for some reason the next edit had today's date and the vandalism ensued. Again I wasn't asking for blocks against everyone just for the most appropriate warning to go on the user page so everything could be on record and above board. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The ever-problematic

) 12:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: as I went to link the diff, I see Fred Bauder has just moved in with a ban under NLT. More people experienced with this sort of thing might want to weigh in to defuse the situation. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The situation is defused, the IP has been blocked for 1 month per

WP:LEGAL. Rgoodermote

  13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another instance of a hatchet job by "insiders" on the unsuspecting

Resolved

 – Nothing further can come from this discussion here

What about this conflict still requires the attention of administrators on AN/I? Is there an admin action remaining to be done (or undone) or is this thread basically rehashing the same issue over and over at this point? Reading the above, I'm not even sure exactly what the current status is. Who is blocked/unblocked/banned/vanished?

18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Adambro (talk · contribs) vs. Crimsone (talk · contribs)

• I want an apology. This is not acceptable, and should be acknowledged as such

The first encounter ( [[8]] ) I have had with an admin named Adambro has resulted in repeated incivility. Adambro, rather than commenting on my contributions, decided to comment on me personally in a negative sense regarding my memory of an obvious and unforgettable wikipedia principle (namely, the whole "be bold" thing). I find this to be unacceptable on it's own but would usually let it pass. However, Adambro opted to do this in the third person while replying to the comment I had just made, before once more referring to me directly - " Crimsone seems to forget this is a wiki where users are encouraged to be bold whilst of course remembering our key polices and guidelines."

This left me inclined, in my reply to Adambro, to point out the incivility inherent in that remark, which one would assume is likely to leave anybody with the realisation that it did not amuse me, and I infact found it offensive - apparently it was intended for the discussion as a whole, though at that point there were only the two of us discussing it. However, rather than apologising for any unintentional offence, or even just plain ignoring it, what I got in reply involved yet more incivility through a complete failure to assume good faith...

"You're welcome to stand up for a "better way" but perhaps consider avoiding suggesting other editors are not being civil whilst you do so. Certainly annoying other editors who you happen to disagree with is not going to make the Wiki any better, better for you perhaps but not better for the readers."

... whereas all I'd done was to argue a point without getting anymore personal than to point out that to negatively and without very good sound cause, refer personally to an editor who's comment you are responding to in the third person is incivil, and certainly should be done merely because you disagree with someone. It should be fairly clear that making personall suppossitions about people publically is not ok. I did my best to make it clear, but apparently, I am out for me and my own ego rather than the good of the encylopedia - lets not forget here that if Adambro has seen my other contributions, he'll have realised that I've been a member here since 2005, am a rollback user (granted to me by complete suprise by the way... I didn't ask, but was one of the first to get it seems) have contributied significantly to, and nominated an FA which was accepted... blah, blah, - and if he hadn't seen my other contributions, he had no business making such remarks, having no good grounds on which to make them.

This is where I demanded an apology. The emphatic answer came back "No", the reasoning roughly being that he's an administrator, and so has substantial experience thus clearly knows better than I do about all these things, and I am the one that's wrong for being offended. You know... up untill that second insult, I could almost have ignored it had it not come from an administrator, but administrators aren't supposed to be administrators unless they are inclined to follow the rules and guidelines as best as possible and set an example. I somehow doubt that

really aplies to me getting an apology... yet it was all but implied, in that I was categorically told that he would discuss it no further because it was all getting in the way of making the encylopedia better, and simply wasn't going to apologise. Apparently, debating the issue of him offering an apology for his incivility is a "waste of time". In the process of which, I get my command of my mother tongue (English) insulted - where, I do believe, I have a userbox clearly on my userpage, quite clearly stating I am a native speaker - not to mention that I've used it pretty well, and the only possibly cause he had to assume my english to be anything but a first language is that he couldn't apparently see (after I'd explained it) why I should make note of his original incivility. Fact is, I'm sick of the incivility on her, and I'm sick of being personally slurred by implications and suppositions, and patronised as though I only arived todat when I mention something wrong with an article on a talk page... I'm not about to let it go unchecked from an admin, because if an admin is free to do it, then what's to stop anybody else?

So... after explaining again why it was incivil, and that I want an apology for the lack of good faith and the incivility, and the insult over my command of my mother tongue... And in fact I demand that apology (and in the process agreeing that the venue for the continuing conversation was wrong, and pointing out that thus without an apology to end it, I would bring the issue here)... and finally making the point "one further thing... what makes you think it's in the slightest way OK to get personal with me at all, let alone in the third person to the rest of the discussion as you say? Whatever happened to "discuss the contribution, not the contributor?", I get...

"Well considering that English is your first language then it surprises me even more that simply referring to to you in the third person was enough to start upsetting you to merit you mentioning it. I will once again inform you that I will not be apologising for what you perceive I may have done wrong and your threats of raising this at ANI will not prompt me to. Good night.!"

...in reply. Apart from the obvious dissatisfaction with that response, and apart from the obvious fact that what I "percieve" is in fact what is there... namely, ...

• A third person supposition of my inability to remember and recall key Wikipedia principles
• An assertion that I'm damaging the encyclopedia through being out for myself rather than the encyclopedia
• An insulting comment suggesting poor command of my mother tongue to the point it would be suprising if it were my first language
• An assertion that I am being unreasonable in being offended at the original third person supposition
• An assertion that all of this incivility is in my mind, and that I don't know what's incivil as well as he does, as he lorded his administratorship as though that meant I couldn't possibly surpass his experience (whatever happened to administratorship not being a big deal?)
• A failure to assume good faith

... I finally get ...

• An accusation that my mention of ANI was some kind of threat, thus suggesting a lack of integrity n my part, a sense of untouchability on his, and once more demonstrating a lack of good faith

...when in reality it was merely a run of the mill fact, and here I am, on AN/I, taking to discussion to a more appropriate venue (which is the reason I'm here with it now and not there - and the only reason). All I want, and all I wanted after the second round of incivility, was an apology for it. And that's still all I want now... and administrator or not, after that behaviour, I rather feel I deserve one. In fact, after that lot, I'd demand an apology of any editor. It's not, in my view, something that is excusable in someone who cites their administrator status as evidence of some manner of superiority in understanding of wiki's basic rules in the least though. I want a simple apology, that's all - is it really so much to ask? I do believe it's even mentioned as a recommended course of action by the relevant policy. Crimsone (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like both of you are being petulant and combative. He should stop being a prat and accept that you want an apology; you should stop being a prat and accept that he doesn't feel like apologizing. Failure to assume good faith is not a fault of one party, here, but both. Sometimes civility means being the bigger person and moving on. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No... I'm just demanding an apology for invivility. Originally, I merely noted the uncivil comment. If was th proceeding, worse, instance of incivility with it's inherant lack of good faith that's got me demanding an apology, and his insistance that he's done no wrong and that I'm being unreasonable in being offended that's got me entrenched in said position. All I want is all I asked for - a simple apology for failure to AGF. That there has been a gfailure to AGF is evident, and that there has been incivility is evident. I have not failed to abserve AGF, but rather, no sooner did I mention that I considered the original comment incivil, no good faith has been shown. Quite simply, all I've got is a string of further incivility and insults, when a simple apology would have sufficed (and indeed, had there not been that second instance of incivility, not even an apology would have been required. I see little unreasonable in that. Whether he meant to be or not, he was uncivil, and on seeing it pouinted out, the next course of action is ignorance (ie, moving on) or apology - not further incivility and insults. I was prepared for the moving on option.) Crimsone (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking an off-the-cuff remark as a "slur," demanding an apology for it, demanding further apologies when your counterpart doesn't suddenly reverse their position or stroke your ego at the expense of their own, implying several times that the other user is a terrible Wikipedian and a stain on the community, repeatedly inferring nefarious motives, compiling a growing list of your counterpart's offenses even as you lecture them for failing to assume good faith... yeah, obviously you are a paragon of AGF, here. :p 76.114.18.153 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello IP 76.114.18.153. If you read what I wrote here (and indeed, perhaps if you read the original discussion), you will find that that off the cuff remark (which was indeed incivil, though I did not call it a slur, but good call - it was a slur of sorts, intentional or not) was merely noted with the same half-serious off the cuff tone that the remark was given in... a sort of "touche" at the very worst. It was only after the second round aimed my way that I demanded an apology. At NO point did I call Adambro a terrible wikipedian, or a stain on the community. I didn't imply any nafarious motives (and if I felt they were particularly there in an admin, I'd be suggesting more than a demand of an apology), nor did I compile a growing list. That was indeed the list as I compiled it for this post, at this point in time, as a summary of incivility recieved to this point in time(ie, the basis for complaint). The thing is, Assume Good Faith doesn't mean that after somebody insulted you and was generally incivil to you repeatedly, then says "good night, I'm not apologising.", clearly assuming the worst of you by suggesting you are threatening AN/I (the implication of threat being of hostile intent in the hope of sanctions of some sort)... Well, AGF doesn't mean that you assume it as all because he was trying to be nice to you. It might suggest that perhaps originally the offence was not intended (which doesn't mean the comment wasn't incivil - it was), but it doesn't mean that that event and all that follows it should go unnoted. Crimsone (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Compiling a list of offenses is what anyone does, and is supposed to do, when filing a grievance. That's not an AGF violation. And I'm glad this user is merely demanding an apology rather than suggesting a de-sysop, as many users often do when their conflicts involve admins. I think an apology would be reasonable in this situation. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:44, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Oh gawd no! The whole "off with his/her head!!!" de-sysop thing is infuriating - and in some ways worse than that which I'm seeking an apology for. I don't really know why it happens, but I do know it's kind of beyond a joke at times - mostly when it's beyond all reasn. I think people tend play the de-sysop card either for politics or revenge (save for occasions where it's actually justified of course, but they are comparatively few) Crimsone (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"If you read what I wrote here" So the only reason someone might disagree with you is poor reading skills? :)

"I did not call it a slur" "some manner of slur"

"It was only after the second round..." Fair enough, that's a point in your favor.

"At NO point did I call Adambro a terrible wikipedian" Never said you did. Wonderful word, "imply."

"I didn't imply any nafarious motives" Except that you've repeatedly and apparently willfully taken the worst possible interpretation of Adam's actions. You were offended by his post, he replied (tersely) that no offense was intended and expressed confusion, and you took more offense at his unintended offense in a wonderful sort of chain reaction.

"The thing is, Assume Good Faith doesn't mean that after somebody insulted you" That's missing plenty of chances to AGF, though. Adam's already stated no insult was intended, and didn't understand why you took offense. Confused people say stupid things from time to time. It can be important to know when you're speaking with a non-fluent counterpart (granted, he could have asked more gently, if he needed to ask at all, and that sort of question is more likely to cause offense if the speaker is fluent). Likewise, we could AGF and wait to see if he continues this sort of behavior in the future, or if he learns from it.

For what it's worth, I do think he might as well just apologize to you, but I don't see the productive end in getting too caught up in it, either. 76.114.18.153 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. IP, sarcasm is what got us here, so saying things like "Wonderful word, 'imply'" and "...poor reading skills", well, let's just say "I don't see the productive end" in that. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:36, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a rant here. It was huge. then I decided not to post it. And now I'm deciding not to post. No apology, no more contribution. I'd like to say it was nice being here, but, sadly, as you can tell, for the most part, including this incident now, it wasn't. A few of you have been great - thanks. The rest of you, I have no words for. Quite soimply, I've had enough, and I will not accept that it' OK for admins to behave like this, clearly have caused opffence, whether intentional or not, and fail to apologise for it.

By the way Mr. IP, clearly your knowledge of Wikipedia is great, which isn't bad for an ip whose only 2 contributions are in fact to this discussion, over the course of a good many hours (making it very unlikely that the IP is dynamic). How about you sign in, eh? Crimsone (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've had plenty of my own encounters with editors who like to use the "seems to forget" phrasing. That seems to have been where this started. It's not exactly uncivil, but it is snide and sarcastic. About 90% of the times it's used, the person saying it doesn't actually think anyone "forgot" anything. There's simply a disagreement, and the person saying it wants to get their shots in, rather than simply voicing their disagreement.

The comment about English possibly not being your first language was harsh and completely uncalled for.

I'm not sure if an enforceable apology is in order though. I'd say probably not. I understand you're peeved, Crimsone, but you really need to develop a thicker skin. Unfortunately, people do resort to sarcasm often here, even though

WP:WQA

is a possibility, though).

That having been said, I think Adambro might do well to decide to offer an apology of his own accord, in the interest of settling this, even if offense wasn't intended and this was a misunderstanding. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:52, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I had a thick skin once, but when it got to the point where I had to walk away from just about any article I edited owing to this sort of behaviour, it caused me to leave... shortly after that FA I mentioned was promoted actually. It got to me, so I left... I tried again, (and see the result of that on my talk page! accused of comparing rape to politics of all things!!! and other stuff!) I know a thinck skin would be the easier answer, but one of the reason I'm being firm on this, is because it's this sort of behaviour that drove me away in the first place, and drives other editors away. It's not on, and even for the lighter remarks, it's about time wikipedia got back at the very least to a policy of commenting on the contribution, not the contributor. Especially for admins, who are looked up to, and are the ones that tend to be responsible for any actions dealing with such behaviour - what kind of example and hypocrisy does that set up if admins are free to partake f such behaviour themselves without apology? Crimsone (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Adambro was short with you but it sounds to me as though you're dealing with some wider worries (which is ok). You might want to keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia and you weren't discussing something which had to be sorted out straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

76.114.18.153 makes some good points. As I've already said elsewhere, I will not be apologising. Adambro (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't you just say you're sorry and not mean it? I do it all the time. It would be very adminly of you to give an apology in the interest of peace even if you don't think you did anything wrong. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:24, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

The IP makes no good points, because the points the IP makes up are all invented... they claim I said things I didn't (another thing I'm sick of)... and you will note that I answered them. Crimsone (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Demanding an apology from an administrator who is under no obligation to do so, and has stated he will not do, is only fueling more hysteria in your case. seicer | talk | contribs 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think lots of unhappiness with Wikipedia has been funneled into this wish for an apology, which seems to be sought for a lot more than the brush with Adambro. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

← It appears the user has retired over this. That is a shame. This could've been resolved with a simple apology, regardless of where the fault lay. Pride got in the way of resolving this, and now a user who's been editing for about 2 and a half years has left. Again this is independent of the specifics of the conflict. If you're an admin and a simple apology would resolve a dispute, you don't say "but I wasn't wrong". You just do it. You've failed an important test here in my mind, Adam. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:50, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly dispute any suggestion that this user leaving Wikipedia is directly related to this incident. Just days ago, before I began discussions with this user, they stated that they were effectively retiring from the project.

Whilst it is of course disappointing when editors leave the project, I'm not convinced that attempting to retain this user by apologising to them where I feel no need is the right way of going about things. It isn't a precedent that I want to be setting, that by threatening to leave the project people suddenly bow down to whatever demands you make. Adambro (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the comments I made which prompted this discussion, I remain happy that my comments were appropriate and feel that Crimsone's reaction to me referring to her in the third person couldn't reasonably have been expected and her reaction and subsequent raising of the issue here was disproportionate and unnecessary. Adambro (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"...whatever demands you make" -- No, I'm not suggesting that. I am, however, suggesting that an apology is a reasonable thing to offer, even when you don't feel you did anything wrong. When you're an admin people will hold you to a slightly higher standard of willingness to both resolve issues, and to sacrifice argumentative luxuries such as the last word. And rightfully so. Regardless of the background or even of the outcome, it would've been great had you just swallowed your pride and offered your apology. I suspect everyone would only have respected you more for it. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:32, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I am, however, suggesting that an apology is a reasonable thing to offer, even when you don't feel you did anything wrong. (Wikipedia:Civility#Suggest apologising) Thank you--NewbyG (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think admins need some customer service experience before picking up the mop and bucket. The first step in CS to disarm a conflict is, "I'm sorry this hasn't been a good experience for you. What can I do to help?" It's not even a formal apology, but it acknowledges that the other party feels there is a problem and you're willing to extend a hand to help. Even if you honestly feel the real problem is with the user/customer/editor, it's a good thing to defuse and then take steps to resolve. Only when it becomes clear that the other side has no intention of defusing do you dig in.

… as a side note, it looks like that article needs some work. Hrm. -- Kesh (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a trolling bot who just chased a new user off the site. The new user rightly reverted vandalism] and got revertd by this troll bot [9] who then reverted back to the vandal [10], the good user reverted again [11] only to be reverted by the troll bot a second time [12] and put a troll notice on t eh poor nebie users talk page [13] resulting in the suer declaring they are leaving the project [14]. I dont care how nmany good edits this bot does it should be indef blocked for blatant trolling of a newbie user actring in good faith while the bot continues the insultas towards a sovereign nation. Can some opne please do something cos if this crap continues we won't have any editors, just mad bnots whose owners appear reluctant to control them. Thanks,

23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Contact

talk · contribs) about it; this looks like a malfunction. Until then, I'm blocking it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko}

) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

First thing I did was contact him and contact the user who was being attacked telling him it wasnt human maliciousness but I fear this user has left the project for good and would question how valuable a bot that chases off good faith new users is, especially as changing the text for Hionduras to a poor place is what is obvious vandalism. perhaps he should switch iot off until it stops malfunctioning but VoA is not online right now. If I were an admin and could I would switch the bot off until the problem is fixed and hope someone will consider doing so as chasing off new good faith users is catastrophic. Thanks,

SqueakBox

23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, bots don't "blatantly troll", they malfunction from time to time. Corvus cornix_talk 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about SqueakBox's failure to assume good faith towards VoABotII and its operator,

talk · contribs). Read VoA's talkpage, and you'll see what I mean. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko}

) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

VOABot doesn't specify why it thinks something is vandalism, so it's hard to know what happened. Something that has happened to me before: someone deletes the article. I restore it, but included in the text is a "bad word" or a blacklisted EL. The bot thinks I'm adding profanity or spamming, and reverts. Or, as Jéské says, it might just be having a

barneca (talk

) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened is a new good faith user got chased off the site, and Jéské is worried about the bot's feelings! Chasing a new and good faith user off the site is not how we work here, and changing the article on Honduras to "a poor country" is vandalsim23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC). Thanks,

SqueakBox

Again with the failure to assume good faith. VoABotII has done exemplary work in the past; it simply malfunctioned this time. Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to accident. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for blocking the bot, reverting vandalism reverts on Honduras may be acceptable but chasing off new users is not and I hope VoA responds to this concerns himself. One chased off new good fauith user counteraxcctas all the good work the bot does, we simply are not a viable project if we do such things. perhaps Jéské Couriano you would care to rwrite tot he user and reassure them they were not being trolled. Thanks,

SqueakBox

23:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Other issues aside, you need to look up what 'trolling' means. John Reaves 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well VoA clearly is trolliong see here and here and in the meantime a new good faith user has beenn riun off the siter. if you think that isd okay, as VoA appears to, I suggest you review our policies yourself such as do not bite the newbies. This user was doing good and got trashed for it and now some people are supporting this trolling of new faith good faith users, well you appear to be, John, trolling is getting a reaction from someone by being nasty to them and this bot and its owner will not even apologise to a good faith newbie user whom they have run off the site. Thanks,

SqueakBox

00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you really need to stop the ad hominem attacks and hyperbole. A bot screwed up. It happens, it was blocked, its being fixed. Nothing is perfect. You are blowing this totally out of proportion and now are accusing people who disagree with you of "supporting trolling." You really need to stop. Mr.Z-man 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you chuck someone's talk page full of unambiguously rude, confrontational, and self-righteous rhetoric, do not be surprised if it gets removed. Jumping on a sword and crying about it is not going to help. Out of thousands of edits, mistakes still happen. I'm always trying to get the rate down. I encourage anyone to report problems, specific or general, and not to hesitate to block in the case of problems. I don't mind if people complain, but please tone down the rhetoric.

Voice-of-All

01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Even as a patriotic Honduran I dont care about the mistake. My only concern is with the way the new user has been treated. Are you going to fix this so we don't see a repeat. Thanks,

SqueakBox

01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe your actions here Squeakbox are much worse than the error from the bot, and your continued ranting about a non-issue really speaks volumes regarding your behavior. Your ad-homiem attacks and other nonsense is really nothing more than you taking a situation and forcing it out of proportion. How do you suggest that the issue be resolved? The bot is disabled and is being repaired, and has been dually noted -- which you most likely passed over. Do you want the bot to be permanently disabled? Or do you want to do the grunt work yourself? seicer | talk | contribs 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Squeakbox, you claim this person was a "good newbie editor." On the basis of what? Four mainspace edits that were all reversions, four edits to the user's own talk, and nine edits to the user's own userpage, with an account that was a whopping five hours old as of its last edit? This is ridiculous, and for you to claim what you did implies that you have some sort of bias relating to this person, or you're simply exaggerating to cause a problem. Frankly, a newbie who has a problem shouldn't simply quit, especially when they know next to nothing about the system they're trying to work in. Somebody who's going to jump to conclusions and extreme measures like that after five hours and less than 20 edits on WP I would posit is not going to be a good editor at all. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, it's AGF in

barneca (talk

) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RTV

An IP has just requested that the Talk page of an account be blanked and fully protected in an apparent

) 13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From looking at the times of his edits, I doubt (s)he'll be here tomorrow. No protection needed. Rudget 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I just courtesy blanked and protected the talk page (didn't know this discussion was here) in response to a new {{

barneca (talk

) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I was looking at the IPs edits who had made the request, in that case, I'd agree to a protection–though, isn't protection upon user request frowned upon? Rudget 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be frowned upon? Now deleting a talk page on user request, that is generally frowned on. In any case, I don't know if protection is frowned upon or not, just

barneca (talk

) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion by Gerriet42

Resolved

As per [[15]], User:Gerriet42 was blocked recently for 5 days for sockpuppetry on the Sunscreen article. He has unwisely chosen to register an alt account to evade the block in order to castigate me on my talk page: [[16]]. This account has also been used to continue editing the Sunscreen page: [[17]]

I leave it to you folks to determine what to do about it, of course. Jtrainor (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock blocked indefinitely and master's block reset.

talk

) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've copied back this thread after I received the following message:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by JzG for the following reason(s): Block evasion

This block has been set to expire: 13:18, 17 April 2008.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email. Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

Original Thread:

nowiki {resolved|75.57.196.81 is disruptive and disputatious, blocked.} nowiki

Hi, I'm just trying to get along and do my best here, civilly and with reason.

I posted a question at the Reliable Source Notice Board, "Are a Films credits a reliable source for a Movies InfoBox?"

I received an answer, 'A films credits are a reliable source and are the preferred use for an InfoBox.' I marked the thread as Resolved. Arcayne changed my edit marked it as Unresolved. After a couple of additional comments by Arcayne and no change in the answer to my question, I marked it as Resolved. This is in accordance with the instructions on the Reliable Source Notice Board which state: If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with

Resolved

.

Arcayne then removed my entire comments and marked it as Unresolved while stating the following:

"do not ever in you life alter the content of one of my posts, or I shall see you blocked so fast your kids will be dizzy" Arcayne

• Suffice it to say, I am not comfortable with his obsession with me, and do not feel particularly welcome here, is this just Wikipedia and do I need to toughen up? I'm really not sure what has made me his latest target, I honestly just think he saw me as a soft target of opportunity as I'm just a lowly public editor. Irregardless, he has brought me before more forums, reverted me, followed me and discussed me on more pages than I can possibly count at this point without any evidence that I have done any of the numerous specific things he has tried to pin on me. Can someone respectfully request that he try to abide by the bare minimum of Wiki standards?75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now been reverted and a second, nearly identical threat has been left for me by Arcayne: "Do not ever alter (1, 2) the content of my posts in a discussion page again. I take significant exception. If it ever occurs again, I will have request to have you blocked so fast that your kids will get whiplash. This is your only warning in regards to this topic, so I would urge you not to test my resolve on this particular subject. Arcayne"

Sorry to use your time on this. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have informed User:Arcayne of this conversation, as we usually try to do here. - Philippe 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed this one that came with the second one - " if you are looking to get blocked, you are going about it in the right way."75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, manipulating my posts to alter my intent is refactoring. We don't do that here. Yet you seem to feel (1, 2) that you are exempt from this behavioral guideline. You don't refactor another user's comments to alter intent or content, though you can fix indenting and the like (and even that is open to debate). However, after wrning you that this is an unacceptable practice, and my offense to it, you did it again. I subsequently warned you that you were well on the path to being blocked for it, as it is a part of a history of harassment on your part.

Additionally, you have a rather long-standing habit of marking as resolved those conversations where discussion is still occurring. If you feel that the moment you get the answer you are looking for marks the end of a multi-user discussion, you are mistaken. This is why you have been counseled (and, unfortunately, warned as well) to await the conclusions of discussions before taking action.

Perhaps if you are not comfortable with having your actions paid attention to, you should consider altering how you interact with your fellow editors within the encyclopedia. As for my so-called "obsession," with you, I think you are forgetting that you have filed (now) three separate AN/I complaints against me, two of which were dismissed with the advice that you seek DR. When approached by myself to pursue DR, you simply ignored it. Subsequent AN/I complaints have indicated that your editing behavior needs somewhat noticeable improvement. If you are concerned with y attention to your personal attacks on me, consider not making htem in the first place. Try leaving my edits be, without altering them. That seems to be an awfully good start improving how your actions are perceived.

And while we are on the subject of your actions, it has been discussed that you might be a former user. Have you ever edited under a formal ID in Wikipedia before (before the dozen anons, I mean). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Arcayne, but I will no longer respond to your empty baseless accusations. I'm here to improve the content of the articles that I edit. That is all. I will not waste my time responding to every McCarthy like thumping of your fist upon the "facts". As was once said so eloquently, "At long last sir ..." 75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that, in keeping with that brand new outlook, that you perhaps stop filing AN/I reports every time your edits get reverted? Or when you are caught trying to conceal your edit history? Or when someone warns you to stop attacking others? Granted, I responded a bit harshly with having my edits altered, but you were the one who altered them. Twice. After I asked you specifically not to. You want to be left alone. Leave others alone. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to defend my honest actions and will, as always, abide by the customs and practices here, and I will not stop shining a harsh light upon your actions here when I am your target. I do it not for me, but for the good of the community and in the defense of your future prey.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a civil behavior for a thread where civility's the key. Youv'e been on AN/I before for this sort of combative response to newer editors than you, and the cavalier way you dismiss some aspects of opposition while berating opponents in those backhanded manners grates on others. Those who see the good work you do have spoken to you about this sort of problem before, both on the previous AN/I threads, on the relevant talk pages, and on your talk page. As such, I can't say much more than that if not this time, the very next incidence of such persistent behaviors ought to result in a block, so it doesn't escalate into another drama. ThuranX (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the block came from here, but no one seems to have been aware of this or the reason for it. This action here appeared to conclude with the edit above by ThuranX at 01:57, 16 April. My IP changed and I had confirmed edits from a new IP at 14:07, 16 April. I was apparently blocked at 21:35, 16 April. I am now charged with Block Evasion by Arcayne and he is now engaged in a private effort to have me banned. Arcayne has also informed me that I have been Blocked for 1 Week (this differs from my screen shot: 13:18, 17 April) As I have stated I do abide by the rules here and will continue to do so, I will refrain from edits until this is sorted out and my status is resolved. I am not comfortable with Arcaynes continued relentless obsession with me - especially following ThuranX's comments. I had hoped that this combative and personal assault was over.75.58.44.23 (talk)

• While I always think Arcayne can be more reserved in his responses (I have that critique about myself), from what I read on Talk:Fitna (film), this IP address has been pretty contentious with most editors, declaring consensus when consensus was not obtained, telling Arcayne he is making "false statements" and other behavior that is not optimal. Granted, Arcayne has been around and should respond to a contentious IP editor in less sardonic language; but this IP's behavior is also objectionable, and based upon the Talk:Fitna (film) discussions, was trying most people's patience on that page...that was my reading of it. --David Shankbone 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of fact, Arcayne failed to enlist a single voice in support of his effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[18][19][20][21] [22]different sections on

The issue was nothing more than listing a name in the credits without an editorial addition, that was the sole issue. The current discussion is an effort to compromise with Arcayne on how to do it. Please do not equate my defense of Encyclopedic standards with Arcaynes personal efforts to "Win." 75.58.44.23 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just because on one proposal does Arcayne have a minority view does not make him disruptive. In fact, most editors on the Talk article seem to be taking issue with you. Arcayne seems to be trying to work out a compromise. Many of your diffs are just his disagreeing with you. You are raising a content dispute at this point. Yes, Arcayne can better phrase himself; the rest of your issue...whether it be consensus changing or Arcayne raising policy and guideline arguments...this is not the place. Continued discussion on the Talk page is the place. --David Shankbone 15:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I have only sought to support my response to your assertions. I have not posted there since yesterday. The last line in the section is this: "Arcayne, as the sole holdout to Proposal 2, can you live with this approach? If not, why not? Blueboar 15:02, 17 April". 75.58.44.23 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but if Arcayne is the sole holdout, then it sounds like consensus is against him and the Proposal 2 will be adopted regardless. If he raises another argument against it that had not been considered before, then it merits more discussion. Arcayne is not known for

WP:CIVIL argument, but this board is for violations of guideline and policy...please keep the content discussions on the article's talk page. Good luck to you. It *can* be frustrating to argue over minutia; everyone here understands (and does it!) --David Shankbone

15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Murder threat

Andy o'rourke specifically: [problematic text commented out, see page sourse]

do we just ignore this stuff or what? ninety:one 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user who posted it. Someone in Ireland may want to contact the authorities. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see

) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IP threat

User:172.192.57.37 has left a somewhat threatening message on my talk page, [24] and is engaged in a continous edit war on Mary Baker Eddy using as he/she says an unlimited number of ip addresses, User:172.191.81.28, User:172.191.126.225 etc. All similar numbers beginning with 172 and on a singular track having to do with religion. I'd appreciate some help, thanks Modernist (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IP address blocked 31 hours for

WP:3RR breach; article semi-pp for three days. We'll take it from there. --Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Modernist (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 12 hours for edit warring and 3RR violations, but it does appear to be a single-purpose spam account - any other opinions?

a/c

) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The attacks aren't helping his case either - see diff in Hello's post above, and original version of his user page.

a/c

) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The block has expired and the user is back adding links to the same site ([32], [33]). Shortly before those, an IP located in the same city as UBG was adding similar content ([34], [35]). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This talk page needs to be reviewed, and may need to be semi-protected indefinitely. The BLP subject in question, Giovanni di Stefano, is apparently banned as a user. The son of the BLP subject is a banned user. However, for some reason it appears a variety of users have tolerated his IP-based posts, as seen here. This includes such gems such as

• calling users idiots
• calling an user stupid, and to get a life
• calls a user a 'non entity'
• Finally today, issuing a loud legal and outing threat.

My questions are: why is this tolerated when this page is clearly watched by multiple admins? BLP subject or no, they live by the same rules as every other user. This guy needs to go to OTRS, or leave the public website.

13:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First are you sure that di stefano is banned, thta is news to me. He had an account, can you confirm that account is indef blocked. Second as far as I am aware di Stefano has not posted tot he article or talk page for months, it is his son who has been doing os recentlky and got blocked by Fred Bauder today. Thanks,

SqueakBox

13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, MSDS is banned then (altered the original post), the individual who claims to be di Stefano's son. However, since this user only posts from random IP addresses in Italy, and no other anonymous users post to the talk page, for the protect of our users from legal threats and disruption we ought to semi-protect the talk page. MSDS, whomever that is, has lost the priviledge of using that page in the way he has.

t/e

13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support semi-protection of the talk page and ideally full protection of the article page but if not semi-protection for that page too. Clearly issuing legal threats on wikipedia is nott he way to resolve anything. Thanks,

SqueakBox

13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been protected long enough.Geni 14:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be against semi-protecting both the talkpage and the article. Even before the threat against me, it was pretty clear to me that the activities of the subject and his son were not terribly helpful to the article or Wikipedia in general. They still have recourse to OTRS. Full protection of the article seems unnecessary at this point.
  ^T
  14:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about semi-protection of both for 2-4 weeks and a helpful reminder about OTRS? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont believe that would be controversial at all. Thanks,

SqueakBox

14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A month semi-prot wouldn't be bad, but 6 months might make more sense.

^T

14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IPs often do make very helpful edits. I wouldn't want to see them shut out for so long, when this could calm down within a few weeks. The page can always be semi-protected for another month if the IP threats start up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support a 6 month semi on the article but re the talk I think we should not semi lock for more than a month on the basis that we can review in 4 weeks time as to whether the lock should be extended. Thanks,

SqueakBox

14:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way I'd support semi-protection now, of both. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we split the difference and semi the entire mess for 2-3 months?

t/e

15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it. If all goes quiet and somebody asks, it can always be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't myself, I'm not an admin. :) Anyone willing to do this?

t/e

15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see this item is now posted at

WP:RPP but, for whatever reason (hot potato?) no-one has touched it. I'd support one month semi-protection for both article and Talk. There were personal attacks, though but we don't see all the time. The April 17 legal threat is more troubling, and that's why I believe semi-protection is justified. The IPs used by di Stefano's son do occasionally seem to provide relevant information, and the rate of bad editing is low. The article edits he has made are not defamatory, so BLP doesn't obviously apply. But if there are any more legal threats (after 1 month) I'd support indef semi for the Talk. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Per this discussion, and the request at

WP:RPP, I semi'd the article for 2 months and the talk page for 1 month. Anyone is free to adjust the durations or remove protection entirely, without contacting me. For those who are active on this article, I would suggest creating a subpage (such as Talk:Giovanni di Stefano/comments) that can be transcluded somewhere on the main talk page so that anons and new users who wish to make constructive comments can do so. I suppose another alternative would be to place a note at the top of the talk page directing them here. - auburnpilot talk

20:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

sockpupeteer creates yet another sock, please block

short summary: please block User:Martindanza for being a sock of a blocked user, and repeating the same stuff that got him blocked.

This user Pinoybandwagon was blocked for using socks and not respecting wikipedia naming convetions, including altering them to name one of his socks as top authority for philippine radio stations. He has created another sock called User:Martindanza, wich needs to be blocked asap. For proof, see the sock case, his changing of names just like his socks on the templates [36][37] and on moving articles to bad names after being moved back by admins and warned by it [38]. He has been denied unblock by 3 admins, and his talk page was protected to avoid him editing it. He's still doing the same stuff that got him blocked. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

His contributions are here. 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page deleted

This user User:Markymark120 is a vandalism-only account (see contributions [41]), and is a sock of the blocked user User:Aimar120, see his sock case. Please block him too. (I didn't log until today, so my user page has been vandalized for 3 days because of him) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's userpage should go three days with that kind of nonsens on it. Sorry you had to be the first to find it after being there for three days. You're on my watchlist now Enric, for what it's worth, to try and catch it sooner if he (or anyone else) returns. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Killah666 (talk · contribs) is nothing but trouble. Edit history shows little else but petty vandalism [42], creating and then repeatedly recreating inappropriate articles [43], edit warring, spamming [44], blanking pages [45], leaving inappropriate edit summaries containing attacks on fellow editors [46], and then continuing to vandalize his own talk page after being bocked for 31 hours [47]. Should be indef blocked as a persistent troll. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This could go to

talk

) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I see here that the user's been blocked indefinitely.

talk

) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

several times, and found the following:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

This guideline says "non-trivial coverage" and then

explains what "trivial" means:

Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

Some questions can arise from the above quoted statements.

1. "multiple non-trivial published works" -- what is meant by "multiple"? One, two, three, four, five or more?
2. Trivial implies "brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site". What is this "brief"? When it would be considered that an article published in third party reliable source is more than brief? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. "Multiple" in this case, at least from my experience, implies more than one.
2. "Brief" in this case means that articles mentioning them must not do so in passing; i.e. they mustn't simply give the site as a case example or name-drop. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't really the place for this discussion. There are multiple forums where it might be appropriate, AN/I doesn't appear to be one of them.
  ^T
  20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much Jéské. I will propose to add this facts within
    WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk
    ) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it remarkable for a page responsible for so much brouhaha over the years that its edit history has been so quiet in recent times. Interesting to muse to oneself on the reasons for and implications of this. Splash - tk 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up, Mr oompapa (talk · contribs) is back creating socks. I see that oompapa has been tagged as a sock of molag bal? I never saw that happen. Prob close to a year ago, i was involved with oompapa who at times would create 100's of accounts a day. IF you see something with it, just block and and deny him. His names often have buddah in them. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the "oompapa" catchphrase that was being spammed on user talk pages and articles to Lupin's badword list.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On the talk page of

? Thanks. He is also a bully, dictator, throws around silly accusations, and insults others. Can someone also tell him to stop that or give him a warning with short block maybe? Thanks. Also he's violated 3RR because he removed the poll more than three times.

The poll is not straighforward--the way he worded it, people were encouraged to vote for his position. We all know that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. He is trying to manipulate the results by manipulating the questions. I am a well-esltablished user, and he is an anon who has done nothing but work on this talk page. The Afghansitan article has a shistory of socks, and I would not be surprised if he was in this vein. I am agsint the poll in as far as it is unfair. I have provided for a new poll that will be fair, and is worded essentially the same as poll was worded earlier which established consensus on this. My concern is that the anon is manipulating the system. He has also tried to stuff the ballot box, as it were, by getting people to vote on Wikiproject pages. He has more knowledge of WP than an anon would usually have, so this also suggests to me that he is a banned sock. Also, one of the two users who has voted is a sock. This is ridiculous and anons need to step in to make the poll fair. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again this user is throwing around false accusations and acting as a dictator. Both the users that voted are not socks but long time users. Any admin can see for themselves and see that the poll was straightforward. It is you who is trying to manipulate things. His idea that there is something wrong with the poll is his POV. I hope admins take a look at this and see what a rude editor this Carl.bunderson is. He thinks he owns Wikipedia or something.

I said one of the users was a sock, not both. And look at their user page--one is a suspected sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He has been accused of being a sock before and checked and the result was negative. You also threw insults at me and called me blind. No one is asking to be involved with the Afghanistan article, if you are getting frustrated because you don't like the poll's results and bullying and cursing at new users and acting like a dictator, then you can move on to another article.

You need a dictionary. I never cursed. I called you blind because you seem to be. You are blind, figuratively, to the difference in our polls. I am obviously open to a poll...I made a new one that is actually fair. I have been involved in this page for a long time, defending it from nationalist/pov-pushing socks such as yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Bunderson's version distinctly differs. It seeks to create all new consensus about what can or can not be in the infobox. The old poll merely sought consensus about adding a single element. This is somewhat disturbing, because it was Carl Bunderson who so loudly advocated that consensus had been established. It's almost like he's gone to a WP:POINT violation, arguing that if any part of the old consensus is challenged, the entirity should be scuttled. The old poll seems to be far more circumspect in its goals and methods, and more designed to modify consensus than rewrite it whole. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the other way also includes a poll on

Afghanistani

demonym. But that is a different demonym and so should have its own poll. This is what I'm trying to tell Carl.bunderson but he doesn't listen because he accuses me of ignoring Afghanistani. I now added a separate poll for Afghanistani as a result so he stops accusing me of neglecting Afghanistani. Now we have a poll for both demonyms, I really don't see what else is missing.

Carl.bunderson is not the only one who thinks that something was wrong with the anon's original poll. As someone who has never been involved in editing the Afghanistan page until the anon left a message about it at

push polling. I tried to reword it (diff) but the anon rejected even that minor change [48] in favour of his own version. cab (talk

) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually user: CaliforniaAliBaba I did not see that you re-worded it. But shortly after I changed it back to the way you had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I also read your edit to change the options as a different choice. Perhaps your option should have instead been added, instead of changing the poll's nature. Again, it looks like the initial poll was to widen extant consensus, while subsequent edits were to change the fundamental nature of the poll. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thuranx, please read the conversation between me and the anon on the talk page, as well as going through the whole history of the demonym issue on the talk page. Afghani and Afghanistani ought to be dealt with together, not separately. Consensus on this matter has in the past dealt with all three demonyms, not just doing one at a time. The page has suffered greatly from nationalist pov-pushers and it is ridiculous the number of socks that have attacked the page. Look at my contribution history…which of the two users is more likely to be pushing pov? Me or him? As cab pointed out, the anon has tried to stuff the ballot and engage in push polling. The poll I provided for is as neutral as can be, and is practically the same as a poll that we had on this same issue earlier. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Carl.bunderson was complaining that we also needed a poll on Afghanistani, I started one. He was trying to poll Afghani and Afghanistani together without even giving the poller any reasons for Afghanistani. I started a second poll and give the poller some background info. The two terms need their own poll because for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. Also, Carl.bunderson is now calling me idiot (link) after I told him to stop crossing out the poll I started first. He has called me blind, now idiot, and keeps accusing me of things which I keep proving him wrong anyway. The reason is pretty easy to understand why Afghani and Afghanistani need to be separate polls. I hope he understands this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the the talk page archive. Afghani and Afghanistani have always been dealt with together, and you have not provided a reason that they should not be treated the same now—there is precedent for dealing with them in one poll, and there is a substantial reason as well: both are alternative demonyms which are sourced, but used far less than is the primary demonym, Afghan. Also, while both are soured, neither are included in the OED. You have utterly failed to provide a reason for treating them separately. And my calling you idiot and blind have been justified. I mean them matter-of-factly, not as an insult. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just provided you a very simple reason: for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. In the last poll long time ago, this was not considered, so this is why I am now treating them as 2 polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a reason for the positions people take when they vote. You have said that people might want to include one but not the other, but you haven’t actually given a reason for this. It is ludicrous to provide one but not the other, because both are sourced but not recognized nearly as widely as is Afghan. You have failed to give a reason why someone would want to include one but not the other. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl, All I see is that you are interested in getting your way on this. I see little to no POV pushing on asking for a modification to existing consensus. If it's a good idea, it will be supported, with solid arguments; and if not supported, then the same. However, stating that you don't like his poll, and slashing it out, then starting a competing poll, is childish tantrum behavior, and you need to stop it. Your best option would be to state that IF the results indicate a change, it's evidence for a whole new poll, one covering any and all permutations, which requests reasoning from the 'non-voting' responders. It's that simple. All I can see here is you obstructing to get your way. knock it off. ThuranX (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I be solely interested in getting my way on this? If that was the case, I would not have provided a poll which was completely neutrally worded. Did you bother to look at the page history, and the talk archive? Afghanistan has been a major draw to cases of sockpuppetry. Why do you think that an editor who spends the vast majority of his time on here reverting vandalism is acting petulantly? Who is more likely to do that? An anon who edited a few pages last month, was blocked, and then came on and has done nothing but deal with the Afghanistan page, or an editor who has a history of being a hammer against vandals? I’m fine with consensus changing, I’m perfectly aware that it can, but look at my wording of the poll? Can you tell me in what way it is inferior to the anon’s? If the results indicate a change, why bother making a second poll to cover any and all options? Does it not make more sense to expedite and move to the ultimate poll in the first place? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just blanked almost 15,500 bytes of information at

standards. He was given several weeks to clean it up but never made any attempt to. Because of that, I have parsed it down to one line. The page was a totally unnecessary list of his personal achievements and news about his life (from the death of his cousin to the time he was interviewed as a student with concerns about security).

I post this here for review and thoughts about what is and is not appropriate for this (and other) user pages. Metros (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it defamatory? Did it attack other users? Did it contain BLP violations or copyright infringements? Did it advocate violence or criminal activity? DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary blanking of a benign user page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well per

Wikipedia:NOT#BLOG, this appears to be a pretty blatant policy violation. It's a resume with an excessive amount of personal information and it offers, essentially, blog-like accounts of his life. When you're talking about 15,500 bytes of personal information, I'd call that excessive. Metros (talk

) 00:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly detailed biographical user page written in the 3rd person with a bit of blogginess and CVishness, maybe overlong with more personal info than one might want to see but I don't see anything untowards about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that Ksuwildcats was using the page as an ad hoc way to promote himself, and as his personal resume. I had contact with him when he first registered a profile, it seemed he was trying to create a wikipedia page for himself and his high school band director, in addition he went through numerous warnings about adding information about him self to

00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Resume-like"? Yes. "CV-like"? Yes. "Article-like"? Very much so. "Blog-like"? No way. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's back:) Merkin's mum 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I only say blog-like because every-time something of questionable notability happened to him, he would update his page and create a new section on for instant how he was interviewed for a local television's spot about a new dormitory.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been deleted now. Next time, I'd suggest taking anything remotely controversial to MFD and it'll be gone soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The user's penultimate edit seems to have been to metros' talk page, asking to be left alone. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

has run amuck and is tagging images as orphaned when they are clearly not. For example Image:ChanduTheMagician.jpg is clearly still reciprocally linked to

) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the image isn't being used, as evident from the empty "File links" section on the

Chandu the Magician (radio) though, and I can't get the image displayed properly. Once that is fixed, the image will be no longer orphaned, and the deletion tag can be removed. Somebody else will have to look at it though, I can't figure it out. - Rjd0060 (talk

) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was just missing an imagesize (fixed). Might want to look into the template to avoid such mishaps in the future though. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the deletion tag from the image. All done here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive had the same issue, but someone had changed a template which is what caused BCBot to tag some images as orphaned. (just a heads up).

β^{_{command 2}}

00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For almost a week now,

) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

just a precisation, before banning me i suggest to read my posts. (and it's not true all editors disagreed with me, see PhoenixWiki). Thanks. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh?? I find this pretty far from this one from your IP in your talkpage. If anything, it can be interpreted as a consideration that WP's content has to be manipulated because of the fear of trolls constantly coming and

22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right, Phoenix did not agree at all with PM. Rather he disagreed later on, but here again PM is twisting what someone is saying, just like he did with those sources. In fact, the only one who agrees with PM is his banned friend Dodona (the anonymous IP mentioned above). --

talk

) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And ethnic trash-talk now by the same person [[49]] --

talk

) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

it's jsut what i think, a greek pushing team, it's my opinion, i hope i am free to say what i think. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "team". just people who disagree with you. --

talk

) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Although, I should have brought this up sooner, could someone more knowledgeable on the foundations' policies take a look at this [50].

23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like trolling to me. I am not sure what they want us to do. Tiptoety ^talk 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how that diff is supposedly deleted, yet I can see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.129.57 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You just needed to purge your cache, it is most defiantly deleted now though. Tiptoety ^talk 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

probably trying to get someone in trouble? revert userpage and block? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked for now, based on the way he keeps mentioning someone named "Adam" while vandalizing (as well as this edit) its pretty safe to assume that he is either trying to get someone in trouble, or harrassing an unidentified user (he does mention looking for "Adam" in other Wikis), in any case I see no intention to contribute constructively. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked a user, but wanted to get additional opinion into my action as I was the original creator of the article that he was vandalizing. The user is

) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Shooting/Death Threat

This edit really concerns me. What is the proper course of action?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV covers it in this case. Tiptoety ^talk

23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I believe

WP:DNFTT is a better answer. It's been reverted, the IP has been blocked. Friday (talk)

23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

When does a threat need to be taken seriously then? The IP (ran through GeoBytes) originates only a few miles from the location of the school which the threat has been made against. Tiptoety ^talk 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs

) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a relevant news report that already indicates this high school has been made aware of this death threat. However, this seems like a serious threat regardless of authorities "combing the lockers of the school" (according to the article). Should the Hacienda Heights police be notified?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (oh didn't know this threat has been made throughout the day and is being handled)

I think this is a clear cut example of when threats need to be reported to the police, that is their job is it not, and by the news story they obviously took it seriously. I dont like the whole "their blocked, lets move on" thing. Sure they can do no more damage to Wikipedia, but what about in real life? Tiptoety ^talk 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The news story Persian Poet Gal posted says that the school will be closed Friday, 4/18 (when the threat said something would happen). Hopefully this is all resolved. --clpo13_(talk) 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

IPs are still readding this threat. I cannot watch this article that closely at the moment and may not be able to catch readditions, so if RC patrollers could watchlist this I greatly appreciate it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I put in RPP request for the article.

talk

) 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I just went ahead and protected it for the rest of the day. The authorities have already been contacted now it is just time to

deny the threat makers the satisfaction of seeing their edits placed on wikipedia. Tiptoety ^talk

02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if those threats should be removed from the edit history. It purportedly has the names of real minors. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes in any other case, but I think the police need this to stay available to them for evidence purposes. I know that I have reported some threats to the police before and they wanted the diffs to stay available to them for later use if needed. Tiptoety ^talk 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The police to find it very helpful to be able to reference the history. When I reporting a threat to a high school in Texas I sent the diffs to the detective while on the phone with him. He was very concerned about it and thankful that he was able to have the threat right in front of him. Bstone (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Update27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Asking for a block review on one of my own blocks. Someone double check me on this one. I think its pretty clear this was yet another Soccermeko sock, but someone go ahead and back me up on this one. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, they have just asked for an unblock. DO with it what you will. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I declined it as incivil and suggested that (s)he work on it to be a bit more temperate. Expect another one. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who says they are not a sockpuppet of Soccermeko on their userpage, as their FIRST EDIT, is a sockpuppet of Soccermeko. I remember that this person is not good about hiding themselves.

02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, not only to mention that their grammar (compare the unblock requests for Soccermeko with that of Update27) is SUBSTANTIALLY identical to each other. Either they are the same person, or they come from the same village where they don't know how to conjugate verbs correctly... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[51]? I'm a bit confused by your comment / question... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was confused when I got the message. I thought that his explaination was convicing to me so I striked the vandal warning. Maybe the Administrators' noticeboard is a good place to discuss this, so please continue. Comments?--

talk

) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If that post is what this thread is about I do not see how it requires the attention of administrators. I deleted the page which that user had blanked and told Ryan about because it was clearly a hoax. So is this in regards to a different post?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'll wait for others to decide.--

talk

) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what is wrong here. Tiptoety ^talk 03:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We're mainly disscussing this, I think. I will ask

talk

) 03:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But what specifically about that? I am not seeing anything wrong. Tiptoety ^talk 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. Me and

talk

) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

User_talk:RyRy5#Your_recent_.22revision.22. Struck me as strange/bullying? Despite checking Ryan's edits, I just couldn't make sense. It just appeared like an editor "having a go". BpEps - t@lk

03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I do not see anything that requires admin intervention here, why not just discuss it with RyRy5 on his talk page? Tiptoety ^talk 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Here's my guess at what happened:

04:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No admin action needed. Resolved. Tiptoety ^talk 04:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

After his latest return, I have blocked

03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Could people review what is happening with Dutch Wikipedians trying to add and remove content from the English Wikipedia? Those removing content seem to think that consensus at the Dutch Wikipedia can be imported here. What should be done in cases like this. See the following:

• Notability tag Vereniging Basisinkomen
• Prod tag (reason = not notable, removed from Dutch wikipedia as well)
• Prod contested (with unhelpful edit summary saying it was vandalism by a one-purpose account)
• Prod tag re-added
• Removed by Fram who correctly said: "if a Prod is contested (by removing the template), you may not put it back on. Leave it alone, discuss it, or start an WP:AFD"

This dispute seems to be spreading:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Guido den Broeder vs. others
• Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament#Books
• 3RR report
• Archived AN discussion

Guido den Broeder may have a conflict of interest here, but I am concerned about the activities of the Dutch Wikipedians who are following him here. They are reverting him and trying to impose an external consensus here (formed at the Dutch Wikipedia apparently, though I can't confirm that). What should be done about this? Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What should be done is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. There's no policy that allows external consensus to be imported from anywhere-- as far as the English wikipedia is concerned, it's the same thing as posting on an external forum to gain support for something here. Jtrainor (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think

User:Fram hit the nail on the head, there's no problems with the Dutch guys wishing to chase the COI and spam aspect down. But just because it has been through the channels on nl.wikipedia, doesn't mean it doesn't have to go through it again here. The prods have been contested so they should go through AfD and the case argued there. ^Khukri

13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(thanks). In general, my (not unbiased) view on this is that we have two problems: the first is a group of Dutch editors who are bringing their conflict with Guido den Broeder to the English Wikipedia. By doing it in such a way (as a group effort), it comes close to harassment. The second is Guido den Broeder, who, despite his denials, has serious COI problems in much of his editing, and doesn't seem to be able to take criticism from anyone. He is under severe ArbCom restrictions on the Dutch Wikipedia for exactly this problem, he has had a mentor for six months, and that mentorship has just been extended, and he is currently blocked for two weeks there. This should have no influence on what he can and can't do here, but it gives an idea of the background. I think that both sides of the conflict need some serious warnings from uninvolved admins, one for importing their conflicts and for harassing anyone, and the other to stop all possible COI edits.

Fram (talk

) 08:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple established users have seemingly left Wikipedia this week

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have noticed an unfortunate trend this week of many established editors (Giano II, Kwsn, MONGO, Pixelface, etc.) having left Wikipedia. Anyway, I thought I might share this news here so that if anyone wants to leave these users a nice message or thank them for their contributions, they might do so. Regards, --

18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, User:Maxim has left us too. :( Tiptoety ^talk 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also User talk:One Night In Hackney (who has previous doing this, but appears quite serious about it this time) Black Kite 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this week just off or something? I take Wikipedia seriously and all, but I have way more personal matters to actually get stressed out about than a volunteer project regardless of how interested I am in it. Is it really so difficult for people to cooperate and when they cannot agree to disagree without getting so frustrated? Best, --

Tally-ho!

18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that IRC i see mentioned in several threads there, maybe the unaccountable nature of that medium has something to do with it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is a severe problem, and it partly has to do with some cultural issues that we need to address on Wikipedia. We need to be a more supportive community with each other, even those we disagree with. What tends to happen is people who give a lot of time, effort and consideration to how they work on Wikipedia are disparaged when they don't handle attacks, stalking (
  Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas). Often, those who have done or given little, and may even be considered a net negative to the project, resent those whose work has enhanced it (technical, content, artistic, graphic, research, Wikignomes, vandal fighters) and whose voices are listened to more than those who...do very little. It creates a bad environment. There's an attitude that, "We can always find another one of you." That simply isn't the case with many contributors. That doesn't mean they should be given carte blanche, but in some cases, people who are attacked or feeling overwhelmed sometimes need the community to take a look at their situation and provide some help or support. We really need to focus on community more, and less on deriding each other. --David Shankbone
  18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)So Giano leaves, and the admin who blocked him left. Mongo leaves, and the admin who blocked him might well leave if ArbCom takes a case "scrutinising" his block. ONIH has left - and he can take a lot! - and Pixelface left after being "vandal templated" by Will, who's been nominating random things for deletion as well. Can we all take a step back and recognise that we need to do something to reduce the amount of pile-on frakking drama in this place? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, because I am surely an evil deletionist who doesn't want to improve the encyclopedia at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was merely pointing out that that sort of thing encourages too much drama. Look, we're too big and have too many people with entrenched interests now to do crazy bold things like nominate State Terrorism and the US and Mark Foley Scandal or whatever for deletion without a reasonable discussion about whether its a good idea first. Ditto, templating a regular with whom you've just had an ArbCom case. What I was trying to say is that reducing this sort of stressful drama is a priority, and, yes, I was singling you out - I apologise for that - as someone whose recent actions have definitely not helped. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to make discussion is the stupidest thing ever. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was polite, and worded so as to reduce any atmosphere of tension. However, may I humbly submit that since you have recently done several things that haven't worked out too well, you might want to actually get a bit of a reality-check before doing anything drama-inducing. I hasten to add that this thread isn't about you. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Succinct and pretty much what I was thinking. I swear, this place has more drama than the furry fandom, and believe me, that ain't a compliment. A look at the issues above, though, are rather concerning: the Giano situation is unpleasant - from both sides of the coin - and the MONGO deal is certainly upsetting in how it came about and how it was handled. I've no idea what the other situations really are, but all in all this does indicate that we need some sanity to return to the place in a big hurry. My concern is that right now our best routes for handling incidents are discussions here or at RfC that can turn into long, drawn-out bitchfests with more noise than signal, ArbCom, which some folks have declared as ineffectual and bureaucratic (or, in some cases, as corrupt - which is kind of sad in itself), and ... well, that's about it. How do we best deal with drama? Do we enact some other kind of message board for community discussion that's aimed at a positive approach? Will that even work in a collaborative editing environment? Lots of questions, but until we find some answers to them we're probably going to keep seeing this kind of thing happen. Sad, but true. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, that is well-said. I've often thought we should have a counterpart to
    WP:BITE which held that established contributors are no more worthy of being "bitten" than newbies. On the one hand, they should know a bit better... on the other, they're known quantities, and there really is a process of burnout that happens in dealing with a seemingly endless string of petty incidents of the sort that are so common on Wikipedia. In any case, though, messages of support for users who have left are best delivered by email or off-wiki. At least one of these users, Giano, has apparently asked specifically that people not post to his talk page for now. In general, a long line of "please come back" posts on a departed user's talk page probably plays into the same sort of drama that led them leave in the first place. Give them some space, and send a message of support by email. I'm sure it will still be appreciated. MastCell ^Talk
    18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't have an issue with "Please come back" on Talk pages, especially since it alerts people that the person has left. But regardless of your method (on or off Wiki) letting people know they have support when they are under fire is an important aspect of our collaboration here. --David Shankbone 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I sent a message to Mongo a few days ago and he responded fairly quickly, indicating in the message that he was fairly serious about leaving. I do note that
    stress hotline. Maybe we could try to institute something similar for wikipedia in general, although it'd probably be a bear trying to make it known or useful. John Carter (talk
    ) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• As a volunteer project, we will have people leaving on a regular basis. Those who know them well may want to contact these people by private means, but as a general community we should just wish them well and let them go in peace. See also
  CBM · talk
  ) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a very good view. Rudget 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No it's not, it's a poor view. It says, "If you want to go, go." There are people who work on this project who neither seek nor expect gratitude or thanks. But when they feel under attack, they feel unappreciated. Like it or not, leaving Wikipedia is typically the only way people realize that others, in fact, like them and what they did. Many people leave exactly because of that attitude. --David Shankbone 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that, independent of individual situations, we should look for overall patterns and try to remedy the bad ones. A more functional dispute resolution system would be a great improvement in this regard. But, once someone has taken the step to walk away, rather than trying to get into their head, I think it's more respectful to just say "Your contributions are appreciated, and you're welcome back any time. Thanks for lending a hand." This will reassure those who have left in good faith, without validating any who may have stormed out in a
        CBM · talk
        ) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I disagree. People who tell someone to not leave aren't doing it to people they don't know. They say it people who they do know, typically see they are going through a rough time, etc. We aren't detached robots, and Wikipedia is a stressful place to work for just about all of us. So, I disagree wholeheartedly with your approach, but we each deal with people departing from the project differently. But if enough people get fed up and leave, and you suddenly find yourself without people who create bots, take hard-to-get photos, create challenging maps from scratch, research and write interesting articles, etc. you may have found yourself saying, "Wow, I wish I had told those people how much I wish they would stay instead of letting them passively letting them go..." What you articulate, this idea we are all replaceable, is the cultural problem I have talked about. There simply are some people who I see as key to the functioning and pricelessness of this project. There are others who I don't think anyone would miss. It's important differentiate the two, and recognize that sometimes all it takes to retain one is to give them a little heartfelt appreciation. That really isn't a lot to ask of any of us. --David Shankbone 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Add User:Crimsone to that list, as a result of this discussion, above. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:04, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Toss in User:The Evil Spartan and User:Ed Poor. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to seem cold or anything, but how is this an incident for the Admin noticeboard? People exercising their right to leave is not something that "requires the intervention of administrators." They all left for different reasons, and no admin action is required. This seems like something that belongs over at the Village Pump or something.

talk

) 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind moving this over to AN, but there are some admin issues I think insofar as some of these users did "special" tasks like handling mass-tagged image deletions or creating unique templates. Like I've said, we really need to work on our redundancy issues re: this sorta thing. MBisanz ^talk 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AN, AN/I...does it really matter? The fact is a discussion is taking place, and here looks like just as fine a place as any. Tiptoety ^talk 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to post something in this thread, but then saw that Carl/CBM said pretty much exactly the same thing, word for word, and link.  :) So, ditto. --Elonka 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That many people have left? sheesh.. I didn' tknow about half of those. Wizardman 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In well-run organizations, you do your best to hold on to your most productive workers. You give them the support they need and shield them from stuff that gets in the way of their work. New people are supported too, but if it becomes clear that things aren't working out you make the split as quickly and cleanly as possible. At Wikipedia we do the opposite: we worship the unproven newcomer and bend over backward to accommodate those whose impact is net-negative, ignoring the damage that this does to our best editors. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree there. We seem to take quantity-over-quality approach when it comes to keeping people here. We also reason that seasoned editors should be more difficult to offend, so we aren't quite as careful in dealing with them, and when they do take offense we blame them for not knowing better. "He's been here a while, he should know this by now", so there's no need to handle the situation delicately.

Or if you want to be completely honest, the people who are as experienced as us are seen as equals, so "bowing" to them hurts our pride. Conversely there's no shame in accommodating a newbie. All that does is make us feel like helpful mentors. There's a lot of ego at play. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:24, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

user removing poll results

On the talk page of

Afghanistani to be included or not, but that has not been discusses here and that is not what the original poll was about. The poll is only asking to inlcude Afghani or not, just because he doesn't like the results he crosses it out. Can an admin please tell him to stop doing this

? Thanks. He is also a bully, dictator, throws around silly accusations, and insults others. Can someone also tell him to stop that or give him a warning with short block maybe? Thanks. Also he's violated 3RR because he removed the poll more than three times.

The poll is not straighforward--the way he worded it, people were encouraged to vote for his position. We all know that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. He is trying to manipulate the results by manipulating the questions. I am a well-esltablished user, and he is an anon who has done nothing but work on this talk page. The Afghansitan article has a shistory of socks, and I would not be surprised if he was in this vein. I am agsint the poll in as far as it is unfair. I have provided for a new poll that will be fair, and is worded essentially the same as poll was worded earlier which established consensus on this. My concern is that the anon is manipulating the system. He has also tried to stuff the ballot box, as it were, by getting people to vote on Wikiproject pages. He has more knowledge of WP than an anon would usually have, so this also suggests to me that he is a banned sock. Also, one of the two users who has voted is a sock. This is ridiculous and anons need to step in to make the poll fair. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again this user is throwing around false accusations and acting as a dictator. Both the users that voted are not socks but long time users. Any admin can see for themselves and see that the poll was straightforward. It is you who is trying to manipulate things. His idea that there is something wrong with the poll is his POV. I hope admins take a look at this and see what a rude editor this Carl.bunderson is. He thinks he owns Wikipedia or something.

I said one of the users was a sock, not both. And look at their user page--one is a suspected sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He has been accused of being a sock before and checked and the result was negative. You also threw insults at me and called me blind. No one is asking to be involved with the Afghanistan article, if you are getting frustrated because you don't like the poll's results and bullying and cursing at new users and acting like a dictator, then you can move on to another article.

You need a dictionary. I never cursed. I called you blind because you seem to be. You are blind, figuratively, to the difference in our polls. I am obviously open to a poll...I made a new one that is actually fair. I have been involved in this page for a long time, defending it from nationalist/pov-pushing socks such as yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Bunderson's version distinctly differs. It seeks to create all new consensus about what can or can not be in the infobox. The old poll merely sought consensus about adding a single element. This is somewhat disturbing, because it was Carl Bunderson who so loudly advocated that consensus had been established. It's almost like he's gone to a WP:POINT violation, arguing that if any part of the old consensus is challenged, the entirity should be scuttled. The old poll seems to be far more circumspect in its goals and methods, and more designed to modify consensus than rewrite it whole. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the other way also includes a poll on

Afghanistani

demonym. But that is a different demonym and so should have its own poll. This is what I'm trying to tell Carl.bunderson but he doesn't listen because he accuses me of ignoring Afghanistani. I now added a separate poll for Afghanistani as a result so he stops accusing me of neglecting Afghanistani. Now we have a poll for both demonyms, I really don't see what else is missing.

Carl.bunderson is not the only one who thinks that something was wrong with the anon's original poll. As someone who has never been involved in editing the Afghanistan page until the anon left a message about it at

push polling. I tried to reword it (diff) but the anon rejected even that minor change [52] in favour of his own version. cab (talk

) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually user: CaliforniaAliBaba I did not see that you re-worded it. But shortly after I changed it back to the way you had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I also read your edit to change the options as a different choice. Perhaps your option should have instead been added, instead of changing the poll's nature. Again, it looks like the initial poll was to widen extant consensus, while subsequent edits were to change the fundamental nature of the poll. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thuranx, please read the conversation between me and the anon on the talk page, as well as going through the whole history of the demonym issue on the talk page. Afghani and Afghanistani ought to be dealt with together, not separately. Consensus on this matter has in the past dealt with all three demonyms, not just doing one at a time. The page has suffered greatly from nationalist pov-pushers and it is ridiculous the number of socks that have attacked the page. Look at my contribution history…which of the two users is more likely to be pushing pov? Me or him? As cab pointed out, the anon has tried to stuff the ballot and engage in push polling. The poll I provided for is as neutral as can be, and is practically the same as a poll that we had on this same issue earlier. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Carl.bunderson was complaining that we also needed a poll on Afghanistani, I started one. He was trying to poll Afghani and Afghanistani together without even giving the poller any reasons for Afghanistani. I started a second poll and give the poller some background info. The two terms need their own poll because for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. Also, Carl.bunderson is now calling me idiot (link) after I told him to stop crossing out the poll I started first. He has called me blind, now idiot, and keeps accusing me of things which I keep proving him wrong anyway. The reason is pretty easy to understand why Afghani and Afghanistani need to be separate polls. I hope he understands this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the the talk page archive. Afghani and Afghanistani have always been dealt with together, and you have not provided a reason that they should not be treated the same now—there is precedent for dealing with them in one poll, and there is a substantial reason as well: both are alternative demonyms which are sourced, but used far less than is the primary demonym, Afghan. Also, while both are soured, neither are included in the OED. You have utterly failed to provide a reason for treating them separately. And my calling you idiot and blind have been justified. I mean them matter-of-factly, not as an insult. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just provided you a very simple reason: for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. In the last poll long time ago, this was not considered, so this is why I am now treating them as 2 polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a reason for the positions people take when they vote. You have said that people might want to include one but not the other, but you haven’t actually given a reason for this. It is ludicrous to provide one but not the other, because both are sourced but not recognized nearly as widely as is Afghan. You have failed to give a reason why someone would want to include one but not the other. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl, All I see is that you are interested in getting your way on this. I see little to no POV pushing on asking for a modification to existing consensus. If it's a good idea, it will be supported, with solid arguments; and if not supported, then the same. However, stating that you don't like his poll, and slashing it out, then starting a competing poll, is childish tantrum behavior, and you need to stop it. Your best option would be to state that IF the results indicate a change, it's evidence for a whole new poll, one covering any and all permutations, which requests reasoning from the 'non-voting' responders. It's that simple. All I can see here is you obstructing to get your way. knock it off. ThuranX (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I be solely interested in getting my way on this? If that was the case, I would not have provided a poll which was completely neutrally worded. Did you bother to look at the page history, and the talk archive? Afghanistan has been a major draw to cases of sockpuppetry. Why do you think that an editor who spends the vast majority of his time on here reverting vandalism is acting petulantly? Who is more likely to do that? An anon who edited a few pages last month, was blocked, and then came on and has done nothing but deal with the Afghanistan page, or an editor who has a history of being a hammer against vandals? I’m fine with consensus changing, I’m perfectly aware that it can, but look at my wording of the poll? Can you tell me in what way it is inferior to the anon’s? If the results indicate a change, why bother making a second poll to cover any and all options? Does it not make more sense to expedite and move to the ultimate poll in the first place? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Carl.bunderson voted to not include Afghani and Afghanistani in the info-box in his own poll that he designed to push poll, shows his true intentions. He crosses out other polls that he does not like the results of, he then makes his own poll in a way to push poll, he then votes his own choice. He also claims to keep up the discussions while reverting but he took out all support for Afghanistani. In addition, he has broken 3RR like 20 times now and also insults other users by calling them "blind" "idiot" etc... and he throws around accusations. I think an admin should get involved in this case.