Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding involving cat vs sub-cat. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not used to using ANI so I hope I am doing this right. I am asking for an Admin to look at

My apologies if my actions have troubled Low Sea. I didn't remove any articles from spirituality - which is tagged as a category that tends to over-populate - since they are all in subcategories of spirituality. Mostly immediate sub-categories. I noted from her user page that she had a particular concern with the New Thought movement (which is a couple of categories down the tree) and so have suggested that if that's her main concern she either move the sub-category for New Thought up the category tree so that it's immediately under spirituality or just put the lead article for New Thought in spirituality. Since spirituality category tends to get over-populated I didn't believe it was appropriate to have - for example - articles about particular New Thought churches in Spirituality. My actions were only intended to somewhat depopulate an over-populated high domain category. Dakinijones (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I hereby withdraw my ANI request now that a clear explanation of the issue has been provided. The user was "restructuring" category tags, not "removing" them as was incorrectly described in the editsummaries. I have also left some suggestions for Dakinijones on his/her talk page to help them try and prevent such misunderstandings in the future. Thank you to the Admins who kept an eye on this until matters were more clear. Low Sea (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – deleted, as requested SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin. edit/erase this edit's offensive edit summary? --EEMIV (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, admins can't alter edit summaries. There is a proposal, however, on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Being able to edit your edit summaries to give editors the ability to edit their own edit summaries. - auburnpilot talk 01:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You should probably

request oversight for it. If you want, I can file the request for you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds

01:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't need it oversighted. Oversight is mainly for privacy issues. Revision deleted, edit summary gone.

龱

02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. --EEMIV (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, fresh from his battles on the Obama page, is editing Heather Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He questions whether mention of her involvement with the U.S. Attorney firing controversy should be in the lede. I have no problem discussing this and in fact the page editors have done so at Talk:Heather Wilson#WP:BLP violation.

June 30: T4K deleted the mention with no edit summary. [2] I reverted. No problem.[3]

July 2: T4K deleted again.[4] Posted concerns at talk page, protesting that no one should accuse him of not being a good Democrat. Seemed a bit strong since no one was doing so, but no problem.[5] Another editor reverted.[6] Discussions ensused without his partipation on July 2nd which were nearing consensus. T4K later posted that because the article, as he determined, had a history of bias (all of which had been repaired), he felt that was sufficient cause to delete. He didn't address the issues raised by other editors.[7]

July 3: Before any editors could respond, he deleted the mention again.[8] I reverted asking again to please participate before deleting.[9] He reverted again, complaining that "I notice there was no response to my Talk page post last night." In his most recent reversion, he threatened in the edit summary, "Removing obvious WP:BLP violation. Revert again, and this will go to the BLP noticeboard and I will seek to have you blocked."[10] However, the controversy is in the body of the article and well sourced. T4K was protesting the mention in the lede.

If this editor was a newbie, I would be happy to (as I always do) patiently walk through the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. However, this isn't a new editor but one with a history of contentious editing practices. I refuse to participate in edit warring with this editor and I don't see from either his past history or his current curious way of participating on the talk page that collegial discussion is going to start happening. Therefore, I ask for the guidance of admins to intervene in this manner by reviewing the short talk section to see the good faith of the editors involved and taking whatever actions are necessary. ∴ Therefore | talk 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Timing is everything. I posted my concerns on the Talk page last night. No response for at least 9-10 hours. I removed the offensive

WP:BLP violation and was reverted by the complaining editor within six minutes. [11]

The complaining editor was ignoring the attempt to discuss on the Talk page, but the minute there was an edit in the article mainspace, it was time to take action.

We have an editor,

House Ethics Committee over an alleged inappropriate contact with the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by inquiring, shortly before an election

in which she faced a stiff challenge, on the status of a corruption investigation involving a Democratic politician."

This editor's only concession was to add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: "However, an official investigation has not been confirmed." In my opinion, without confirmation, it does not go into the lead of the article. This report is clearly retaliatory since I posted on the BLP noticeboard first. Thoughts and comments, please. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did I mention that elsewhere in the article, we hadf a proven incident of plagiarism? There was an obvious cut-and-paste of quite a bit of material from a list of anti-Wilson talking points published by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. That's three different policy violations and all of them tended to attack Heather Wilson and her husband. I'm a Democrat, and I can't accept this continued course of conduct (accidental or not) at a supposedly neutral online encyclopedia. I checked my bias at the door. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I will let the article talk page speak for the facts of this case since I neither wrote nor "pushed" said sentence, to the contrary. Just as an aside, I was the editor who participated in repairing all past problems with the article. ∴ Therefore | talk 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This alleged preliminary unconfirmed investigation is the kind of thing the BLP policy is supposed to guard against; K4T was right to keep it out. The accusation doesn't belong in the lede, in any case, since that would constitute

I've left a friendly note. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am following up on the articles involved alsoDGG (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: The user is back as User:Chessecake. He hasn't done anything "bad" yet under the new user name as of this writing. --Polaron | Talk 16:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He did use it to agree with himself at one point, which is definitely against the rules for alternate accounts...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If the userpage is not more obvious, I've indef'ed this account and have extended the block on Check77. The contributions clearly indicate this is Check77 -- part of a long-term abuse issue. seicer | talk | contribs 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Directed to more appropriate forum. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you, but there has been an on-going dispute with this, by one particuallar editor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Another_example_of_POV_pushing

This dispute has discouraged and driven away some editors, so I would like to ask for an admin opinion on weitehr James Randi Foundation is a reliable/notable source, or if it's a blog disallowed by Wikipedia?

Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but recommend you to solicit feedback from

Wikipedia:RS/N. In general, blogs are disallowed as a RS except in narrow circumstances.Professor marginalia (talk

) 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The James Randi Foundation is notable but I don't think it's a reliable source. It's

talk • contribs

) 19:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right forum to discuss whether a source is reliable. Try the

reliable sources noticeboard, but before you post, please read the archives. Randi has been discussed many times already, so see what you can glean before posting another thread. MastCell ^Talk

20:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Henrik Schück wrote at the turn of the 20th century that he considered Rydberg the "last —and poetically most gifted —of the mythological school founded by Jacob Grimm and represented by such men as Adalbert Kuhn" which is "strongly synthetic" in its understanding of myth.[1] Of this work, Nazi sympathizer and scholar Jan de Vries, said:

Now scholars who support Rydberg's mythological works are slandered as "Nazi sympathizers"?! It's bad enough that Radford has attempted to falsify the entry with accusatations that Viktor Rydberg was a criminal homosexual, a child rapist, and most recently a baby-killer, but now scholars who support him are slandered as "Nazi sympathizers." This is just one more of Radford's cheap attempts to editorialize by making serious accusatations against people no longer able to defend themselves. It is despicable! When is this nonsense going to end?

How long to we have to endure this willful vandalism of the entry by RSRAdford, an editor who shows only contempt for Viktor Rydberg and his work? Please see his online work. http://www.rydberg.galinngrund.org/ It was removed from the reference section of the entry some time ago, because it "reads like a joke" in the words of one admin. Since that time, Radford has made a concerted effort to import its origional research into the entry. Why has this been allowed to continue? Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Can an admin please take a look at the actions of HagiMalachi (talk · contribs) who took it upon himself to spam the same message to multiple users, addressing them all as "Rabbi," to complain and try get his way: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] with a lengthy canned message about a "Zionist offencive (sic)" and "Zionist intolerance" messages that reflect his own POV agenda. IZAK (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm offended — in part that he missed me. I guess I'm not Zionist enough for him to bother. I noticed some of his edits suggest that a Jewish homeland should be set up in Provence? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I need that on my talk page. I've always wanted to be "Rabbi Rabbit". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, I missed this too? I am deeply hurt :P I also liked how he was too lazy to type out the users' names. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wabbi Wabbit? Sounds wascally. --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh-heh-heh-heh. Oops, I was channeling Elmer Fudd for a second there. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I must thank for

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding, poster admonished to be careful with figures of speech, no admin action required. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Allemandtando, in response to an AfD that I responded to, has posted Two disturbing messages to my talkpage. While I was gonna shurg off the first response as shenanigans, his second response is completely out of the ballpark. I would like to respond with a "WTF?!" to his delusional thoughts, but his talkpage is abit....."oppressive." Plus I have no idea what that second message means. Can another Admin figure out what the hell is going on?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[45] - it was mentioned above - it's pretty much daily. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I demand you apologize for accusing me on my talk page for this, because I did not write that. Your obviously being trolled by other users that are finding fun in antagonizing you and maybe were monitoring your contributions page and found that juicy bit of info to egg you with. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just too late at night, but none of this makes any sense. Maybe someone could state in plain English what the issue is here. As far as the "are you still beating your wife?" maybe the IP address doesn't understand that that's an old joke, a "loaded" yes-or-no question. But its usage here is unclear. Maybe lay out the chronology so my feeble brain can understand. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The really really short version - an AFD of mine is being attacked on the grounds that it's invalid for me to tackle the warhammer 40k area or delete any articles for AFD until I've cleaned up every other pop-culture we have here (this is part of a wider monitoring of my actions by the 4chan traditional gaming forum). Which is why I pointing out to 293.xx.xxx.xx (which is an account not an IP) that I'm it's not really on to ask an editor what amounts to an "do you still beat your wife?" question. That's the start and end of it. Thankfully all of the absolute ballache that the warhammer articles have caused me with IP editors seems to be worth it because now a group of other editors have become involved and hopefully clean-up can carry on without my presence. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Due to your comment - "that I'm it's not really on" - what does that mean? - I still don't get the point of the "beat your wife" part. However, their apparent argument - that other pop-culture exists elsewhere so you shouldn't touch theirs - has no validity. You can't possibly change every article at once; you have to start somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking "why don't you clean up area X first" is an example of a loaded question (the most common example of which is "do you still beat your wife") - which is the question that the IPs and 293.xx.xxx.xx were asking. Whatever my response, I can be accused of having a vendetta against that particular fictional area because the asker can then move onto "ah-ha, you MUST have a problem with fictional area X or you'd have started with fictional area Y". That's why it's a load question because it's pretty much unanswerable. that I'm it's not really on typo on my part should be "it's not really on to"... where I'm asking the editor to refrain from asking loaded questions. I hope that's cleared that up for you. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My side: Allemandtando makes AfD, I find it, question his motives. He then adds the "Wife Beater" comment to my talk page. I just ignore it. Abit later, he then adds that mysterious "it was a loaded question" spiel, so now i'm freaking out if Allemandtando is trying to provoke me into something, or he's abit unstable. When he puts on the 4chan link here, I figure out that Allemandtando is accusing me of egging him and being one of the trolls that is egging him. Which i'm denying that I put up said message and I am unanimous in it. Or something like that. Still, i'm very disturbed that Allemandtando used "wife beater" as an example when other examples would've sufficed. And I demand an apology from him for using such a tasteless example from the start. A simple "Can we agree to Disagree?" would've sufficed.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As Allemandtando clearly and correctly states above, the "Are you still beating your wife?" question is simply the most notorious example of a loaded question. While it might seem offensive to someone who is unfamiliar with its history, its use is not at all unusual to illustrate a "fallacy of many questions". (I'm not saying your argument was such a fallacy, but that is what Allemandtando was trying to communicate.) Please don't take it literally, or personally. — Satori Son 13:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

While strongly echoing Satori Son's comments, I would also like to add a quick piece of advice for Allemandtando: Probably don't use that expression, because even though your meaning was completely valid and all of us can see that it clearly was not a personal attack of any sort, you might want to avoid the expression so that it won't be misinterpreted out of ignorance. For

the same reasons, one should generally avoid using the word "niggardly"... --Jaysweet (talk

) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand because I didn't see the "why don't you clean up X first" as being a "loaded" question, but more of a "go pick on someone else" question. All's swell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Cali567 started adding a very controversial genetical study on every argentine article in reference to demographics: (eg. Argentine American, Demographics of Argentina, etc) there has been several edit wars every day, that is why I requested the full protection of Demographics of Argentina. Though there was a consensus on Demographics of Argentina[46] she continues making her edits. User Jersey Devil and I told her that this kind of issues have to be solved on talk pages, still though she continues making her edits.

This user has been warned more than once, nevertheless I have given her the last warning for disruption. If she continues the disruption please block her. Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I seek to draw your attention to the following, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/GoRight. This RFC was created under the following suspect circumstances and I would like to have some independent oversight of the process which has been used. I note the following anomalies:

1. The RFC appears to have been created under the radar since it was never listed as a candidate RFC.
2. The party creating the RFC actively and selectively solicited comments from those who would oppose me in this action.
3. The RFC 48 hour timer has expired with only one signature certifying it, albeit not the one of the person that created it.
4. The parties involved are now trying to re-add it to the candidate page.

Objective opinions on the process being followed here would be welcome. --GoRight (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See resolved box. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the resolved tag because I also removed the Speedy tag. The simplest way to look at this RfC is that it is in the process of being created and that process hasn't been completed. Normally, a creator creates the page and signs it and logs it, and then the clock starts ticking. However, here, the creator disappeared after creating it (next day after), and may not have realized that he did not sign it. (Or realized that and intended to return and sign and log it.) Now, technically, there was a finished page when one user signed it. But that user may not have realized the effect of signing. There are a couple of possibilities: the user who did certify it could take that signature out, and then it is clearly a page in process of being created. Better, the user accepts responsibility for he page even though he did not create it, and his signature is then the first signature, and the clock would either start from that date of signature, or from the date when he realized that there was a problem that the creator did not sign. Which is the better approach depends on circumstances I do not know.

There is another factor which should be considered. The RfC clock should not begin until the RfC is listed; until then, the creators may consider it a work in progress, not yet ready to begin. In other words, this is not an RfC yet, it is a page being edited to become an RfC. Others may help with that, and at any time it could be listed, but I'd suggest that it not be listed by an adverse party, just in order to make the clock start. Let the creator(s) of an RfC decide when it begins.

Those who favor this RfC may have screwed it up by attempts to fix it. There is another approach possible as well. Let it be deleted, which is without prejudice, and refile with two certifications when all the ducks are in a row. I suggested to GoRight, though, that GoRight certify it, if it is true that attempts were made to resolve a dispute that were unsuccessful. Is that true? --

I appreciate your help and good faith here. You of course miss the obvious point that the originator is NOT supposed to be canvassing for support during the creation process ... but rather only after the request has been approved, if then. At least that is the case by my reading of

WP:RFC/USER. Regardless, if we intend to allow Raul to sign after the fact, then this RFC has met the required criteria for moving to "Approved". Please make it so. --GoRight (talk

) 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

76

 – semi protected for one month Keeper

I don't exactly know where to put this issue, but there are several Anonymous IP editors who have been making POV edits to the article. Every one of the IP addresses is from the same location in Colorado. I'm not an expert on IP addresses, but it appears that one editor is trying to retain a POV version. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi protected for one month (last protection was for 2 weeks; IP (s) went right back at it). No problem with anyone extending my protection duration. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The

For the duration of this proceeding,

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

) is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely

I just caught this editor changing the names of Christianity and anti-Semitism related articles, without any discussion at all (let alone consensus) - an act that to me verges on vandalism. I checked this user's edit history this year and saw that every edid s/he made was mmediately reverted. At least one edit [47] was obviously tendentious and provocative. It seems to me that this user exists only to violate

This edit is also unacceptable. Using a comment like "unconverted" implies a qualitative difference between Christians and Jews. That's way outside of an encyclopedic article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And this edit seems out-and-out anti-Semitic. I just hesitate to block someone indefinitely unilaterally. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be amenable to correction. Pretty much every one of his edits has been to promote his own POV; he's been warned repeatedly, and has not engaged in dialog (he just blanks his talk page). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Smith Jones left him a notice. I've left him an {{ANI-notice}}. If it matters --Rodhullandemu 00:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tired to assume AGF: with this user and i have given him a {{welcome}} templat on his page as well a a notice of this page here. maybe that will work and further sanctions willn't be neeaded. User:Smith Jones

Given that the username is disruptive and was reported to

Ok, I may be in the wrong place, but with the circumstances I can see this being a bit ugly. First off, as I reported, Pianomanusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) was adding to a number of pages with a link to sheetmusicarchive.net. This site is very clearly a business site, charging for most of its content. All such links were reverted, and the user made only a few other edits. Now, just a bit ago,

I'll keep an eye on it. I have problems with them "copyrighting" scans of public domain works -- doesn't Copyright law have some fairly specific things to say about exact reproductions?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is being

Could someone take a look at this, please? It took a turn for the worse when Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gave me a personal attack warning for this, despite a clear desire of mine that he not interact with me in my userspace.

He then referred to me (a 19-month contributor) as a newbie. Please tell us both (me and him) to shut up, officially, on the page. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 21:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And another dispute (I'm not involved in this one) in which Arcayne suggested that another user "got a hard-on" from arguing. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You already know the solution is for you two to leave each other alone, but you want to be told this? Err.. ok, leave each other alone. Friday (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Which he has been asked to do. Repeatedly. On other AN/I complaints where he was told the same thing. Maybe, at long last, TT can now heed that advice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

TT, that whole dispute started getting nasty because you thought this would be a good idea. If you want Arcayne to not interact with you, I suggest you reciprocate.

龱

00:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea because how else do you suggest I find the answer to those questions? They are quite reasonable, as it is. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 06:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not possible to choose to not interact with Arcayne. His purpose here is to control and "win" for it's own sake, using whatever it takes. Arcayne is a loose cannon that should have his own permanent section in AN/I - He is perennially locked in some bullying dispute with any one of dozens of editors or administrators. He's also an aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander. Someday perhaps people will begin to string together these many, many incidents and ask, "Can everybody be wrong?" No, they can't. Arcayne is a bully whose purpose here is to game the system for his own personal gratification at the expense of nearly every Wiki tenet of civility, intellectual honesty, manners and decorum. 75.57.201.254 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll the anon, why don't you create a subheading here and explain what's your issue with Arcayne, including specifics. Vague insults about his personality aren't going to solve anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

An "aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander"? Omg, is the anon actually talking about me? I think no one who has ever encountered me would pair those two descriptions with my personality, like, ever. Btw, the anon appears to have been a user we blocked back in April for gaming the system to bypass admin oversight. Does anyone need those prior AN/I's? Coz, I am going to be asking for the anon range to be blocked to keep out the attack pages as soon as I have the results of the RfCU, located here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As you know, non-specific personal attacks from IP addresses always have a high degree of credibility. Though not in this universe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, just ignore the insults. That was my point precisely. Believe me, I see from the summary on my talk page here what to take when someone calls them "Unsupported claims of authority about a subject which are fraudulently offered" without any specifics. I see from such edit summaries like "If you are an OXFORD POLI Grad as you claim you should know better", I think it's time we have to consider range blocks to stop this nonsense. I'll add a note on the last user talk page so let's see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really take the insults that seriously. Really, I was amused at the choice of mischaracterization, as they have never really been applied to me. The user has tried this same sort of stuff at least three times before. I just don't want him cluttering up my page with his rants, and trying to poison wells elsewhere. Still waiting on RfCU to confirm the related status so I can properly request the range block. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize - here are the specifics: "With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English...penultimate being the climax of the story."[48]. Arcayne has made other claims to superior authority in the past, he has also argued forcefully over weeks with numerous editors that the EU is an NGO: "Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak, ... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)" I hope the specifics help.75.57.205.135 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we just block this IP range and dispense with the user? This is his fourth or fifth IP in two days, He is likely specifically restarting his modem to shift IPS. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this a single purpose account whose only intent is to promote the Tiny Rascal Gang, an article which has been deleted (by AFD, prod & CSD) 12 different times, but which this user continues to restore. They've even tried to change their name to Tiny Rascal Gang over at WP:CU. I don't have access to the deleted history at previous versions of Tiny Rascal Gang, but I can bet that the primary (or only) contributor was this user. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, it appears this is a sockpuppet of User:Mormoncrunk, whose contribs are identical and who was blocked 3 days ago. Could somebody review this too and decide if this warrants an indef block? Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• In light of the rename, I may not agree with G4 instead of G11, but I definitely agree with the speedy delete. This looks to be a user with an agenda. I think the indef block(s) are in order. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• This user is also probably a member or former member of the Tiny Rascal Gang (if such a gang exists), and has vandalized
  MS-13, which Avengercrunk has identifed as being a "rival gang" to Tiny Rascal. Cumulus Clouds (talk
  ) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked indef as another sock of User:Mormoncrunk. Kevin (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• How about extending the block on User:Mormoncrunk to indef for abusing multiple accounts several times? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wondering if arbcom decisions are enforced at all, as according to the case on FLG: "It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources." [49]. These are articles seemed to be abandoned by most editors except single purpose accounts bent on pushing their agendas. I've noted a RFC here [50], but so far has not received any replies from a third party. Is it possible to get admin intervention to check on the POV of these articles?--PCPP (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

One look at the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (2nd nomination) shows the obvious problem.--PCPP (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP address in question has been engaged in a long-term edit war over a single issue, namely the status of the Atlanta Braves' consecutive division championships. Major League Baseball recognizes their streak as 14, not 11, because the strike-shortened 1994 season had no champions. The IP address wants it otherwise, and has tried various ways to push his personal agenda. He has been warned numerous times. He's also been blocked, and then unblocked on the condition that he discuss and compromise, but he won't. [51] Something needs to be done about this character's continual disruptive behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Have they filed an official declaration of edit war (document 32a)? -- Ned Scott 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That is to say.. I wouldn't worry about it unless he actually does edit war. Sometimes people get worked up on the talk page. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well he censored it once, and has been reverted, Bidgee's revert is 100% per policy and if Exanimous continues to try and censor the article, I will warn them to stop edit warring against policy. MBisanz ^talk 08:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A threat to edit-war is the first step to a quick exit. Maybe that editor ought to focus on trying to come up with a better illustration? That should keep him busy for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Exanimous has again removed the image (but still linked) from the article [52] Bidgee (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have final warned the user here for continuing to censor the image with a Media:. Please note I am not endorsing the inclusion of the image in the article, merely enforcing the policy against censorship and the related policy against "spoiler" type messages. Also, responding to Neil's concern below, the image is a free image contributed by an editor, so there is no concern with its copyright status. MBisanz ^talk 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) While Exanimous should be warned off edit warring, I have sympathy for his/her point, if not his/her behaviour. While I don't profess to know the answers to the questions I'm about to ask, I'll posit them anyway. What is the role of consensus here? Is the image necessary? Does it add anything? Does it help us to understand the subject? Similarly, let's broaden this to include another example of a gratuitous and distasteful image here [53]. I remember a similar discussion a while ago about the first image at Human feces being a photo of the subject matter [54]. That image has gone now. So what was the difference between that case and this one? I'm not in favour of censorship, but I am in favour of people reading our articles, and if the first thing you see when you open a page is an image that turns most people's stomachs and likely sends them scurrying away from the article, how does that promote the encyclopedia? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why it has to be discussed and consensus reached. Gratuitous and distasteful are in the eye of the beholder. I might find a picture of a warthog distasteful, but it's still there. Personally, I do think those photos are gratuitous, but not particularly offensive. I've seen a lot worse. This is the internet, not a garden party. Nor is wikipedia a crazy den of warthogs. Discussion is needed, not one user's unilateral censorship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That picture is poor, and unnecessary. Removing it isn't censorship, it's making an improvement to the article. We don't need badly clipped images from porn sites. The article itself is a dictionary definition. It should really be merged into one article along with

龱

10:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not wiktionary. Some readers might not understand the concept. Your idea of merging them all into a single article is good. Multiple articles about essentially the same topic seems excessive. Meanwhile, the complaining editor needs to get busy on producing a better photo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a high quality image and then release it to the PD - that would be great. thanks. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's David Shankbone now that we need him??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I agree with merging however I feel it would be best to get an consensus as even if the link to the image is there same may see removing the image from the article as censorship. That way we have something to fall on if an all out war starts over the issue. My opinion is that the image shouldn't be there for many reasons but I don't let my POV get in the way of editing here and I don't remove content or images without an consensus. Bidgee (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To add to my above remarks and reply to later comments, preferring not to use an image to illustrate certain human practices in no way equates to censorship. Note that the article on rape, as a good example, does not seek to help readers who might not understand the concept by providing a graphic image of it. I'm entirely in agreement with Neil. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To equate this harmless item with rape is far more offensive than the picture in question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, I'll have to ask you to strike that comment out, I'm afraid. I was in absolutely no way "equating this harmless item with rape". Strike your remark out now please. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, calm down - please? Bugs, I don't think Alistair was comparing this article with

龱

11:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Rape and Pearl necklace are two seperate issues. One Rape is Illegal and a graphic of anytype showing/illustrate wouldn't belong in the Rape or any Wiki article (Infact I think if anyone uploaded a photo of a rape would be charged by there own law inforcement in there own Country/State/Terriory) however Pearl necklace is legal (Unsure if it's banned any where in the World) there for showing/illustrating and image of the act isn't Illegal. Bidgee (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You make the point well. I think the comparison of this with any other bodily fluid (as someone else suggested above) is fair. To lump it into the same sentence with an illegal act is unfair. No, I do not strike my comment, because I called it as I saw it, whether you intended it that way or not. Your explanation stands here also. Let the reader judge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, I'll ask you for a second time, politely but firmly, to strike that comment. If it needs explanation (I don't think it does, but you never know), I was talking about whether the respective Wiki articles illustrate the practices, not equating the subjects. Now, strike out your remark. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I called it as I saw it. I accept your explanation of what you thought you meant. I also stand by the way it read to me. And I wasn't the only one who saw it that way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous accusation by Baseball bugs

Since you choose to up the ante, I'm going to insist on this. Your comment that "To equate this harmless item with rape is far more offensive than the picture in question" is a disgraceful slur on my character, and, to make matters worse, referring to "your explanation of what you thought you meant" seeks to portray me as somehow confused. I am not. I would never in my life seek to compare these two things. I was very obviously talking about whether Wikipedia articles choose to illustrate these two things. Now, I have asked you twice, and I will do so for a third time, strike that comment, as I will not stand for having such an outrageous accusation stand uncorrected on this page. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting on your choice of words, not your character. I could likewise insist that you strike your comment that, to my eyes, equates rape with a harmless sexual act. Or, we could both take the admin's advice, and chill, bro. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have images of people being murdered either yet the article on

Tomatoes quite happily shows images of the fruit. There is no need to equate this to any other article and the picture in question should simply be judged on its own merits. And I understand how one may take your comment to mean you are equating the two, that is how it sounded. But I really don't care, after all this is just the internet so relax. --The High Commander (talk

) 12:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had images of tomatoes being murdered, that would be different. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen, move along. Bugs was commenting on the comparison between rape and a pearl necklace, as one activity is illegal and the other is legal. Having photographs of someone being raped is entirely unacceptable, whereas having photographs of a pearl necklace is not due to the nature of the activities. seicer | talk | contribs 12:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This started out as a friendly discussion and it turned ugly. Ya see what sex can lead to??? >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's always a bad day for me. seicer | talk | contribs 13:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To all of you, there is a yawning chasm between what I actually wrote and the scandalous way BB interpreted it, without I might add him even attempting the slightest

Oh, come on. Never give up. Never give in. Do you have any idea how many times I got fed up enough to quit this site? (I actually did, once.) I stick with it because I like to write about facts, and this website serves as a good outlet. Focus on the good stuff. If an editor annoys you, leave it be, if possible. Or make fun of it. That's much better for the constitution. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alasdair, I asked you to calm down, as did Seicer. It was a minor misunderstanding, and you've worked yourself up over it. Nobody's going to block you, just

One of the disruptive things that some disruptive editors do is to provoke other editors into becoming angry, and then derive satisfaction as the angry editor immolates himself. There is no easy way to discriminate this from simply being straightforward with no disruptive intent, beyond seeing a pattern over many incidents. I will point out one thing, here: AlasdairGreen27 overreacted, yes, but ... that part of this incident report could have been resolved easily by Baseball Bugs making a small apology, the kind that people routinely make when they offend someone without intending to. It wasn't resolved that way, and it is not impossible that we lost an editor over this. (To be fair, Bugs made a minimal recognition that Alasdair meant his comment differently, but then went on to justify his own remark as "the way he saw it." Let me translate that into how it works: "I did nothing wrong, and that you are offended is your problem. I would do it again.") This kind of response is almost guaranteed to enrage an ordinary person in an ordinary context. Here on AN/I, we tend to be used to this, Bug's remark was mild compared to much we see. With this comment, I'm simply noting what happened. Bugs debates with editor, editor sputters as if a fuse is burning. Bugs continues to interact with editor, editor explodes. Then, Bugs rubs salt in the wound by giving editor advice about having fun. Isn't that what they sometimes say to women about what to do if raped?--

Please dont compare something liek this to being raped. Baiting editors in wikipedia s something that happens too often in my view,s i agree with you on that but to compare what Bugs did to rape is proposterose. Smith Jones (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Very proposterose. Abd, suggest you strike or remove that last sentence (let's see what happens).

龱

08:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The following is with regards to the RfC on Marburg 72 located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Marburg72

It is filed by Trochos, Who has taken to recruiting friends to "endorse" the complaints. This seems to be in direct conflict with the policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:

1. Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices , or to introduce any evidence that other users have not already mentioned .

2. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.

3. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity. Marburg72 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the evidence that Trochos is acting in violation to the applicable policy: Trochos asked Ronz on Ronz talk page to endorse this claim, as follows: Ronz, I've just put in an "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" summary, and your name keeps cropping up. Would you like ::to sign in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section? David Trochos (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) See the following for this extensive recruitment evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/David_Trochos http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKbh3rd&diff=223398909&oldid=221699896 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACJLippert&diff=223398409&oldid=222091728 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AItsmejudith&diff=223387983&oldid=222958028 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APaul_Barlow&diff=223387620&oldid=222972926 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AClovisPt&diff=223386427&oldid=222876449 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhlegm_Rooster&diff=223369392&oldid=223014893 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARonz&diff=223367856&oldid=223366774

Here Ronz stated that his involvement with this was upon a request for "Help" . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarburg72&diff=223403410&oldid=223312101 Marburg72 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz later reverted this statement, and said that it was from the Fringe accusations page located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarburg72&diff=223416239&oldid=223412775 Marburg72 (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Further indirect evidence of recruitment on behalf of the other involved party that is verifying this complaint by the name of DougWeller- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leoboudv&action=history

Leoboudv (talk) page shows that this user is friends with Weller and Trochos has had a long history of prior discussions with him, this is again in direct conflict with MEAT PUPPET policy.

In addition, Shot Info, the other user that has "endorsed" the claim quickly, has a long history of discussions with Ronz. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shot_info&limit=500&action=history Marburg72 (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued meat puppetry and recruiting on behalf of Doug : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGwen_Gale&diff=223522358&oldid=223521966 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

Please review the standard for WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. I do not feel that this recruitment to verify Trochos and Wellers claims against me are abiding by Wikipedia policy.Marburg72 (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• How interesting Marburg72. I post a single message noting your removal of a book by a reliable source the University of Illinois at [55] and specifically here and you quickly accuse me of all being a meat/sockpuppet. Of course, you don't mention your behaviour at all in deleting the University of Illinois book reference. Removal of reliable sources can constitute a form of vandalism. Just because you have a point of view doesn't mean you can remove sourced references that may conflict with your viewpoint. Without reliable sources, Wikipedia's credibility is called into question. I am certainly no one's puppet. I checked your edits before I made my statement. I saw these edits by you in which you implicitly accused two well respected scholars, Fowler and Young, of bias and racism toward native Indians regarding the Cahokia mounds [56] and [57] but I ignored it. I mention it now for an Admin to inspect. For full disclosure, I have made zero edits to the Cahokia mounds article and am no one's puppet on this subject. But I dislike being attacked for being called someone's puppet. As an Aside, Marburg72's behaviour towards others is simply abhorrent. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you were at all familiar with the topic or discussion, it would be clear to you that the source on Mound 72 by Fowler states nothing of this speculative theory.Marburg72 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar complaint, although of sockpuppetry only, at [58]. I've said that that I can't understand why he would accuse me of being a sockpuppet. He has, for instance, twice mentioned by personal website. I think a better understanding of policy and guidelines by Marburg72 might have avoided all these problems

talk

) 07:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug has also attempted to recruit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kbh3rd#User:Marburg72__and_Cahokia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug has continued adding personal attacks to the Monk's Moiund page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonk%27s_Mound&diff=223521614&oldid=223520148 Marburg72 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at 'Trochos's' edits mentioned above, and he seems to be contacted editors who have been involved with Marburg72 and says "f you would like to add any comments, under the headings "Other users who endorse this summary", or "Outside view" or in the "Users who endorse this summary:" at the end of Marburg72's "Response" section, please do so". Isn't it reasonable to invite editors with some experience of the editor in question to comment? And, just as Marburg72 seems to be watching other people's contributions, other people are probably watching mine or those of Trochos, so there should be no surprise if some of them decide to take a look at the RfC.

talk

) 07:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving this and the sock-puppetry complaint to the judgement of the admins. David Trochos (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SSP is that-away ---> Coldmachine^Talk
  09:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • If anyone does notice Marburg72's accusation of 'continued meatpuppetry and recruiting', this refers to my actions after I discovered he had deleted text he didn't like from an article's talk page [59] and I asked a completely uninvolved Admin to step in. He ignored the Admin's warnings, kept deleting (4 times in all) after being warned that he would be blocked.
    talk
    ) 13:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Not vandalism - provided policy link and explanation. Papa November (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please could you provide some

WP:DIFFs to demonstrate the alleged abuse? Also, as a non-administrator, you shouldn't be using block tags as you did here and here. Papa November (talk

) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the edits you reverted, and this looks more like a content dispute. There's no obvious vandalism there. Papa November (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know I couldn't use block tags. I found it suspicious that an anon IP was rewriting large portions of the article, without adding sources. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm quite new here. --

talk

) 10:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unregistered users are entitled to contribute, just as registered users are. You may want to put a {{

WP:VAND#NOT

for a list of things that aren't vandalism, and how to deal with them.

Only admins can block people - the block templates only display a message (they don't actually block the user). so placing a "you have been blocked" message on a talk page will only serve to confuse them, if they are still actually able to edit!

I'll mark this as resolved here, but send me a message if you need further help/explanations. Papa November (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we please get some uninvolved admin help at

Unresolved

 –

boy00

@770, i.e. 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I politely requested he userfy an article and he responded by calling me a "spoiled child," which if not a personal attack is at least downright incivil as a response to a polite request which is why I gave him a warning. He responded by blocking me for "trolling" without any warning, without acknowledging that maybe his reply to a polite request was a bit unfriendly, and without even explaining on my talk page. Obviously, since I am commenting here, this block has been overturned after disapproval by multiple others (see [66], [67], and [68]). Again, blocking without warning, let alone responding to a polite request in such a disrespectful fashion, is totally unacceptable for an admin. Moreover, claiming he did it to prove a "point" seems a violation of

Seems like the block was punitive and ill-advised. Still, no wheel warring after it's release. though I am not an administrator, I'm not sure as to what can be done about it now. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe

User:Cryptic is a member of the group of administrators open to recall. I would suggest a RfC/Admin Conduct, and provide further information. The block was bad, and response not much better, I agree, but you'll need more then 1 bad incident to be taken seriously if you're going to put in a request to recall/desysop him. SirFozzie (talk

) 02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of trolling probably stemmed from the fact that you gave an tenured admnistrator a "welcome to Wikipedia" warning, which probably was viewed as a deliberate slight. Although, I presume it was just an oversight. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We have tenure? Awesome! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not in that sense. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When someone is tenured, they're hard to get rid of. Some folks resort to assassination, but that gets messy and can cause legal trouble. My usual approach is to ring their doorbell and run away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really warn editors that much and so when I went to the warning template page looking for an appropriate warning, I wanted to go with the lowest level one I could find and so just went with that template. In any event, AfDs and DRVs, as far as I am aware, are supposed to be discussions, not votes, i.e. discussions in which we engage and interact with each other. How does he respond to a discussion? Well, instead of say commenting on the topic under discussion, he comments on me instead. Now, it's not just with me. Notice this edit summary, which seems to be something of an assumption of bad faith. See also: confrontional comment, losing cool, unconstructive edit summary, etc., and from a quick look, it seems with ease I can find more if necessary, i.e. a rather unhelpful and unfriendly manner of dealing with others, which is totally unbecoming of an admin. Plus, looking at his own block log, the self blocks of thinking "MSK's unblock shows the system's still broke" and "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet" are also somewhat wikidramatic and seem a bit of a concern for an admin. Sincerely, --

Tally-ho!

02:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't Arbcom already set precedent in this sort of matter? [69]--Cube lurker (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While an Arbcom decision is indicative of what Arbcom may do in the next similar situation, their decisions are non-binding, and do not set precedents. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)