Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive52

I want to apologise for all my past vandalisms on Wikipedia. Apologies to Mindspillage, Curps, Android79, every admin on here. I am not going to vandalize Wikipedia EVER again. I am genuinely sorry and won't do this again! Please forgive me. --Sunfazer 10:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Of course, I'm sceptical, but if you really mean this, I'd be glad to accept. I'd be even happier if you decided to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No reason to be skeptical Mgm, every vandal gives up eventually, and some even courteously like Sunfazer just did. There are very few vandals who if apologized shouldn't be trusted, in fact I don't think any non-trolls do that (real trolls, not those vandals who think they're trolls) Redwolf24 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • t
      07:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Nah, those aren't real, that's just a hoax perpetrated by
        real trolls. Radiant_>|<
        12:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Mr Smiley has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 18:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work, bot... now if only we could automate WoW clean-up, we'd be set. - jredmond 19:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, nice work, but too late: two other users had already blocked the target. The bot might need some more tuning

☺. --cesarb

19:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Normally it responds faster, this time it happened to be in the middle of a programmed 3-minute pause due to IO error. Just an unlucky coincidence. -- Curps 19:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've filed an abuse complaint with the ISP (a hosting company). Kelly Martin (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's a hosting company, it's probably a CGI open proxy. --cesarb 20:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what I said in the abuse complaint. I'm also going to block the IP indefinitely, especially since it has never made any other contribution to Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

On wheels? So does this mean WoW hasn't atoned, or is this just a copycat? --Golbez 21:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably a copycat. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps the original WoW pretending it's a copycat. Or perhaps a copycat pretending to be the origianl WoW pretending to be a copycat. Or perhaps the one who atoned isn't the real WoW after all. --cesarb 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is this atonement of which you speak? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

See this mailing list entry. I'm not on the mailing list, so I haven't followed the ensuing discussion and so forth. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated, but perhaps not

What do you think about a recently created user with a single edit which consists only on copying an entire article as his user talk page? Another sleeper account? --cesarb 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This reeks of a witch hunt. Becareful where you tread. WoW is undoubtedly dangerous but you cannot make assumptions using such evidence. You'll end up biting too many newbies. TheChief (PowWow) 23:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've examined the underlying IP for that editor and the other account created by that IP: a handful of edits all within a relatively short time and all of them either lame vandalism or own user space edits. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked

Ain't a one week block a bit too long? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It'll give him time to put together his New! Improved! 50,000-word Request for Arbitration. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems a hair extreme - considering the general competence shown by Wilkes, I assumed he was just ammending his request and being careless where he put it. Phil Sandifer 02:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

See my and his talk pages; his placement there was deliberate. He knew what he was doing was outside policy and felt that his exceptional circumstances justified it. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well fuck him then. Phil Sandifer 02:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Regardless of what another user has done, that kind of language is out of line. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

On a related note, I've unprotected Elvis Presley, where the actions of Ted Wilkes and another warrior had caused a week-long page protection. I propose to block anyone engaged in clearly disruptive editing on this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone else please consider watching and/or protecting this page? I have now reverted it three times today; the same user who keeps adding the same nonsense has been reverted at least six times in the last three hours. It's a proxy IP so no chance of just blocking the user. --

Francs2000

{{vprotected}} --Bishonen | talk 02:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected (didn't mean to leave it this long, sorry). --Bishonen|talk 02:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Continued removal of NPoV tag from Jeremy Clarkson, with false claim that there is consensus to do so - note bottom three edits on talk page (at time of posting). Andy Mabbett 19:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing. Recent talk-page edits (not mine) include "Still disputing the neutrality of the article" and "... this is a critical point of the NPOV issue ... looking like it's open season for editing and conflicting POV ... The current listing, as it stands, is far too excised". Andy Mabbett 17:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like some input on this. Thanks for bringing it up here, Andy. The constant adding of this tag on the article is quite disruptive, particularly when it is coupled with absolutely no constructive suggestions on what aspects of the article fail to conform with NPOV. I maintain that if the only requirement for an article being tagged with {{npov}} is that there is someone, somewhere, who insists that the article is POV, then eventually every article on Wikipedia will have that tag. If you're going to claim an article is pushing a specific point of view, then I believe you have an affirmative obligation to state what that point of view is and make specific suggestions as to how to improve it.

Relevant to this issue, I believe, is the consensus that repeatedly adding the NPOV tag to articles can be considered disruptive [1]. Furthermore, your high-handed attitude and complete lack of constructive engagement on the talk page seems to me to be consistent with the description of your activities as "trolling" in the recent arbitration case brought against you, and fits in perfectly with the description of your activities in your recent request for comments: "Marking articles with unexplained "tags" as user follows seeming more concerned about being argumentive, more than a concern for Wikipedia." You've shown no willingness to engage the community on those issues, so I can only assume that you agree with those sentiments.

I believe we are making progress on the talk page in improving the article. I also believe that describing the existing issues in the article as being point-of-view disputes is absolutely incorrect; this is simply a discussion of what incidents and how much detail to provide in a biographical article. I welcome the input of other editors and administrators on this article. Nandesuka 18:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been recreated again.Geni 23:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It was deleted and protected by

I formally dispute this. All I did was add {npov} or {totallydisputed} headers to the article, a quick look at the top and middle sections of the talk page will show the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed. Ryan, feel free to disagree with my interpretation of the article but what you are doing here is blatant mischaracterization of the controversy. Also, you and your buddies have repeatedly denied the existance of controversy and fundamental criticisms in the article. zen master T 02:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The arbcom's finding includes the statement "Zen-master (talk · contribs) … may be banned from any article which relates to race and intelligence if in the opinion of any administrator his editing is disruptive." Clearly, the page Race and intelligence relates to race and intelligence; Ryan Delaney is an administrator. Case closed. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, you've missed a spot. How is adding a {npov} header disruptive? A quick glance at the top and middle of the talk page will show the article is fundamentally disputed on numerous points. So you have to actually establish how I was "disruptive" specifically? zen master T 02:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. It's enough that in his opinion, your actions were disruptive. Furthermore, a review of the recent history of the article shows that a reasonable person could reasonably characterize your actions as disruptive; therefore, Ryan's determination is not an abuse of adminstrative discretion. The ban is validly imposed. That said: administrators banning for disruption under probation terms should offer somewhat more than a conclusive statement that the editor being banned was being disruptive; such statements need not be extensive or detailed, however. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

But he has to at least say how I was disruptive? The race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed, know that. zen master T 16:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the article history and I would not be inclined to overturn his conclusion that your editing was disruptive. If you want to take this matter to the full ArbCom, feel free, but I suspect that you would not enjoy the outcome. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Whether your edit was disruptive is not the point here. If you are banned from editing an article by an arbitration decision you shouldn't edit it for ANY reason. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you misinterpret, I am on probation, there is no edit restriction against me from arbcom currently. zen master T 17:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

He is permitted under

Wikipedia:Probation to responsibly edit the article. Fred Bauder

18:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

So an admin would have to establish exactly where the "disruption" is before article banning would be appropriate, right? If there is an in good faith dispute I dare say {npov} headers are appropriate, the article and larger area of research are fundamentally disputed. zen master T 18:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems you were disrupting the article. If any administrator determines you were you may be indefinitely banned from the article. He only banned you for two weeks. Please be less aggressive. Fred Bauder 21:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned here that Ryan Delaney is an admin involved in conflict with Zen-master, and did the banning himself, without even asking anyone else. After I raised this question on his talk page, he quickly archived it and then emailed me in private. After a total of eight emails, I'm still rather unimpressed by his actions, and disappointed by his response (which was basically nothing, and that it doesn't matter if he is involved, and that he was going to stop reading my emails). I just want to point out that Ryan was the one that was reverting Zen-master here, and has a history of reverting him, so him doing the banning is improper. Myself, I would have been less harsh for just the petty placing of a POV tag. Could someone else uninvolved take more than a quick look and see what you think?

I'm disappointed that you chose to frame it in this way. As long as you want to bring private conversation out into the open (I hate doing this), I stopped reading your emails at the point that you stopped being civil ("I feel like I am talking to a brick wall"). I think

WP:FAITH

applies.

I don't feel that I am in any way a disputant in this article. I simply perceived what I felt was disruptive editing by Zen-master and so I warned him. When he ignored my talk page warnings and continued the disruptive behavior, I banned him from the article. Since Kelly Martin confirmed that this ban was appropriately applied, I don't know what further purpose would be served by discussion, especially when when the discussion is already taking such an accusatory tone. It might do you some good to try to understand what happened before you decide that abuse occurred.

Still, as I posted on the talkpage for the

Wikipedia:Mentorship committee, if they decide to take his case I will abdicate and allow them to handle it however they see fit. For the time being, this ban stands. --Ryan Delaney ^talk

20:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm not putting anyone on trial here, and this attitude is exactly why I was so exasperated. I went to your talk page first and expressed my concerns as a fellow (uninvolved) admin. You deleted it hours later; I don't know why, but it gave me the distinct impression not to post there again. I'm not saying you were wrong, which is what you keep defending. But your action was improper. How can you deny being involved when you were the one that reverted him? Actually, if you want to misquote me (not that I can see why you bring it up), after four emails where you said nothing new, and refused to concede even asking another admin's opinion when you are involved, I said "My God, I feel like I'm talking to a wall." That would be my response to this comment as well. You were involved, and regardless of the rightness of Zen-master's banning, the only thing I've been trying to get you to do is to ask another admin or here first, rather than make unilaterl pronouncements when you are involved. I expect administratos to be better at taking criticism.

t

21:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Involved" is too broad a term, and I think the source of this disagreement. I do not believe I am a disputant in a content disagreement with Zen-master. I am only "involved" in an administrational capacity. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"If they edit an article in those subject areas in a disruptive or objectional way, any administrator who is not involved in the conflict may ban them from the article." So was he involved in the conflict? Fred Bauder 21:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A review of the edit history shows occasional edits which involve the disputed tag. So I'd say he was involved in the conflict. Should have asked someone else to do it. Fred Bauder 21:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I guess I haven't been so specific on this page. think he was, because if you take a look at his last four edits to

t

21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are you guys saying I should not have reverted the disruptive edits? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I dispute your interpretation that my edits were disruptive, the only way that could be true is if there is not an in good faith dispute over the article. A quick look at the top and middle sections of talk page will show the article is fundamentally disputed. To summarize just some of the controversies: there is a dispute over the word "score" being potentially loaded, and charges of fundamentally unscientific methodologies and exponentially biasing presentation. Can an uninvolved admin or someone take a look at the race and intelligence article and note the fundamental criticisms at the top and middle of the talk page and decide whether {npov} or {totallydisputed} is warranted in this case? thx. zen master T 02:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Nothing wrong with reverting Zen-master's notice. What was wrong was banning him when you were involved in editing the article. I don't think you should lift the ban or that you should be sanctioned. Just try not to get involved with an article then ban someone who is on probation. Fred Bauder 02:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh? It most certainly was wrong, the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed, when such a situation arises the {npov} template is added to an article. This is basic NPOV policy here. Please take a look at the fundamental criticisms of the article on the talk page for more info on the controversy. There is currently a vote of 2 to 1 to rename "score" to "results", Ryan Delaney hasn't voted or commented which I find suspiciously odd given the fact that he reverted my first attempt at rewritting the intro to change "score" to "result". So clearly there is a dispute, and clearly Ryan is involved, and clearly {npov} should be added (or the article should be substantially rewritten and retitled to adhere to NPOV). zen master T 02:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not involved in editing the article for content. I'm puzzled about why people think I am. I reverted Zen-master because I thought his edits were disruptive. Looking at the edit history, that's about the extent of the editing I've done. Why do people think I am involved in this article? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You reverted my rewritting of the intro for NPOV (replacing the loaded word "score" with "results") which is precisely one among many fundamentally disputed points, so how can you possibly claim both that {npov} is "disruptive" and that you weren't involved in the article? In my interpretation this situation is repeated censorship of fundamental criticisms by a coordinated clan of editors. The race and intelligence article is apparently racism inducing and is exponentially unscientific, why aren't more editors concerned and investigating this? zen master T 08:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at the diffs I cited. Specifically this, which is what Zen-master is referring to. That is a content revert. Your continued puzzlement is why I was frustrated with you. Like Fred said, I'm not asking for sanctions or anything, but was trying to tell you you made a mistake so you could make sure not to do it again.

t

08:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that edit was disruptive, since it's a radical change that is controversial with the other editors and he implemented it with full knowledge of this fact. I did not revert it because I personally disagree with it, but because Zen-master, true to style, was implementing changes as he saw fit without any regard to the approval of other editors. That is precisely the kind of edit that landed him in RFAr. I appreciate that this edit appears to make me party to a content dispute, but I am sure that it does not. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Deep breath now, Ryan. Take it for the moment that nobody apart from zen master disagrees with you that the edits were disruptive (not a judgement, just a premise). The point at dispute then is: was it wise for you, holding this view so strongly that you got to the point where you got yourself involved in reverting the edits, to do the banning yourself? Would it not have been wiser to ask an uninvolved admin to make that call? Beyond that, you might ask yourself were your responses to being called on your actions, both privately and here, the best way to go? My own view is that it would have been wiser to adopt different approaches and that you should now walk away from this whole situation and file under learning experiences. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It would have been wiser of the arbcom to ask for an uninvolved admin to make the call. As it is, it amounts pretty much to a blanket ban. But there you are, if you get yourself under probation by the arbcom, you are very probably have wikiquette issues that are unlikely to go away overnight. Filiocht has wisely put that no admin is forced to block zm, and it would be a sign of maturity to let someone uninvolved make the call.

dab (ᛏ)

16:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I should add here that I don't think that Ryan Delaney's call here was incorrect; it appears to me that zen-master is being disruptive and therefore the ban is validly imposed. That said, Ryan Delaney should, as should all admins, refrain from exercising administrative authority in any dispute in which he is a participant. There are hundreds of administrators on Wikipedia; administrators who get involved in editorial disputes should ask a noninvolved admin to intercede. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly and Ryan's argument doesn't make much sense to me. Ryan admits he disagreed with my "radical" intro change of "scores" to "results" which is ok to disagree, but when an article is fundamentally disputed the {npov} template is added to it. This is basic NPOV policy, if an in good faith dispute exists a simple template is added to an article to signify this fact. Feel free to disagree with my interpretation as always but please don't deny the existence of controversy. zen master T 17:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it be correct to state that if Ryan thought zen master was being disruptive, he could either, a) become involved simply by reverting the disruptive edits, and ask another admin to ban him, or b) stay uninvolved by leaving the edits as is, place the ban himself, and ask another admin to revert the edits? Mind you, I'm not making a judgment call here, I'm just curious to know if reverting a disruptive edit automatically makes one involved. Thanks. --Kbdank71 18:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You have to actually establish how any edits of mine were "disruptive", my most recent 4 edits in question consisted of 1 edit reverted by Ryan where I rewrote the intro to remove the loaded word "score" to change it to "results", then three edits reverted by Ryan and others where I tried to add {totallydisputed} or {npov} to the article. So this is a situation where an admin is trying to deny the existence of controversy. Aren't {npov} headers added to an article when an in good faith dispute exists? For an admin to deny the existence of criticism and controversy strikes me as censorship, make no mistake: the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed yet Ryan and others systematically deny wikipedia NPOV policy. zen master T 19:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

Honestly, I am not upset or trying to be defensive, but I really want to understand this but can't. I am not involved in any content disputes with him. My involvement in the article is strictly administrational. I would really like to understand what people are saying here and make it a "learning experience" and so on, but I just don't see how I did anything wrong. Let me try to break this down so we can find the source of the disagreement:

• I cannot comprehend how it is that it could be okay for me to ban him from the article for disruptive editing, but NOT okay to revert the edits I banned him for.
• That would mean that the people claiming I was "involved" in the dispute think that I should have banned him from the article, but left the disruptive edits in the article.
• Instead, I reverted the disruptive edits and offered to explain to him that I was reverting because his editing was disruptive. I warned him that I would have to ban him from the article if he kept it up. I regret using admin rollback for my reverts; it should have been in the edit summaries that I was reverting because I thought the edits were disruptive.
• He did not heed my warnings, and continued implementing his edits despite them. Hence the ban.

As I see it, if I am "involved" in this dispute, then I am just as involved as any admin who could ever ban him under any possible circumstances.

Some questions, given that no one but Zen-master is disputing that the edits were disruptive:

1. Would it have been better if I had left the disruptive edits in the article, and simply banned him, to avoid the appearance of "involvement"?
2. What specifically did I do that made me "involved" and hence inappropriate to apply a ban?
   • If the answer is "reverted Zen-master", then you would have to answer "Yes" to the first question. This is a sticking point for me.
3. What purpose would be served in asking another admin to apply the ban, given that any other admin has made the same number of content edits that I have, but has not been following the dispute as closely or for as long?

I appreciate most of your patience in discussing this. I have a strong feeling that there may have been a miscommunication somewhere about my level of involvement in this article, and I hope to get it cleared up. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The only way adding a {npov} template to an article is "disruptive" is if there is not an in good faith dispute, a quick look at the top and middle sections of the talk page will show numerous points are fundamentally disputed. zen master T 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Ryan Delaney or someone to explain how adding a {npov} header to a disputed article is "disruptive"? zen master T 19:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You continue to engage in a heated dispute; that is what is disruptive. What I would like to see you do is explore some alternatives like the other ways the question can be looked at: Intelligence and nutrition, Intelligence and education or Intelligence and culture. Fred Bauder 23:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid I can't simply ignore glarring NPOV violations and what appears to be a racism inducing method of presentation in race and intelligence. I am still waiting for someone to respond to my challenge to explain why the issue should be presented so unscientifically. zen master T 02:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Formally dispute my ban

I'd like to formally dispute my ban from race and intelligence, under what criteria was I "disruptive"? It is standard wikipedia neutral point of view policy that the {npov} template is added when an article (and area of research) are fundamentally disputed on numerous points. Denying the existence of controversy when an in good faith dispute exists is exponentially more "disruptive" and strikes me as censorship. zen master T 22:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that zen master has a point. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master is badly written and does not give clear examples of disruption. I cannot find anything - it seems to me that he was acting out of good faith. I think a "personal attack parole" may have been more appropriate. Rex^(talk) 22:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not researched this excessively indepth, but he does appear to have been disruptive there. And then it spills over into such places as here and the NPOV talk page... I think the ban is fine. --

talk)

22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - this kind of thing is what results in articles being POV. IMO a personal attack parole would have solved the main problem, and if he was disruptive, it would have solved that as well. Rex^(talk) 22:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Formally disputing an ArbCom decision is done on
  User talk:Jimmy Wales, not here. Radiant_>|<
  23:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Radiant!, in this case this is the place. Ryan Delaney instituted the article specific ban on this noticeboard, not the arbcom. The arbcom just gave us the ability to ban him from it. Though the ban has been backed up by several people, including myself. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It is intended that defining disruption and deciding when there should be a ban is up to any administrator who is on top of the situation. An appeal to Jimmy Wales would be an appeal of the decision allowing a ban, not of a specific instance of imposing it. Fred Bauder 23:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I wrote that a bit too hastily, but according to Zen's RFAR, he may be banned if "in the opinion of any administrator his editing is disruptive". He asks, "under what criteria was I disruptive", and the answer is that the opinion of an administrator is the criterion. Whether other users agree is irrelevant; according to the RFAR, any admin's opinion suffices. Hence the ban was appropriate and cannot be appealed here, without appealing the outcome of his arbitration. Seems to me it's a pretty clear-cut case. Radiant_>|< 23:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So you are saying that any reason, including admin malice, is proper according to the "RFAR"? Surely implicit in "opinion" is that the opinion be reasoned. That doesn't mean that everyone has to agree, only that the opinion be a reasoned one.
    Mirror Vax
    00:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As with any other administrator action, it can be overturned by other administrators. If I were to declare him banned from an article he has never even edited, I have faith that other admins would point this out and veto my ban. Zen is trying to get this to happen here. That said, I believe the ban should stand. Phil Sandifer 23:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. And how will an administrator determine whether certain behaviour is disruptive? I believe that this could be controversial and/or open to misuse. Limits need to be set. Of course administrators would probably disagree as that would limit the influence of their

discretion. However, zen's question has not been answered; he asked under what criteria was he disruptive. Not what will be judged disruptive. Rex^(talk)

Please assume good faith - administrators are not some voting bloc interested in their own power above all else. Phil Sandifer 01:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall the admin ever giving an opinion as to why zen's tagging was disruptive. Surely we don't want to say that any reason at all, including malice, is a proper reason? I don't think

See

This page and its associated talk page are continually vandalized by the same user, who uses exceptionally disingenuous and misleading edit summaries (e.g. "minor cleanup", "removing NPOV", "restoring a more technically accurate version", etc) to promulgate an extremely POV-laden article which is highly antagonistic towards the original author of the article.

A brief summary of the history of this page can be found at its recent AfD. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 11:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is continuing from different IP address despite receiving a final warning from bumm13. Vandal has already egregiously violated 3RR. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 18:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Protected for the time being. The anon claims that the article is original research and was invented by the author of the article. However, it does google (mostly for "false doppler effect" or "false doppler shift"). Radiant_>|< 22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Robert Blair, banned by the Arbitration Committee, is back, and (happily) admits it.[7]

He is now User:Reggie Legsmith.

Can someone please block? Jakew 21:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

By your command. Phil Sandifer 21:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted this article, which was an experimental "protected" version of George W. Bush. The premise behind this idea, presumably, was to offer a vandalism-free version of the article to show how it could be done; however, with no page history, it was probably in violation of GFDL, and in any event, violates our policy on forks. I welcome any comments on this. Ral315 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep it deleted, I already know that is the consensus. I deleted the template as well. Anti-vandal measures always fail, even Semi-protect, I'll just go back to reverting and hoping nobody saw the vandalized version.

Voice of All^T|@|ESP

01:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone urgently block the whole range containing 81.173.238.18 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log), 81.173.158.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 81.173.156.254 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log). I don't know how to block the whole range. They are currenly putting penises and orgasms all over Wikipedia. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Some anonymous user has been adding links on Nobel laureates to geocities (or similar) pages mirroring the official Nobel autobiographies or Nobel lectures (which are all available on the http://nobelprize.org site). See for instance 81.28.182.81 (talk · contribs), 81.28.174.222 (talk · contribs), 81.28.188.31 (talk · contribs). The uer comes back and frequently adds several links (linking to the same page or to pages with identical text). I just removed two links to this site added at various occasions to the Tjalling Koopmans page[8], both completely redundant as the same text on the official site was already linked. u p p l a n d 17:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've warned those IPs woth {{

Black

18:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The spammer is back, now posting as 81.28.182.24 (talk · contribs). It is a Russian ISP.[9] I copied your warning (but with my signature) to that user talkpage. u p p l a n d 12:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's going right on, so I've added a "Last warning", and will block to get the person's attention if that doesn't help either. --Bishonen | talk 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

S/he did stop posting after my warning. Well, stopped posting from 81.28.182.24, that is. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been going on since (at least) sometime this summer in short bursts, every time from a different IP in the same 81.28.x.x range (another one is 81.28.188.27 (talk · contribs)). The pages linked to are on at least three different free webspace providers. u p p l a n d 09:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Baas is revert warring in

He also seems to be pretending that his edits aren't reverts. Both edits almost exactly duplicate the content of Kevin's edit from November 18, 2005: [14]. However these are the deceptive edit summaries he used: "added some info, more direct sources, fixed some wording" and "work towards compromise, keep positive changes, revert loss of info or changes from fact to misleading statements."

I would like it if someone blocked him for repeatedly adding copyrighted text to articles and for using misleading edit summaries. Rhobite 23:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Was Kevin informed of the fact these texts were copyvios? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and he reverted after being notified. There was also discussion on the talk page, which he decided not to participate in initially. Jtdirl has blocked Kevin for this incident. Rhobite 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. How do I report a user who keeps on adding material about a person and this person's book on various pages? He never adds HTML links, so I can't call it link-spamming. He has never contributed anything else. I suspect this user and this book author is the same person. Also, what warning can I give? (I'm sorry I didn't make his username a wikilink -- I don't want to be traced so easily.) -- 

Perfecto 

Oh wait. Bobby Lou is one of Jason's socks (see above). -- 

Perfecto 

02:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

(And again, forgive me for going over the same ground, but there's a quote on my userpage about obvious things and moral obligations...) BrandonYusufToropov 14:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• SuperDude115 has falsely been occused of making a bogus edit on an article whose title is initialed with Willy's initials. Since he would honestly never make an edit like that, and that the article is initialed with Willy's initials; It is likely that Willy has taken over his username hence the creation of my username. Other users may be targets; but beware of him. --Nintendude 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why haven't you changed your password?

t

03:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just what the hell are you doing? IP evidence shows that SuperDude115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nintendude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and SuperLucky 6.915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all the same person (SuperDude115 and Nintendude both edited the same article from the same dialup IP within ten minutes of one another, and the same IP address that created Nintendude created Lucky6.915 within a six minute window). SuperDude115 hasn't been used by any IP address that is inconsistent with being used by Nintendude (same ISP, same dialup range, same city). I don't know what shit you're trying to pull here, but I'm reasonably certain it's not something you should be doing. Either your computer has been compromised, in which case GET IT THE HELL OFF THE INTERNET, or you're feeding us a line of BS. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's hear it for CheckUser! Carbonite | Talk 13:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, I am extremely displeased with the tone of your above comment. I feel that that was extremely uncivil, and entirely unbecoming of an Administrator and Arbitrator. Regardless of the actions of other users, there is no reason to lose your cool and use such a hostile tone. As someone holding a trusted and important position on Wikipedia, you of all people should be an example of civility and professionalism. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What's incivil in telling someone with an infected computer to get it off the Internet as quickly as possible? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggesting removing a potentially infected computer from the Internet is not incivil, and that is not what I object to, I object to your choice of words. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

He was probably referring to the line of BS comment. Although I may just agree with Kelly over the uselessness of this posting. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to the "line of BS", and "what the hell are you doing?" and "what shit you're trying to pull here". The facts themselves speak loudly enough in this case, there's no need for such an aggressive word choice. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If

brenneman^(t)(c)

03:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it *was* a line of BS. The most likely interpretation of said user's behavior is user made an illconsidered edit (no big deal, we all have), it was reverted, and then he concocted a big sham to explain how it wasn't really him making that edit, including posting ridiculous nonsense all over the place to "explain" it. I called bullshit. Sorry if you don't like the use of foul language, but frankly I don't care for it when people waste my time investigating spurious, or in this case fabricated, claims that someone is "taking over accounts". I'm not a diplomat; I'm a sysadmin. You wanted a diplomat, you hired the wrong BOFH. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Administrators should be diplomats, or at least be able to conduct themselves diplomatically; they should calm conflicts rather than exacerbate them. We routinely reject administrator candidates for their lack of courtesy, even if it is directed at vandals and trolls. I don't believe the rude language you used above is ever appropriate on Wikipeida. Especially as you are an arbitrator, in my opinion you should be able to conduct yourself with civility. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm not certian I understand the purpose of the CheckUser investigation. We already knew that Nintendude and SuperDude115 were the same person as he indirectly stated it here and explicitly on his talk page. And I would think it would be obvious from the choice of usernames. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it could be that SuperDude115 (talk · contribs), who is perhaps autistic, has concluded that his account has been taken over (by WoW) after someone makes a comment about WoW to him. He then proceeds to create SuperLucky 6.915 (talk · contribs), which is promptly blocked. Then Nintendude (talk · contribs) is created, and he proceeds to try to warn people about WoW taking over his old account. Someone tells him to post over here [15] to get help, which he then proceeds to do. However, instead of getting helped he gets yelled at. Whatever the case may be- and however misguided he may be- I would think this situation would require more patience than screaming. I don't know if its a regional thing or if I'm just misreading, but most of your posts, Kelly, seem unnecessarily abrasive and patronizing. Sortan 07:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I find the self-defense bits equally worrying. For instance, I don't like the use of the word bullshit above, not because I care about foul language (I don't) but because I care about

WP:AFG. It's not really that admins need to be diplomats, but they need to be considered in their approachs to other users. But it's easier to imply that your critics are censors whose time and energy is clearly less valuable that your own than to actually stop and consider what they have to say and consider if there is anything in your behaviour that would benefit from moderating. Filiocht | The kettle's on

09:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another example of the misuse of the "assume good faith" policy. AGF does not require that one continue to continue to assume good faith when there is clear evidence of bad faith; I am tired of people insisting that it does. This editor's actions were clearly in bad faith; he concocted an elaborate and disruptive ruse to cover for his own ill-considered actions. AGF does not require us to stupidly ignore that or pretend that it did not happen. As to the use of CheckUser: if his account had been taken over, as he alleges, then the alleged edit would have originated from an IP different than his usual addresses; this was not the case. I used CheckUser to investigate an alleged security breach and found no evidence to support the allegation. I disagree that patience is called for in this situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Being civil with users you respect is so easy as to be, in a sense, trivial. Being civil with those you do not respect is more difficult, but much more important. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that you might just be wrong. Another is that if you are right, it is important not to replicate disruptive behaviour in the name of dealing with it. A building in which the janitors are routinely rude and abrasive will soon become impossible for the rest of the workforce. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What "clear evidence of bad faith" is there? I don't expect you to have a deep understanding of SuperDude's history on Wikipedia, Kelly, but this RfC may be illuminating. In short, SuperDude is autistic and knows well the consequences of sockpuppeteering. I think you are seeing malice where there is only confusion on SuperDude's part. Granted, he could have handled the situation much better, but a bit more civility would have gone a long way here. android79 14:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It is always better to be civil, most especially for admins and arbitrators. Kelly do you really disagree with that? Paul August ☎ 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that administrators (and especially arbitrators) are considered experts in Wikipedia policy by the vast majority of the community and they should behave accordingly. That means that petty personal attacks should be avoided when possible (except perhaps under severe provocation). Administrators should set an example. If they are rude, how will the newbies behave? Rex^(talk) 14:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion there are times where a firm hand is necessary. Some people need to be yelled at. This case involved a deliberate attempt at deception. The RfC that Android79 linked to illustrates that this editor has a history of deceptive of this sort, which makes my yelling at him all that more justified. Furthermore, I'm quite tired of speculation as to whether random editors are autistic. If there's an admission by Superdude115 et al. that he's autistic, I haven't seen it (it's not in the linked RFC), and it is high hubris, not to mention extremely rude, for lay people to attempt to diagnose mental illness through the Internet. In any case, autism is no excuse for deception. My actions were not and are not a "petty personal attack". Kelly Martin (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we've wrung this one out enough. Civility also means knowing when to leave well enough alone. Me, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Should people in positions of power hold themselves to higher standards? Yes. Could Kelly's language have been gentler? Yes. Am I offended? No. The end result is what's important here, and personally I think both sides' points have been made. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If there's an admission by Superdude115 et al. that he's autistic, I haven't seen it – It's on the RfC's talk page under "IMPORTANT development". SuperDude was roundly criticized for sockpuppetry and more-or-less apologized for it. I would not expect him to attempt such deceptive behavior again, which is why I think assumptions of bad faith are unfounded.

No attempt was made to diagnose anything. Indeed, that's why I wrote up the RfC in the first place, rather than "accusing" SuperDude of autism, which would have indeed been rude and rather stupid. I'm not a psychiatrist and anyone who is ought not to be making remote diagnoses such as this. I agree that autism is no excuse for disruptive behavior, and I don't think you were making personal attacks, but this was not a deliberate attempt at deception, AFAICT.

Of course, there's no way for Kelly to immediately know and understand SuperDude's past history. We can't fault her for that. However, a firm hand does not always require rude words. android79 16:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here you go [16]. If claims he's autistic, if others find his actions consistent with autism, then perhaps you should extend him the benefit of the doubt? I don't think anyone is faulting you for not knowing the intricate details of each case, only that your "tone" is inappropriate. You may intend to be "firm" and "blunt", but you come across (at least to me) as "patronizing" and "abrasive". Your manner may be entirely appropriate and normal among your peers, but there is a completely different audience here- not all of them are from the same region, and not all speak English very well- so some consideration and tact would be useful. Your form of "bluntness" is more likely to inflame a volatile situation rather than defuse it. Please take this the way it was intended, as a constructive criticism, and not as a personal attack. Sortan 16:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing that's bothering me here Kelly is that you do not seem to understand the difference between a strong reprimand and an uncivil one. It's one thing to say to a user: "evidence has demonstrated that your account and this account are from the same IP's, which is strong evidence that you are engaging in sockpuppetry, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. " and something like "what is this shit you are pulling?". You seem to be confusing content with tone. If you spent a lot of time investigating a user which turned out to be a sock, by all means, feel free to state that, but state it calmly and rationally, and not using fierce invective. If the evidence is clear a user is making innapropriate edits, then say the user is making innapropriate edits, but don't cuss them out. There's a way to indicate displeasure and objection to another user's actions without resorting to incivility, and it is extremely important for you to understand that and employ that, as an Administrator and Arbitrator. Your statement "You wanted a diplomat, you hired the wrong BOFH.

20:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

An uncivil reprimand would be "You fucking moron! You are such an idiot! I'm going to fucking block you so hard up the ass that you'll need a proctologist to ever edit again! Stupid!" I do know the difference. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. I mean Kelly didn't insult his mother or something. It wasn't that bad! And a bit rudeness never hurt anyone as long as it's not overdone. You cannot say that Nintendude wasn't asking for it. I mean didn't he know that if he brings up the subject 'sockpuppet' then the IP check is certainly on the cards? I sometimes wonder why he even bothered. Rex^(talk) 23:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

KJelly martin I think you should apologize for being so uncivil with all the profanity. it is entirely unbecoming of an adminsitortaor on here and even a member of Arb Committeee. If yuou do not apologize I am serioulsly thinking about doing a Rrequest for comment on this "D.S." and also having you removed from the Arobitratino Com. This is totally wrongWiki brah 04:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Kelly's going to get removed from the Arbcom Committee because a troll like you demands it. Hardly. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Based on my extensive experience with SuperDude, I have every reason to believe that he really is autistic and admitted to being so. He has settles down and has become a valued member of the community. His learning curve may be a bit different than what we may expect, but he eventually comes around. I have learned to assume good faith with him and I'm somewhat flattered that he'd name a sockpuppet after me.  :) That having been said, we may in fact be blowing this out of proportion. As for Kelly Martin's reaction, it's the reaction of someone who cares about the project. While we should try and be civil at all times, there are other times when the gloves have to come off. We all spend a great deal of time and effort improving this site. When someone dumps in the nest, as it were, some firmness tempered with civility may well be called for. - Lucky 6.9 05:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I never even though Wikipedia would ever have a password change feature. Alot of people have contradicted my theory about my other username SD115 making an edit on an article titled with Willy's initials even baffled me. --Nintendude 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Jason's socks

This section has been blanked as a courtesy.

Karmafist's threat on British Sea Power

British Sea Power if he doesn't get his way elsewhere. Andy Mabbett

15:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. For those of you who don't know POTW's sordid history, please check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing for more information. He's basically a content bully who's coming here yet again to try and gain some outside sympathy. Karmafist 16:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this doing on the Administrators' noticeboard? "Threat of revert"? We really should get better about removing posts just used as attacks. Will remove this soon if no one else objects.

t

19:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the post concerned? Andy Mabbett 22:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Calling If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself! The Ostrich Method (sticking your head in the sand and believing something isn't there so you can say so), isn't working even though you think it is a "threat of revert" is a flat misreading of English. But it does bring up a question for User:Pigsonthewing: And have you even read your own RfC or RfAr? --Calton | Talk 23:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You've only read half of his edit: the wrong half. Try: If you promise to put all your future talk page entries into POTW Archive, i'll (sic) make this my last revert of your interview cruft. Andy Mabbett 23:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I only read the top half. However, your whinging is still bogus, merely for a different reason. Oh, have you read your RfC or RfAr? Perhaps you could make your complaint there. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not for AN/I. This is not for AN either. In fact, I'd like it if during the arbcom case you get banned from whining about karmafist, and vice versa. This bickering is getting annoying <_< Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Andy, I went to your RFC page and didn't see the edit you're talking about. Can you comment there and add it? Thanks! Nandesuka 00:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:Andy has made NO edits (zip, zero, nil, nada) to either his RfC or RfAr, hence Karmafist's "Ostrich Method" comment. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

RFAr knows about this now. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer sockpuppetry

the enforcement request on WP:AER. Kelly Martin (talk

) 18:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies, the image update caused me some problems and caused a blanking there. Thanks to Dunc for pointing this out. Karmafist 19:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User:R0e1t2s3i4n5a

I recently left {{

test4}} on User talk:R0e1t2s3i4n5a. Something to be aware of. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)}

20:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Am watching user's contribs. Hermione1980 20:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Coincidence? Where's The Chosen One when you need him? :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Endless recreation of Random insanity

Random insanity is constantly being recreated, in spite of its being deleted via AfD. The "article" is apparently being used as a sandbox by multiple users: see edit history for examples. Can someone please delete it and lock it from being recreated, and let me know the magic spell for doing so for future reference? -- The Anome 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've done it for you, but all you have to do is delete, then add {{deletedpage}} and then protect it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

User:165.21.154.113

Could someone have a quick look at ArunKR. It looks like attack/nonsense to me but as the contributor vandalised my talke page [17] I don't really want it to look like I'm out for revenge. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like attack / nonsense to me too. User vandalized Jim Wales user page too. Hu 07:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Presidential gaffes

This was speedy deleted. It should have gone through AfD. Have made a note to the admin and I am informing all that I have restored the article. Anyone should feel free to take it to AfD if they want. I'll probably vote keep, but that's beside the point. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

User:70.94.229.160 bot

70.94.229.160 (talk · contribs) has apparently been running a bot updating referencing[18], however as I am assuming a bot run off an anon ip has not been approved at Wikipedia:Bots, I blocked the IP and left a note asking the user to register and submit the bot there. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it's User:SEWilcoBot. I unblocked and left a note asking user to run bot only while logged in. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Block wars

I've no idea who is in the right or wrong here. fiBut, this [19] dies not look good. --

^ask?

00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that certainly puts the previous issue in perspective, doesn't it? I wonder what the admin abuse was? Probably unblocking himself *snigger*. Rex^(talk) 00:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it, I can't find what he did. On his talk page he is being acccused of admin abuse, but no one is telling him what he did. Rex^(talk) 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to be the gdanskzig dispute. Ouch. Wasn't there an Arb case on this? (Molobo is accused of removing double names, and was blocked for breaking
  WP:V; Wiglaf is accused of admin abuse by blocking Molobo). Radiant_>|<
  00:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

While having no idea who's in the right, or the wrong, note that Piotrus unblocked Molobo a total of 4 separate times, removing blocks by 2 different admins. Ral315 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The original block appears to have been in error, since administrators do not have the privilege of blocking editors with whom they are personally in conflict. I think this is getting to be a repeating theme of recent: All administrators really do need to keep in mind that their access is for specific and limited purposes only. It isn't to allow them to seize control of articles. It isn't even to settle disputes by fiat -- even though it might seem like a good idea at the time, administrative fiat is not part of dispute resolution here.

An administrator who gets into a dispute with another editor and then misuses administrator powers to "settle" that dispute thereby cedes the moral and intellectual high ground, by choosing to stifle the discussion rather than seek consensus. We need to recognize that. Whenever an administrator blocks someone they're in conflict with, or reverts and protects an article that they've been edit-warring on, that action is in itself an admission of being wrong. It's saying, "I can't argue the point or get others to agree with me, so I'm going to stop you from speaking."

And that's unacceptable conduct for any Wikipedia editor.

Come on, people. It's not hard, when you get into a conflict with someone whom you think is breaking the rules, to call for an outside opinion. Rather than reaching for the block button when you get fed up with someone, bring others in to take a less-biased look at the situation. If someone you're arguing with violates 3RR, that'll be clear to anyone else who looks at the situation: you don't need to break the rules yourself by blocking someone you're in conflict with. --FOo 03:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is so basic that is getting increasingly difficult to

assume good faith in admins who don't ask for an outside opinion. The janitors need to have clean hands and to be seen to have clean hands. There are ways and means to get things sorted out, blocking someone you're in dispute with or protecting pages you're involved with are not among them. Filiocht | The kettle's on

09:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is utterly uninspiring. And as far as I can tell, this was the first time this has been brought up, after 4 unblocks. I can't imagine any reason why anyone who would use their admin powers with such disregard would deserve our confidence. I'm going to ask Piotrus and Chris73 to comment in case they don't know about this thread.

t

09:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Most accusations of "involvement" on the part of the administrator are frivolous. It's often the only way the party that didn't get their way can dispute the decision. Frequently, and I'm not just talking about myself here, an admin will get accused of involvement merely on the basis that he or she performed an administrative action at all -- because "if you weren't taking sides with the evildoers, why would you act againtst my clearly correct position"? That said, admin revert wars are very bad for the Wiki and should not be engaged in under any circumstances. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I find just silently reverting each other's [un]blocks without entering a discussion is rather undignified for both sides. With "both sides" I mean Piotrus and Wiglaf. Molobo is clearly a nationalist troll. I find it very disconcerting that we have an admin going around, reverting blocks of other admins (Chris 73, Wiglaf), apparently because he is in league with the user in a content dispute. While the 'disruption' block may have been arguable, Piotrus' revert of Wiglaf's 3RRvio block is highly questionable. We should strongly encourage both parties to bring matters regarding Molobo to the attention of uninvolved admins in the future. Warring admins are poison for the community.

dab (ᛏ)

13:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As FOo mentioned, my unblocking was due to the fact that I think Wiglaf (supported by admins Shauri and Nightbeast) abused his admin powers by 1) violating the Blocking Policy (Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute) in blocking Molobo (not for the first time) as they were involved in the content dispute (not a naming dispute!) with him, and 2) not stating any reasons for their block on his user page (at least not until I asked him to explain his actions). Btw, is there a clear rule that a user should be notified with reasons for his block? I thought that it was but cannot find it today :/

In addition, the sides involve admins on one side and non-admins on the other (at least until I stepped in, which I do very rarely, since I don't like to get involved in nationality-based disputed, as most of involved parties should know), so this presents additonal problem. The first case I used my admin powers to unblock Molobo, about half month ago, involved the

Talk:German 4th Panzer Division and User_talk:Wiglaf#German_4th_Panzer_Division

for more information on this case.

In the last unblocking I admit I didn't look sufficiently at Molobo's edit history and I assumed the block was related to the Kulturkampf content edit war that those parties are involved again (note I did not unblock Space Cadet, who is a common and clear case of revert warrior). See where again references provided by Molobo are targeted and note that Molobo seems to use talk pages extensively, unlike many of his opponents (Talk:Kulturkampf). However, after studing the history of this recent conflict (block war) I see that it relates to Molobo removal of comments at Talk:Zygmunt Bauman, which indeed means Molobo acted both in a clearly disruptive way and broke the 3RR rule, and that Wilglaf was right in blocking him this time. This might have been avoided if Wilgaf posted info why he blocked Molobo on his user page. I still think that if an admin is involved with a user in dispute A, and dispute B, and the user breaks a 3RR rule on B, but makes good case for A, that the admin should ask somebody else to enforce the block (conflict of interests here). This said, I apologise here to Wilgaf for accusing him of abuse of admin rights, which - this time - was not the case (I thought Molobo was blocked for edits on Kulturkampf).

I have advocated to both parties and will repeat it here that since they cannot reach an agreement and their conflicts are repeated again and again, that they should use RfC or even RfA. So far my advice seem to be ignored and various revert wars continue - please consider it now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Molobo seems to use talk pages extensively, unlike many of his opponents." One thing needs pointing out: he uses talk pages to badger, to argue and for the purpose of emotional pleading. His participation here is one of constant friction with dozens of editors (check his talk). His four reverts were repeatedly calling a talk post a personal attack, which is a favourite tactic of his. The other I always like is when he calls you a bigot or xenophobe for no reason. The user is a troll and I can only assume he's avoided an RFC or RFArb to this point because people are so tired of dealing with him. Sorry if this seems like an out of nowhere comment, but it needs pointing out. Marskell 16:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please Marskell give links to me calling somebody xenophobe or bigot. If they are any I will gladly erase them out of hand, although I do not recall calling people such names. --Molobo 00:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are no reasonable grounds for blocking Molobo, or if there are, Wiglaf is concealing them very well. I can't find any policy which Molobo has violated (I may be wrong of course). Therefore, the block must have been based upon "administrative discretion", which is all very well if a good reason for the block is found. So far, Wiglaf has not even attempted to justify it (as far as I can see). Does anyone know if Wiglaf has been at odds with Molobo, because if he has, then I'd presume admin abuse. If there isn't, but Wiglaf still can't produce a valid reason for blocking Molobo, then I'd presume incompetence and seriously flawed judgement. Rex^(talk) 17:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As stated by Piotrus, the 4 reverts were on

a notice and Wiglaf obviously noticed. Seems a valid block. Marskell

18:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, so the only thing that went wrong here was Wiglaf's failure to place a formal notice of the existence, duration and reasons for the block. No wonder I couldn't find anything on Molobo's talk page. My sincere apologies to Wiglaf for implying that he was acting unfairly. Rex^(talk) 18:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree with someone's block, the proper way to deal with that is not to instantly unblock, but to bring it to the community's attention. Talk to the admin, come here, file an RFC, but certainly don't unblock when you yourself are involved, that's just as bad. And not four times. I still fail to see how you can have unblockede first without full investigation (there was a valid 3RR filed). I think whether or not Molobo is a good person is tangential to the issue. Repeated unblocks when involved, without bringing it to the community's attention, and without full investigation are always wrong. Blocking people you are personally involved with, without asking another admin's aid or bringing it to the community's attention first is always wrong. Nothing Piotrus has said explains away those facts, nor will anything the other admins involved say. As far as I'm concerned, this is childish behavior from people we expect to know better.

t

18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

1) It was four times over the period of a month. 2) I was justified in my first two unblockings, and I think that Rex description of Wilgaf misdoings is applicable to them. 3) I was not correct in my last unblocking, but my mistake was caused by the lack of explanation for Wiglaf action on Molobo's talk page (i.e. I looked at Molobo's contribs on the day of the blocking, not earlier, since I didn't now I had to look that far back). I will definetly bring this to the community next time to avoid any confusion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is simple: Do not unblock without notifying the blocking administrator on his/her talk page AND notifying the rest of us here. The only way to stop block wars is for people to talk about the problem. I am officially disappointed in the administrators involved. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll remember that. I had so far very little experience with either blocking or unblocking. But it may be good to expand the blocking policy to clearly state how to unblock a user and where to post the info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added an appropriate sentence to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to add something different to BP, and it's how I'd respond to Piotrus here. You said "where to post the info." I'm afraid to me that's entirely the wong mindset. You should bring the disputed block to the community's attention beforehand, and in almost all cases, only unblock with the consent of other administrators. We have to remember these are admins we are talking about. That's not to say they are always virtuous, but we give them discretion with blocking and a little button to use all by themselves for a reason. If you think they did something wrong, you better be prepared to ask around first, present evidence, and even follow through with an RFC or whatever is called for. Administrative abuse is not to be taken lightly, but also not to be concluded so easily, from a trusted member of our community, to (nearly) ever warrant a unilateral unblock without discussion beforehand.

t

22:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Wiglaf has been at odds with Molobo, because if he has, then I'd presume admin abuse

Sadly, this is the case. Wiglaf has been very emotional about my contributions to Wiki, including reverting them without any reasons. He did block me before and he couldn't point to any Wiki policy for doing so[20].This was during his attempts to stop putting information on war crimes comitted by German units in WW2[21]. The problem is that certain users on Wiki are very emotional towards mentioning war crimes made by German units or persecution of ethnic minorities by German state, and oppose such informations very aggressively, often calling editors who contribute such information as nationalists, trolls,liers etc. I am always ready to discuss my edits on talk pages, and serve with sources backing me up. --Molobo 21:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Honestly Molobo, I don't recall many editors (if any at all) who are more "emotional" than you. At the same time, "emotional" seems to be your favorite invective against the many editors you have alienated so far. But even if you were right in all of the disputes you have been involved in, the fact remains that we are discussing a clear 3RR violation here. Also, the case in question had *nothing* to do with German war crimes. You reverted another user's longish reply to your question on the dubious account of a "personal attack". He restored, asked you not to do this, you deleted the entire statement again. Another user restored, you reverted 4 times, always repeating the "personal attack" accusation. This *may* be slander, it almost certainly is bad manners, and it is a 3RR violation without any doubt. No lamenting about WP's pro-German bias can change this. Your sentence "I am always ready to discuss my edits on talk pages" sounds great but at least in the present case you were *not* ready to discuss: [22]. 80.145.37.35 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee, yet another mysterious anon. That IP address belongs to Deutsche Telekom AG. Hmmm... Rex^(talk) 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You are taking my words out of context, please don't do that. In addition to my previous statement, I also said: I can't find any policy which Molobo has violated. My statement which you quoted was on the understanding that there was no valid reason for Wiglaf blocking you. Now I know that you had violated the "

Three Revert Rule". It is common knowledge that four or more reverts within the same twenty four hour period automatically carries a twenty four hour block. Therefore Wiglaf had a valid reason for blocking you. Whether he was in the mental condition of the "gleeful hangman" or not is irrelevant. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time! Rex^(talk)

21:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's not confuse two cases. Molobo has now violated the 3RR and was blocked for it, I don't dispute that and I admit I unblocked him wrongly. But previously (about 3 weeks ago) Molobo was blocked unfairly, and he refers to that case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if an administrator blocks someone for no apparent reason and when prompted to explain himself, fails to do so and it emerges that the administrator in question has something personal against whoever he is blocking, then one may, without violating

abuse of power and should be dealt with accordingly. Let's not jump to conclusions though, let's give Wiglaf a chance to explain himself; Wikipedia:Assume good faith always applies. Rex^(talk)

22:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your sentence "I am always ready to discuss my edits on talk pages" sounds great but at least in the present case you were *not* ready to discuss: [23] I am ready to discuss edits at talk pages.What I am not ready to do is to discuss my personal life, person or merits of my personality on talk pages, as such things are irrelevant to the articles edited.--Molobo 23:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) 'Whether he was in the mental condition of the "gleeful hangman" or not is irrelevant.' What I was pointing out was that the admin in question is in dispute with me and I thought this is violation of policy on neutral admins enforcing blocks. --Molobo 23:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

While there's no specific policy or rule against an administrator blocking someone who he/she is in dispute with, it is generally considered inappropriate. As I've said, if there is no good reason for him blocking you in every instance, then there's a good chance of "admin abuse". Rex^(talk) 23:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There most certainly is specific written policy against blocking someone you're in dispute with. (And even if there weren't, I think the above discussion shows that it is widely considered wrong -- and Wikipedia policy stems from consensus such as this.)

Wikipedia:Blocking

: "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute ... [is] specifically prohibited"

Wikipedia:Administrators: "[A]dministrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." That is to say, admins don't get to "resolve" their personal disputes by using admin powers; in a dispute, an admin is constrained to act as just another editor.

For other examples of the general underlying principle -- that administrators must not use their various powers to advance their own edits or point of view -- see, e.g., Wikipedia:Protection policy: "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." (Emphasis in original.)

There are only a handful of defensible reasons for blocking. Any of them is cast into doubt when the blocker and the blockee have been at odds. --FOo 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As to the page that I was blocked for reverting-I deleted the comment because it didn't answer my question and contained several remarks about me which I considered a personall attacks, and seeing them as such I thought they aren't under the 3RR rule: This included remarks such as : [24] '? Of course, this may mean that you'll have to pick up a book instead of having Google do your "work" for you, which probably isn't quite up your street. Worse, you might even need to visit an archive. No pain, no gain!' --Molobo 23:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, I suspect Molobo of using a variety of sockpuppets to impersonate me (e.g., User:Ярославль). Can somebody check this user's IP and compare it with his? For several days I couldn't contribute a single new article, trying to fend off Molobo's attacks. I'm quite bewildered at Piotrus' persevering to resuscitate this odious troll. --Ghirlandajo 10:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian Ghirlandajo. Why do you call me a troll ? Is it because I changed the name of three Soviet leaders from East Slavic leaders to Soviet leaders[25] or is it that i questioned an opinion that there is some conspiracy against Orthodox believers by the western media[26] ? ;) Cheers.--Molobo 10:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This accusation appears to be spurious, and as far as I can tell without foundation. Please don't ask for sock checks without some evidence that suggests that a sock check is necessary. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Although Wilgaf has yet to find time to reply to the concerns raised here, he has used this incident to label me a part of 'network of admins pushing a nationalist POV, with the power of unblocking each other and Molobo'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say (from my possibly ill-informed point of view), that Wiglaf seems to be spending too much time making accusations and not producing enough evidence. According to the famous (some would say infamous) Kate's tool Molobo has made c. 765 edits to articles and c. 819 edits to talk pages (both article and user). By selecting a random talk page and a random edit, you can see that Molobo is clearly not trolling like Wiglaf has suggested. Wiglaf has been calling for Molobo to be banned and has made a personal attack against Molobo and some other Polish users. Quote: Unfortunately he receives support from some Polish users who appear to use him like a kind of pet troll. My first message to Wiglaf would be

defrocked". IMHO, Arbitration should be put off for as long as possible, make a RFC against him if you must. What I want to know is: do you have any evidence over your claims about Molobo and did you have a good reason every time you blocked him (which I think should have been left to another admin)? Rex^(talk)

16:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that I may have been too personally involved in this issue and I will henceforth let other administrators deal with him. Note that I have asked

Dbachmann to look into the issue, instead of me. I deeply apologize for any mishandling of this case, and I have learnt something for the future.--Wiglaf

18:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not have the time to "look into" extended trolling over months and dozens of articles just like that. If Molobo is so bad, why hasn't there been a

dab (ᛏ)

08:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Now isn't that apt, you tend to skip my comments because you think I'm a troll. Well I've got news for you Dbachmann, it doesn't make any difference what you think. If you're one of these users who think that they are head and shoulders above everybody else, should inform you that you are sadly mistaken. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, the two basic requirements are: knowledge of English and Internet access. In other words, you will have to put up and listen to everyone who fulfils those requirements, so stop making personal attacks. Rex^(talk) 08:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not an admin here (I just play one on TV:) but Piotrus and Wiglaf have asked me, as someone with a knowledge of English and internet access, my opinion on this dispute. So for what it's worth (inserts 5 cents): Both acted according to what they felt was fair (in the case of Piotrus) and right (in the case of Wiglaf) in their role as admins. Both were mistaken. Both have admitted to and apologized for their mistakes and called in other parties to help resolve this dispute. In this they have both acted properly and honorably. Now all that is left for them to do is to shake hands, like the true gentlemen, scholars and great Wikipedians they both are, and let this dispute pass. Next, we need to decide what needs to be done about Molobo.

Rex, you are not helping matters. Mistakes were made, caught, and addressed. Calling for a longtime and highly respected admin and contributor to be DEFROCKED is, if not trolling, then blowing things WAAAAY out of proportion. Admins are HUMAN afterall, dammit. If we defrocked everyone for every little mistake there would be none left. It would be anarchy..dogs and cats living together...or much worse, vandals and trolls roaming freely about and ruining the entire project.:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I have yet to see anything useful contributed by you. I am not obliged to read what I consider trolling, and I am entitled to have varying amounts of respect for different editors. As RDH says, you are not helping matters one little bit, and this isn't even about you, and the Molobo case would be difficult enough without your little asides. I realize you can edit wikipedia just because you have internet access and could find the edit button, so what? You will earn respect by doing work, not by spreading rants wherever you go.

The way we have to go now is to address the Molobo case. He has clearly stirred up tempers more than enough to warrant an RfC. This RfC will probably be a nightmare, but it will be the only way to get this case in the open, and thus assessable by people not directly involved. I encourage involved editors, therefore, to open an RfC page on Molobo, detailing as succinctly as they can the history of Molobo's interactions on Wikipedia.

dab (ᛏ)

10:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to read what I had actually written, you would notice that I was discouraging a RFAr in favour of a RFC on the basis that Wiglaf may be not that clean himself and their decision may not be what he expected. I am not calling for him to be defrocked or anything, I have emphasised the fact that I may not know everything and I am describing things as they appear to me superficially. There is a little thing called

assuming bad faith and should stop it. Wikipedia:Trolling is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. No one has done that! IMO Molobo has been POV pushing, NOT trolling. There is a distinction, as trolls don't care about the issues. Rex^(talk)

11:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As this conversation shows every sign of descending into a kind of namecalling farce, I'd suggest that everybody involved just walk away for 24 hours to gain some perspective. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea Filiocht, I second the emotion...let's all chill childrens:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo was also blocked by me some time ago twice for disrupting wikipedia. There is a long standing dispute related to the naming of Gdansk, for which i started a major vote regarding the naming of related places

Talk:Gdansk/Vote

. The outcome was a large majority for double naming. Molobo disputes this vote on technicalities (i.e. anon votes must be counted because there is no rule that says otherwise), and has been removing double naming in literally hundreds of instances. After repeated warnings i finally decided to block him for going against consensus and disrupting wikipedia. While block for disruptions are controversial, I think a more than 70% majority is a pretty strong argument, and ignoring such a majority quickly leads to anarchy. (On other instances, such a block has been confirmed by another admin). Piotrus unblocked him under the mistaken assumption that disruption blocks are not a policy. To my disappointment Piotrus did not leave me a message on my talk page about the unblock. Nevertheless i respect Piotrus and occasionally ask him for feedback by mail. I still strongly believe my blocks were valid. Other than enforcing the vote I have no interest to edit articles related to Poland and its history.
Molobo is in my opinion not a troll, I think he believes he is making a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. However, I find him to be highly POV and consensus-resistant. He has upset a large number of other users and admins, and is frequently involved in revert wars. He also often misrepresents and distorts facts related to Wikipedia policy. Regarding users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict, i am only enforcing the Gdansk vote, and otherwise have not reverted or blocked Molobo, even though I am suspicious of many of his edits and have been asked by others to block him. Recently, he has followed the double naming vote, and there was no need for me to interact. I hope it stays that way. -- Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 08:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

'Molobo disputes this vote on technicalities (i.e. anon votes must be counted because there is no rule that says otherwise), and has been removing double naming in literally hundreds of instances.' In some cases have been trying to give neutral names(for example latin versions) to avoid POVs.You blocked me during one such attempt, and as I recall it didn't touch the double naming issue as it was latin name not Polish or German.Also as I pointed out the Gdansk vote is flawed as currently it gives possibilty to name all locations in Poland with German versions(just one of the flaws). I do believe that it should be only applied in clear historical contexts(and Olessi-a German contributor whom I do respect shared that opinion[27]) However I decided to disengage from edititng those articles until a correction to the vote will be made(and you know that other admins and contributors are pointing out that it is flawed in its formulation in certain aspects).

'Other than enforcing the vote I have no interest to edit articles related to Poland and its history.'

Chris with respect, your negative comments about Polish culture and people as seen here: [28] in which you asked a contributor to enjoy a hair disorder as example of Polish culture made me look sceptical towards your contributions and disputes with editors from Poland. I hope that clears it a bit. --Molobo 00:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo is an explosive mixture of unshakeable conviction of knowing The Truth (TM), stoic disregard for anything in his way, and an extreme sensitivity of anything that may be interpreted as criticism of his person, or his views about the sanctity of the Polish nation. Imho, he has a fundamental incompatibility for everything related to wikiquette or npov policy. But that doesn't make him a troll, it just makes him a very difficult editor, and, empirically, a liability to the community. There will be nothing but to tread the course of Dispute resolution. The reason this hasn't happened yet is that every involved editor appears to abhor the prospect of trudging through an rfc with Molobo, and hopes that others will take that upon themselves. The problem is not likely to go away, but it is nothing WP cannot deal with.

dab (ᛏ)

12:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC) ' Molobo is an explosive mixture of unshakeable conviction of knowing The Truth (TM), stoic disregard for anything in his way' Why such harsh words Dab ? I contacted you on your talk page asking for issues you believe need correcting, and edits that are wrong. Please I would like to see your responce. Right now I think your accusation is a bit hard, since I am ready to discuss any problems with any edit. However you didn't point any of my edits that you believe are wrong.As I said-if you believe one to be inaccurat I would be more then happy to serve with resources, references, books if needed. or his views about the sanctity of the Polish nationWhat made you say that ? I do not believe in sanctity of Polish nations, as it had many flaws-and I am not even a full Pole in the first place, with many of my ancestors of different ethnic background. 'The problem is not likely to go away, but it is nothing WP cannot deal with.' Please Dbachmann I asked you already to contact me on any edits, articles you believe are incorrect-if you could show them I would gladly work together with you on solution to a problem you see.But again I ask you to show me what do you have in mind, since right now I don't now what article or edit you are talking about.Thank you and have good day. --Molobo 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

I don't believe that protecting the article and redirecting (or vice versa, whichever came first) was a correct action. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism does not clearly show that it should have been a redirect. I am not stating anything about the content, incidently. I am only deciding based on what I can see of the AFD. From what I understand, the redirect issue was being hashed out on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel that this was an incorrect admin action, please someone unprotect and remove the redirect. This article went through the AfD process and received 26 votes to keep, 22 votes to redirect, and 8 votes to delete. The closing admin closed it as a Keep. During subsequent talkpage discussions some revert warring took place between leaving the article and changing it to redirect. The article was in its full, non-redirect form when an admin reverted to the redirect and protected the page, saying in his edit summary "There was a clear consensus to redirect". I respect and appreciate that the admin felt strongly that the arguments for redirect were strong; indeed, the admin had voted for redirect himself. However, I don't think a "clear consensus for redirect" can be said to exist if the closing admin ruled to keep the article. So, unless I am missing something, I would much appreciate it if the protection is lifted. Thank you. Babajobu 09:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, I unprotected following the request at

t

09:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I was approached about an edit war resulting from the recreation of Islamofascism after it had been made redirect following consensus on the Talk page (not the AfD, though the participants had also misunderstood that, and were appealing to an incorrect set of voting figures; Babajobu (talk · contribs) is still doing it, I see. the correct breakdown is: Delete: 8, redirect (or delete): 23, keep: 22, sock-puppets, vague, etc.: 6; see User talk:Mel Etitis/Afd-Islamofascism). I explained more than once that I wasn't referring to consensus at the AfD but at the Talk page, but as the AfD seemed to support their position they've continued to ignore me. I think that that intellectual dishonesty says a lot about the sort of debate we have here.

I thought that two things needed doing: first, the earlier consensus should be followed until it was determined whether a new consensus justified reversing it; secondly, the article needed protecting in order to try to cool off the edit war and get people talking sensibly (and perhaps finding a new consensus). Unfortunately the result was the arrival of Klonimus (talk · contribs), with the inevitable hysterics, propaganda, and rehashing of old battles.

I should say that I think that the article is a steaming pile of racist... er, nonsense, but that that's not the issue; if Wikipedia consensus is to reverse the earlier decision to make it a redirect, then OK, but until then we don't normally think that such a consensus be overturnable by just one editor with a different idea, even when subsequently supported by trolls who were active in arguing against the former consensus.

I should stress that I have no quarrel with Ta bu shi da yu, who acted properly according to his understanding of the situation. I just think that he was misled by the tactics of those who desperately want the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The absurd, naked partisanship over this issue has reached a point where I, or any other admitted Muslim, am likely to begin a round of insults and recrimination simply by agreeing with someone else's post. I neverthless want to express my strong support of Mel's position, above. BrandonYusufToropov 13:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

BYT, I don't think that's really the case. No one begrudges you or any other editor (of any religion) the right to have a position or argue a point on this issue. The biggest source of contention recently has not been anything intrinsic to the topic, but rather frustration at what seemed to some of us as the invoking of a nonexistent consensus in order to freeze the page as a redirect. That's not about partisanship, and there's no reason anyone should resent you for it. Babajobu 13:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I share BYT's general impression of "naked partisanship". whatever happened to "writing for the enemy"? The happenings on Islam-related articles over the past months are most unwikilike, and are poison to the community. "good faith" has gone down the drain. "Leagues" have been formed with the sole purpose of pushing political propaganda. It is sometimes hard to remember what wikipedia is about in the face of all this political mudslinging.

dab (ᛏ)

13:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"I explained more than once that I wasn't referring to consensus at the AfD but at the Talk page". The talk page is littered with my requests that you explain where "a clear consensus to redirect" was formed. The only response I received were AfD figures slightly revised from those used by the closing admin. Not once did Mel explain that this consensus was formed in a talkpage discussion rather than in the AfD. Had I and the other keep voters been pointed toward that discussion, this process mightn't have been necessary. I'm happy, however, that you are now engaging the issue a bit. Can you please provide a link to the talkpage discussion where a consensus to redirect was formed? Is it on the AfD talkpage? An archived discussion in the Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion talk page? Please provide the link so that I and others can take a look at it. Also, Mel, I would ask that you retire once and for all the accusations of intellectual dishonesty, of our being hate-filled Islamophobes, and so on. By and large I do not think this sort of talk has advanced the conversation much. Regards, Babajobu 10:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that the numbers reported in the above discussion are accurate, I cannot see how anybody can claim that there is any consensus at all with respect to this article. Even, or nearly even, splits in opinion, as seen above, are indicative of a lack of consensus. Consensus cannot exist when there is substantial dissent and it appears that there is, in fact, substantial dissent here. You don't have consensus here to do anything; continue talking until you reach a compromise solution. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, just like to point out that I never once claimed that a consensus existed. Mel invoked a "clear consensus to redirect" as justification for changing to redirect and protecting the page. I and other keep voters have been arguing for three days that there is no consensus one way or another. Our only claim was that *the AfD was closed as keep*. Thanks. Babajobu 12:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are several points I would like to make here: firstly, categorising Babajou as intellectual dishonest is an unfortunate thing to do, as I feel that this is grossly unfair. I can see several reasons (as pointed out to me by Babajou) why this article should not be redirected. I have read the talk page, and can see that discussion was still progressing. I think that the best point made was by SlimVirgin: "the reason editors are wary of having an Islamofascism page is that the opposing "ideological group," as you put it, will use it as an excuse to attack Islam. I'm fairly certain that, if everyone could be assured that the article would be encyclopedic, and would discuss the origins and use of the term in an intelligent way with good references, then no one would oppose it." I see absolutely no reason why we can't in fact do this. Babajou has pointed out to me that this article is currently quite large and may not fit entirely into an umbrella article on Neofascism and religion. That some folks are using the term in undeniable: I would, personally, would like the opportunity to read a much battled out, working towards NPOV article on such a topic, should the need arise. From my brief understanding, I would agree with Mel that the term itself is a loaded steaming pile of crap, but I also see no reason why we can't document why this might in fact be (with the presumption that we don't hold that position, of course).

One problem I see here is the assumption that Klonimus is a troll. I'm not rightly sure I can agree with Mel on this one. For instance, this comment appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable, rational and reasoned argument:

---

The problem is that the "Islamofascism" became a grab-bag for all sorts of nonsense that had nothing whatsoever to do with fascism and very little to do with Islam as it practised by 99.9 percent of the Muslim world. --Lee Hunter 01:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that and agree with you 100%. However as I have explained previously at great length. Our personal opinions about the subject do not matter. If people use the concept, it deserves coverage in wikipedia, even if you think the concept it's self is dumb. I think Juan Cole is dumb, but I support him having a wikipedia article. If you can't contain your revulsion towards this topic, perhaps you ought recuse yourself from editing it.

Islamofascsim is just an extensivly used neologism to describe a totalitarian Islamic ideology that uses violence to further it's goals of replacing western civilization with Islamic Civilization. In that respect it is similar to the behaior of historical fascist movments. It's also promulgates an interpretation of Islam which supports its activities. And it so happens that alot of people are affected/concerned by the 0.1% of muslims who do support Islamofascism. Klonimus 03:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Unless further evidence can be provided, I would hesitate to believe that this article is troll infested. The talk page, as far as I can read, has some very robust discussion underway. I believe this is normal and healthy, and will lead to a decent article. I cannot see consensus to redirect.

Ta bu shi da yu 12:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

this stuff moved from my comment! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The content of the article has precisely nothing to do with whether it should be deleted. This is something peolpe just don't understand about AfD. If the content of the article is bad, fix it! In an AfD, you are voting on whether the article should exist at all in any form whatsoever. Consider whether you would vote to keep a perferct article on the topic, and if you would, then vote keep, mark the article with a {{cleanup}} or disputed tag, and move on. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Gee, I could swear I've had this conversation with you before" department: Are we speaking English here? Does the word "fascist" have any discernable meaning beyond "that which right-wing ideologues find objectionable"? Yup. Lo and behold! It does. Please produce a single example of an Islamic activist anywhere on earth promoting corporatism. BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is a term used by others, let's document it and if necessary eviscerate it. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm inlclined ot agree that this will sort itself out. There is a value to having the page as distinct from Neofascism and Religion. What perhaps needs more though is where the religious relationships with classical fascism fit. Fascism and religion rediteccts fto Nazi mysticism, eliding the relationships of the major religions adn their instituions with the fascist parties an their ideologies, and the interplay of those forces in the WWII and pre -WWII West. Rich Farmbrough 13:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know why this is continuing on and on like this. I'm going to lay out a simple program as I understand it.

1. Islamofascism is neologism used to refer to some abstract "concept".

1. The concept that it is refering are Islamic Ideologoies that seek to replace Western/Secular civilizations with Islamic civiliations and advocate and use violence to futher their goals.

1. Since
   9/11 the term has entered the poltical discoruce in the US and western world. Since its use by POTUS in a major political speech it has entered normative political discourse in the United States, and is commonly used in the political blogoshere
   .

1. Because none of us invented this word, speculations as to use of the term fascism are meaningless because the the concept this word refers to does not have a deep connection with fascism (aside from sharing a totalitarian ideology). People who constantly bring this up are being counter productive because no one claims that than Islamic Civilization under sharia law would share all aspects of a classical fascist society.

Really, all this editwarring is counterproductive and if we could all focus on limiting ourselves to just describing the what Islamofascism means and how it's used in public discourse that would be just fine. Klonimus 19:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Some responses

Babajobu: "Had I and the other keep voters been pointed toward that discussion, this process mightn't have been necessary."

In a message on your own Talk page I pointed out that the discussion at talk:Islamofascism was more important to my actions than the AfD [29]. In my explanation at [[Talk:Islamofascism I not only repeated this, but linked to the relevant archive [30].

To all those who argue that the mere existence of a word is sufficient grounds for an article, I think that a refresher course on basic Wikipedia policy would be useful (as well as a glance at synonym).

To those who object to my reference to intellectual dishonesty, I simply point to the fact that I explained the AfD breakdown (and my actual reliance on the Talk page discussion) on Talk:Islamofascism, that no-one (so far as I can see) rejected or argued against my analysis, but that the original incorrect set of figures were resurrected for the complaints here (together with the claim that I'd not mentioned the real locus of consensus, for which see above). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mel, on my talk page you simply said that, along with the vote count, talk page discussions and the quality of arguments play a role in closing AfDs. You did not explain that you thought the AfD had simply been superseded by a subsequent talk page discussion. And as for the talkpage archive, you only claimed that this offered "more discussion of the issue"; you did not say that in the linked discussion you had arrived at a consensus to dismiss the results of the AfD. And when I repeatedly asked you to elaborate on your brief comments, there was only silence. In any case, no such consensus exists on the linked talkpage. Editors have been roughly split down the middle on this from the very beginning. If there was a "consensus", it was a uniquely fractious and disputed consensus. Anyway, the article is once again a going concern. I can't stop you from continuing to accuse us of intellectual dishonesty, trolling, Islamophobia, et cetera, but I hope you will also work to improve the article and make it NPOV. Thanks. Babajobu 01:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe that that's how you read what I wrote on your Talk page; I'd thought that, especially in the context of your question to me, I'd made myself clear, but if I didn't I apologise. With regard to the Talk page archive, I gave the link; I accept that I left it up to you to follow it and read what was there, but that seemed reasonable to me.

Note, though, that the consensus to make the article a redirect wasn't to set aside the AfD; the Afd produced no consensus, so consensus had to be found on the Talk page. To put it another way: if achieving consensus is to set aside a no-consensus AfD result, then yes, it was set aside, and a good thing too, surely. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is academic now. Irishpunktom put the article back up for AfD, so we'll soon have new results to parse. Babajobu 10:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. Ryan Delaney points out: "The content of the article has precisely nothing to do with whether it should be deleted. This is something peolpe just don't understand about AfD. If the content of the article is bad, fix it! In an AfD, you are voting on whether the article should exist at all in any form whatsoever." Unfortunately, however, this isn't generally agreed upon (see, for example, the recent fuss when I deleted Contingent work on the basis that it had been deleted after a valid AfD. The argument was that, as the text was different this time, the article shouldn't be affected by the AfD; my view was the same as --Ryan Delaney's. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Big Lover, and others

It appears that

user:Jason Gastrich is making sockpuppets to push an Christian Evangelical agenda, as seen by this edit summary here where one of the socks says that he is Jason Gastrich. I'm putting a notice to stop using the alternate accounts on Jason's talk page now, and if he continues to use them, an indef block on all of them seems appropriate. Karmafist

21:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is old news. Jason's harmless because he's not being disruptive and he's not subtle enough to use his half dozen sockpuppets properly. — Dunc|☺ 21:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Proper or not, disruptive or not, sockpuppets are against policy. This is basically just a notice that if he does anything outside of one account, i'll block them all. Karmafist 18:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are not against policy. Abuse of sockpuppets is. See

WP:SOCK. --Carnildo

20:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Grace Note

Grace Note made several personal attacks against other users on two different RfAs. On Halibutt's RfA he opposed, with the reason "No, he's a fucking arsehole" [31] On Sherurcij's RfA he replied to User:Marskell oppose vote with "I feel you would have found any excuse. Just another arsehole. So it goes." [32]. I blocked him for three hours to cool him off and received this lovely email:

"Why have you blocked my IP, you cunt? It's typical of the way you operate, that you block those who disagree with you. You're not man enough to discuss it, so you hide behind your admin privileges, you fucking arsehole."

For those unfamiliar with Grace Note, he was formerly

User:Dr Zen who left the goodbye message of "Fuck Off Cunt Die" Read the contributions up. I'm not asking for anything in particular, but I do think admins should be aware of the behavior of this rather uncivil editor. Carbonite | Talk

14:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to block for one week since obviously if he's continuing this behavior even after being blocked 3 hours is getting off light.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 17:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have observed ongoing civility issues with this editor (Grace Note) and I support the block. In general the remarks have been milder than those listed above, and spaced out among useful edits so as to make a block questionable. Apparently Dr Zen/Grace Note's conduct has slid further. Hopefully the block will get his attention; I'm getting royally annoyed by the lack of civility among a number of our long standing contributors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

a week seems a bit harsh to me, but whatever. yep, something's in the air, I've been feeling grumpy myself lately. It may be my subjective impression, but working on WP has been getting a more annoying experience lately. We may need policies to better protect the hard-working contributors.

dab (ᛏ)

19:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I second dab on this issue. There seem to appear a kind of users whose only mission is to follow your contibutions and to provoke you to unflattering comments. Currently, there is no difference between an editor who made 25,000 edits and the one who made zero. A more experienced editor has to spend hours explaining to a newbie some elementary things or fending off obvious speculations or original research. --Ghirlandajo 11:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say I'm more disturbed by the readiness of people to use the sort of blocks that were formerly reserved for long-term trolls and vandals. I also don't understand the rationale for the extended block - was there further activity after Carbonite's block expired? I only see 5 contributions this month, and they all appear to be before the block. I don't see any evidence to suggest that GN has continued to misbehave after the block. Guettarda 19:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen/Gracenote *is* a troll, and anyone who has followed his edits can testify to. And don't let his user contributions fool you - he has intentionally been editing while logged out so as to evade detection [33]. The week-long block was totally justified (and should have come sooner). Raul654 19:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, in response to "I don't see any evidence to suggest that GN has continued to misbehave after the block.", then you need to read the above comments more carefully -- "I blocked him for three hours to cool him off and received this lovely email: 'Why have you blocked my IP, you cunt? It's typical of the way you operate, that you block those who disagree with you. You're not man enough to discuss it, so you hide behind your admin privileges, you fucking arsehole.'" Raul654 19:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Raul. Guettarda 19:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't have probably even have commented not to mention extending the block if it hadn't been for that uncivil email after the block.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 22:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am very angry that this guy published my private correspondence, even if it was uncivil. That some other guy has "punished" me for something I didn't even do on Wikipedia is a bit scary. Jtkiefer, I called some kids cunts in the street the other night (they damaged my building). Perhaps you should give me another week for that? I was also a bit rude to my mother in 1982. Perhaps I should be hardbanned for that? It has nothing to do with anyone here what I write to Carbonite in an email. Also, I didn't say "fuck off cunt die" anywhere on Wikipedia. That's quite simply a lie. One thing I'm sad about on Wikipedia is that if you are labelled a troll by Raul or the like, it's acceptable not only for you to be treated to a standard that other editors are held to but an editor who is "in" can lie about you without being challenged. And Raul, as I've explained to others before, sometimes I just don't bother logging in but comment if I see something I've been directed to. No one is obliged to. I'm not hiding because, as you noted, it's plain who it is.

I apologise unreservedly to Halibutt and Marskell for the uncharacteristic aberration. TenofAllTrades, I don't know what you're on, mate, because I don't think I've ever come across you, and I've certainly never been uncivil to you, and rarely anything but civil to anyone else. --GN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.87.165 (talk • contribs) 23:15, November 23, 2005

I think you've missed the point. You sent an aggressive email to somebody in relation to something he did to you in WP. I think the block is fully warranted. Oh, I forgot, it stopped being YOUR private correspondence when you sent it to him. It's his as well to do as he pleases. The best way to avoid compromising words to be used against you is not saying/writing them. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing private about your email to me. You had absolutely no reason to assume that it would remain unseen when it was simply a venomous attack. I also find it rather strange that you deny your "goodbye message". Are you seriously contending that these last four edits were a coincidence? If you don't wish to be labeled a troll then shape up and start treating other editors with some respect, civility and courtesy. Carbonite | Talk 00:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you have no right to privacy if you abuse the fact that you can email other users, also harassing users via email is in no way more acceptable then harassing them on the wiki, thus the extension on the block.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 01:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Replying to Grace Note. No, I haven't interacted directly with you, but you have participated in a lot of visible processes on Wikipedia. Several of your remarks on WP:RFA have definitely stretched the limits of WP:CIV before now; the comments that earned your recent block crossed well beyond the limits of WP:NPA. With respect to the publication of your 'private correspondence', you were asking for it with your remarks. Claiming that using the 'email this user' function to contact an admin about a Wikipedia block (and using such abusive terms in the process) isn't something you've done on Wikipedia...is disingenuous. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate to admit it but I'm amused by Dr.Zen's goodbye message. That's pretty clever. And legitimate edits, even! But abusive emails and RfA comments are not OK. That said, when did we start allowing admins to block for things other than vandalism? The enforcement proposal clause for Wikipedia:No personal attacks failed, no? So why the shift? Not necessarily saying I oppose the new atmosphere, but last I knew there was a huge taboo against "vigilante admins". Where did that go? - Isomorphic 06:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we decided it at the last cabal meeting, I'm kidding, for all of those who think there is a cabal there really isn't... seriously. Anyway to answer your question no it isn't officially policy however I think it is a commonly accepted principle that people can't just go around saying fuck you to each other whenever one editor gets annoyed at another since everyone would be getting into huge fights with each other all the time if that were allowed and we'd never get an encyclopedia written which is the real goal behind this after all.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 07:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, and excessive personal attacks. - Wikipedia:Blocking policy Raul654 09:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

jguk impostor

I've just blocked Jguk. (

^ask?

00:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

All of Jguk.'s edits were legit. Changing 'BCE' to BC is not an illegal date change. BCE=Before common era, a politically correct way to say BC (Before Christ). Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Redwolf, you're missing my point. The legitimacy of BC or BCE is not the point, jguk is not allowed to make such changes (see

^ask?

00:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Would have liked that link on the first comment =P Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Redwolf, please read what we've written in the previous Arbitration decisions. Changing BCE to BC may violate the Manual of Style and is not acceptable under just any circumstances. The policy here follows the same principle as AE/BE: use whichever was there first, except where using one or the other is manifestly inappropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

jguk. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits from Rochester, Minnesota. jguk (talk · contribs) is well-known to edit from the United Kingdom. It's unlikely that the two are the same. The "jguk." sock should be blocked as an imposter, in any case. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's as I suspected. The imposter account was blocked from the moment I saw it, and remains so. --

^ask?

01:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As all imposter accounts should be.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 01:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Nixer again

dab (ᛏ)

13:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: I am a member of

WP:3RR: after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. Nixer has been blocked for 48 hours - the sysop who blocked him wasn't authorised to block him for that long. He has already been blocked for roughly 24 hours (he was blocked 24 hours ago), so could someone please remove the block. You can say "he has served the maximum sentence". Izehar

10:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll unblock him. I had not realized 24h was the maximum penalty at the time of issuing the block, and I didn't declare the block to be for anything except repeated 3RRvio (the 48h were intended as a cumulation for repeat offences. Note that Nixer managed to get himself blocked for 3RRvios seven times in three months. Also note that the first block I issued for 3RRvio was for 2 hours only). Not that it'll do any good, Nixer very obviously still hasn't learned why we have the policy, and he'll just keep banging his head against the wall. In the future, I will block him for 24h for any 3RRvio (including "aren't-I-clever" 4 reverts in 27 hours) without further comment. Nixer should really be dragged before the arbcom, but I can't be bothered with the bureaucracy involved, since ignoring him is much easier at this point (but I'll commend and support anybody who takes upon themselves to get Nixer before the arbcom).

dab (ᛏ)

14:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, dab. This must seem like terrible wikilawyering and bureaucracy to an uninvolved party, but from Nixer's point of view they are not. I have heard both sides of the story (from your comments here and on my talk page and from Nixer's e-mails). Nixer seems to think that you're out to get him, revert every edit he makes and block him for the most trivial of reasons for as long as possible; you seem to think of Nixer as a blatant troll who abuses the system (the 4 reverts in 27 hours). Now I don't know who's right and who's wrong here - it is perfectly clear though that you two need some sorting out to do between yourselves; you should consider

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Izehar

15:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Anybody! Please unblock my IP address 213.135.64.212 ! --213.135.74.30 15:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's Nixer all right. A Russian IP. Izehar 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, you also reverted Nixer. Does this mean that "you should consider [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]" too? +MATIA ☎ 15:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

he just reminded me of sticking to the letter of policy, that doesn't mean he cannot agree that Nixer's edits needed to be reverted. Izehar is being detached, as, I hope, I am too. Also, we know Nixer will be back and continue to behave like a jerk, so what does it matter if he does so now, or in another 20 hours.

dab (ᛏ)

16:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Izehar just e-mailed me this in his letter:

I have checked your edits on "Proto-World language" again, and they appear to not be vandalism - I apologise to you for reverting you and suggesting that you were vandalising the article. I shouldn't have got involved.

And please, anybody, unblock my IP--Nixer 16:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

who said it was "vandalism"? You were blocked for 3RRvio, and your edits were reverted because they were bad, not because they were vandalism in the narrow WP sense.

dab (ᛏ)

09:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User:203.82.183.147

This IP address has over 100 edits. A strange mix of pointless one-liner vandalism, formatting fixes and the occasional really useful content-boosting edit. I believe it is shared, so obviously care should be taken when blocking etc. I suggested they should sign up for accounts to avoid being associated with vandalism.

Because a one-liner is easy enough to revert, practically no one has bothered to put warning tags on the Talk page. But just looking through their latest contribs, I found a dozen odd vandalous edits.

This is not an urgent issue, but if it's possible to "watch" a user or their contribs, that would be great. This kind of slow drip-drip vandalism really shits me. Thanks --pfctdayelise 01:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a dial-up user pool... Sasquatcht|c 07:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

And that means... we are hesitant to do anything unless serious vandalism occurs? pfctdayelise 14:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Because it's shared by many users, blocking this type of IP for long periods of time means we risk alienating other good faith contributors who could end up becoming regular Wikipedia contributors. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User:193.112.229.150 vandalizing again

This user again vandalized James and James Handcock. According to the talk page, he's been blocked repeatedly... can someone block him? Thanks. - grubber 17:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania again

User:68.85.127.72 has edited Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania in a way seemingly designed to reignite a recently cooled-off edit war and provoke User:Boothy443, who has duly removed the offending (incorrect) content. Should this user decide to revert back, it would be good if someone other than User:Boothy443 revert back, as he has a tendency to be baited into 3RR situations, and the possibility exists that User:68.85.127.72 is a sockpuppet of a participant in the previous edit war (insufficient evidence as of now to make an accusation or run a checkuser). --CComMack 01:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandal reverting userpage, etc.

Winnermario left Wiki after getting into arguments with some weird people. Now, some other weirdo (user:malber) is reverting her user- and talkpage. I have reverted back and asked if he's a dumbass, but he gave me no reply. Instead, he went to revert her talkpage, again.

History of the talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winnermario&action=history

History of the userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Winnermario&action=history

Can someone stop him please? --Anittas 06:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• In general user pages and talk pages should not be blanked, but kept as a historical record. I'm not opposed to having the talk page in it's filled state. But whatever Winnermario did to his userpage should be left alone. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)