Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive85

This needs attention from an administrator. User:Pro123tester is looking for attention by adding comments like this. [4] FloNight ^talk 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Block for one hour. Hopefully, he'll wake up.Gator (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I found this in the AN/I archives Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive29#Amorrow/Pinktulip. Since User:Pro123tester first edits were to [5], [6], [7] I think there is a connection. FloNight ^talk 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I just blocked indefinitely as a reincarnation of a banned user. Jkelly 23:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly, thanks for your quick response. --FloNight ^talk 23:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Roguesysop (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

I've blocked the above user indefinitely for blatant vandalism, an inappropriate username, and because this user (through judicious use of the {{unblock}} template in various inappropriate articles) appears to be the sockpuppet of a banned user. Hopefully I'm not a Roguesysop for doing so, as I think this user needed to be blocked immediately to prevent further vandalism. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Clear case.Gator (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, should have been blocked on sight for having a misleading/confusing username containing the word "sysop", regardless of his behavior. — Mar. 29, '06 [21:40] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Sock of who?

Since

User:Mr.Do! was indefinitely blocked because of uploading Warez to Wikimedia servers. User:Mr. Do! is very likely a sockpuppet. My observations are at User talk:Mr. Do!. TerokNor 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Good catch. Blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's an open proxy vandal currently attacking Google and possibly other articles. I'm somewhat reluctant to s-protect this article, as the vandal will go elsewhere and harder to find them. The IPs keep jumping around, so it's difficult to pick them out of the recent changes. But, if you are watching recent changes, be alert for this vandal. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Though, I'm guessing they might hit Microsoft if Google is s-protected. They cut & pasted material from Microsoft into the google article. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This user has been placing links to what is presumably their music publishing site on a lot of pages. I presume this is not acceptable? Arniep 22:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly unideal. I'm busy rolling back the changes and will warn him about

WP:SPAM. Stifle

23:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Carla Pehlke (talk · contribs). Second Wikipedia edit is a post on another user's talk page regarding a dispute at Thomas Jefferson. Zephram also made many posts and edits at United States Declaration of Independence related to Jefferson and the authorship of the DoI. He even cited the same link to TJ's biography. Carla's 4th edit is to accuse various unnamed people of "rewriting history". Sounds like something ZS would say. --Frank 02:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have unfortunately had a disagreement with user 154.5.19.185. I will admit, that the argument was concerning subject matter not particularly relevant to Wikipedia, and that I myself said inappropriate things to him/her that no doubt provoked him/her... My concern is with the final response that was left on my talk page (I have deleted it, but it's in my history). This is possibly the most demeaing, insulting and hurtful comment anyone has ever left me... by far. I make a habit of NEVER insulting or attacking other users, but admit that on this occassion, I was overly abrasive and came too close (he/she on the other hand, did not hold back). I admit that I said things which clearly sparked anger. I don't know what can/should be done, but I felt it necessary that I report it. --Arch26 02:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This user should be banned just for their name, which judging by this edit and this edit is merely an account meant to attack User: AaronS. A check user on Anti-Aaron would also be helpful to find out who this is (I'm not sure if you need to have a specific target in mind to check the user to, or what, but if not this would be good to use). I will put a request at the check user page. The Ungovernable Force 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just went to the check user request page and it says not to use it on throwaway accounts, so I guess I won't make the request. Still, it would be nice to know if an established wikipedian did this. The Ungovernable Force 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Valento (talk · contribs) is complaining on his talk page about being blocked, even though no one has blocked him (yet). Now, the IP blocklist does indicate an autoblock on Anti-Aaron's IP, which seems to be what Valento tripped over. I'm not terribly surprised. His principal contributions at this point then are userboxen and vandalism. I wouldn't mind blocking this account too. Mackensen (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Range 203.166.99.(...) is creating a ton of back and forth vandalism all over the place. Need a range block (I don't know how to do it). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This user has been engaging in personal attacks and has been removing properly placed warnings from his talk page. Seems to have been warned many times yet still does so and has a watchlist of people he claims to be vandals etc. I've blocked for a short while though his attitude to the block seems to suggest he will continue to be disruptive after that. Anyone care to take a look? --pgk^(talk) 09:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for his behavior for 31 hours on the 26th. Since then, he has only worsen his behavior. I suggest a much longer block. Since his latest block, he has personally attacked me, pgk and OrbitOne. I have once again sprotected his user talk page until/if his block expires --

^ak|on|it!>

09:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There's something odd about all this, and I wonder if other admins could look in on it. I've unblocked Croatian historian (talk • contribs • historian page moves • block user • historian block log), and unprotected his Talk page. Some, at least, of the supposed personal attacks have not been (e.g., [8], and I've seen little to justify a block. Those attacking Croatian historian, on the other hand, such as Serbiana (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), have been behaving very badly, with genuine personal attacks, the removal of AfD notices from pages while discussion is continuing, and the removal of comments from article Talk pages. I'm sure that the admins involved haven't in fact been taking sides, but their actions have at least appeared a little one-sided. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, clearly Mel Etitis has looked into the background of this more than I did. I saw the user posting {{bv}} tags to an admins talk page in response to that admin reverting the removal of warnings from his talk page.

WP:TALK states "Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Additionally the user was maintaining a "watchlist" on his page listing individuals as vandals, admin abusers etc. I consider this to be uncivil at best if not a personal attack. This *proposed* arbcom decision. anticipates similar behaviour as being unacceptable. Additionally the user had been blocked a couple of days previously for similar. As a potentially controversial block hence the posting here. --pgk^(talk

) 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, after another blanking/restoring flurry this morning (in which Croatian historian has again labelled restorers vandals in the edit summaries), I've reprotected the page but did not block Croatian historian. Mel, with all due respect, I think your actions simply encouraged Croatian historian's behavior, and I don't think it should have been encouraged in any way. --Nlu (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I will file a complaint against you for adminship abuse. Vandalizing a talk page is a serious offense, editing a protected page is a serious offense. Not only are vandals reinstating bad faith use of templates by Serbiana (trolling), they are also deleting my own replies at my own talk page. Croatian historian ( ) 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing a protected page is not a serious offense, because obviously the only people that can edit it are the ones who are allowed to- that's the whole point. As for deleting your replies, god mode light does not selectively rollback sections; you shouldn't have replied and vandalized your warnings at the same time (and it is vandalism, as it violates

WP:VAND). Again, please stop calling us vandals and assuming bad faith. --Rory096

16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont think the behaviour of Serbiana, Nlu and their friends should be encouraged. Their behaviour is appalling. Croatian historian ( ) 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've warned you twice for personal attacks. I've quoted or linked you the policy multiple times. And still you keep vandalizing, and then have the balls to accuse upstanding editors like myself, Nlu and rory? I rarely get pissed, but this user deserves an indefinate block.

Personal attacks? Incivility? Here you go: [9], [10], [11], tells me to shutup, [12] etc.

Frankly, I'm inclined to sympathise with Croatian historian; too many admins have looked at the page, seen a warning template being removed, and knee-jerked into attacks on the User, without bothering to check the validity of the template. It was a mischievous use of the template by another editor who has been harassing Croatian historian. "Vandal" may be the wrong word, but given the pressure he's been put under, and the many admins who have piled in against him without bothering to find out what's been going on, I think that he can be forgiven. I'm unprotecting the page, so that he can clear it of the junk that's been piling up. Ny advice to him is to archive the whole page, and start afresh. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." He was told this. Multiple times, and still reverted. Then he took it onto other user talk pages, and then tells me to shut up when I show him the policy.

I find it very disconcerting that a user can personally attack other users, including upstanding editors and admins, act incredibly rude and uncivil, threaten them, delete his warnings, ignore other warnings, and then get off unblocked. That's disgusting to me.

I blocked Croatian historian for 48 hours for personal attacks, and then Mel Etitis unblocked, and then I reblocked. Pardon me for wheel warring, but I think in this case it's justified. Mel, you can't say with a straight face that these edits by Croatian historian were not personal attacks, or that they did not come after repeated warnings. --Nlu (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, my comment

Since I see my name is mentioned several times, I feel I should comment on the issue. I would like to start by writing a Croatian historian quote:

• "Not all nationalism is genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist like the Serbian one." [13]

I'm a Serb. I find that very offensive. So, I posted a "no personal attacks" template on his page. He just deleted it. He claims that I'm mad at him because he voted against me when I applied for an administrator on English Wikipedia, but that is not the reason at all. We're all a little biased, some more than others. But this next quote by Croatian historian is too much:

• "
  Alojzije Cardinal Stepinac was perhaps the most honourable man in history of Croatia of the 20th century, also if compared to great statesmen like Franjo Tuđman." [14]

• • "Serb irredentism and attempt to create a Greater Serbia under Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic led to the Yugoslav wars..."

• • "Serb war criminal Slobodan Milošević in the Hague..."

• • -just erased a bunch of text-

• • -here as well-

And that's just what I could find in a few minutes... Not to mention, he's very rude: [15]. Also, here's what he wrote about User:Lbmixpro - "vandalize user pages, needs to be banned", and the same for User:Rory096; "vandalize user pages (restoring personal attacks/trolling, deleting content), needs to be banned" for User:OrbitOne and "adminship abuse, removing properly placed warning templates" for User:Pgk.

Enough said. I don't know if he is blocked at the moment, some users keep unblocking him, maybe they think he might change his ways. Not likely. Block him for good - he is a vandal. --Serbiana ₪ 04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The praises of the Croats might be biased and POV, but "Serb war criminal Slobodan Milosevic" would be fine if the word "accused" is added. That would then be an accurate description, as Milosevic was indeed an accused war criminal. --Nlu (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note Serbiana I found multiple uncivil quotes by you on his talk page as well. I think this issue is not just his behavior, but includes the tiff between the two of you.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Attack is the best defense". I'm not the perfect Wikipedian, but please, if you have something against me, don't discuss it here, we're talking about Croatian historian.

Also, Croatian historian did not add the word accused, and he didn't do it on purpose. If he had added that word, I would have nothing against the edit. But both of you didn't really comment on the more troubling issues, and you're obviously taking sides on this discussion, without rationally analyzing all aspects of the topic. --Serbiana ₪ 06:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

When two feuding parties are both accusing me of taking sides, that is usually a good indicator that I'm not. I'll take it as a compliment. --Nlu (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the difference between me and Croatian user is that this is the first time I've accused someone of taking sides. Croatian user accuses everyone who is against him of taking sides with me, so if you don't like him, you're a Serbiana supporter. I don't see how you can take that as a compliment, but if it makes you feel better, sure, why not... --Serbiana ₪ 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on several points. Croatian history is being discussed here, however it shouldn't be all about his actions and only his actions; he isn't mass editing with no interuser interactions. I am not taking sides between the two of you, but I am going to note the shots between the two of you. I will also note not all of your shots have been 100% clean. Thus I come to the second point where I disagree. I am not taking sides here. I want to keep my hands clean. I do suggest finding an arbitrator though; any problems the two of you have with each other is not good for wikipedia. Three: This problem has more than one side and two users. If Croatian historian is a troll, then there are also people who feed the troll. I am not saying anyone, you and Croatian historian included, should be banned or any other admin actions should be taken though; such actions are up to the admins to decide, not me. I am saying though all sides need to walk away from this learning lessons and changing how we act, even if only a little bit.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 10:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, noone is commenting on the links I posted, and if that's not taking sides, I don't know what is. Could anyone say why Croatian historian should be a part of this Wikipedia, even though he writes stuff like that (honestly, read the links)? Once again, I'm not the perfect Wikipedian, noone is, and I've made a few mistakes, but I've tried since to correct them: [16].

But what Croatian historian has done, and what he is still constantly doing, is unacceptable. Unlike me, he will never change. So, if you still think that you're going to save this user from being blocked by attacking the edits I've made, think again, because the reasons I've given are good enough to block him, and you can't deny that just because I made a few mistakes in the past. --Serbiana ₪ 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. That website is a disgrace and its presence on Karl Meier's userpage cannot help him to work with other editors, many of whom may be the very muslims he is telling to go and get fucked. --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no free speech on Wikipedia, anyway. We allow for the removal of racially offensive or libellous article talk page comments, I don't see why we should allow that sort of thing to hang out on someone's user pages either. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't says "Fuck all Muslims", and I think you should spend you life and wiki-time on something else than my userpage. Maybe the external link is a bit of a silly response to the flag-burning and the hateful campaign against my country all over the islamic world, but I still don't like the idea of you running around telling me and other users what we can and can't have in our userspace. I've personally been asked to "go fuck myself" in a users personal space, and no action was taken. Why don't you go write an article or do something else that is actually useful. This is just too ridicules, and we shouldn't waste our time on it. -- Karl Meier 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there are rules about what you can and can't have in your userspace -- or anybody's userspace. User space is the property of the Wikimedia Foundation; users have no personal "ownership" over their user space, which exists at the foundation's pleasure. There has been a lot of discussion about what is and is not appropriate to have in one's userspace, including anything at all (i.e. some folks would like to do away with it period). From Wikipedia:User pages: Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. Examples of unrelated content include: Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And no, noone should have told you to go fuck yourself; that's obviously not all right. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And what do you think abour Cool Cat's request that I should "go fuck myself" Mr. Sidaway? I remember that you had no comments re that... -- Karl Meier 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Last tine Cool Cat attacked you, I banned him from an article for a week. If he's attacking you again, please show me the diff. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked you why you did nothing and made no comment when he asked me and Davenbelle to "go fuck ourselves" on his userpage. No action was taken, eventhough he entered a revert-war to keep these comments on his userpage, so apparently the "rules" must have changed.. -- Karl Meier 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the relevant diff for this, Karl, I'm interested inseeing it and I could not find it.Gator (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't worth time. Cool Cat makes thousands of edits to his userpace, and I have no problem with him now. Also, Sidaway know what I am talking about. -- Karl Meier 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He's just trying to change the subject.

Karl Meier has replaced that link to an anti-muslim website with a link to another equally virulent anti-muslim website. I have asked him to remove it. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. This latest thought-crime in my userspace, has already been censored by Doc glasgow. -- Karl Meier 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All credit to Karl, he has accepted the removal of all the offending content, with even a little humour in his part. If only all disputes could end like this. :) --

^ask?

23:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I actually hoped that you would have made a fast revert of my latest edit... That could have been quite amusing. -- Karl Meier 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So, when you changed the offensive link to a disneyland link, you were what? Trolling? I don't understand? --

^ask?

23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah.. Forget it. It was just a joke. -- Karl Meier 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway. Forgetting about specific links, I think this whole thing raise some questions, re what is allowed on a userpage. What if I want to link to Xenu.net in my userspace, or what about the drawing of Muhammad on my userpage? What is "inflamatory" and who is to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed in a users personal space? -- Karl Meier 23:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You were trolling, and that's not allowed. Stop trying to dress it up as wiki-philosopy raising profound questions. It doesn't wash. The only question this raises is the question of your motives. --

^ask?

23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to ask you to stop harassing me on these public forums, and to stop making nasty personal attacks and comments about me in your userspace. -- Karl Meier 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What public forum? This is not a forum. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I want him to quit harrassing me on the "Administrators noticeboard", and in his userspace. -- Karl Meier 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And now I noticed that he did just that: [20]. No problem then. -- Karl Meier 01:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More generally

a.k.a. back to the subject: I'd consider any link that's only "one deep" to be as if it were on my user page. I wouldn't be allowed to write my nazi midget clown poem about Katefan0 on my user page, so linking directly to it on my livejournal is different how?

Shhh. That was supposed to be secret. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here Karl; quit trying to make a

point. I personally can't answer that question for you. People put items of varying degrees of offensiveness on their userpages, and I have said nothing. If you (or others) choose to portray yourself as someone who is intolerant of other faiths and viewpoints, that is your prerogative. Just make sure that intolerance stays on your user page and doesn't extend to the rest of Wikipedia. I know there are many who are going to be quick to disagree with me, but I've seen people with pages devoted to nudity and others (such as Karl) who make a point to lambaste or insult religions. Until I see a crackdown on content on all userpages or a disturbance due to the page (which to this point, I have seen none), I fail to see the problem. However, I must point out that if your point here is to troll (as I suspect may be the motive behind the Scientology link), that is not condoned by me. joturner

00:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Don't you have anything better to do than to herass me and whine about what I have in my user space? Get a life please. My usespace is none of your business. Anyway I am not going to spend more time discussing with you. You can yell and scream all you want, and I dont care. There is no point in discussion anything with you. -- Karl Meier 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of admins have been behaving in a disturbingly emotional way in attacking this user. His user page had been twice protected, and he has just been blocked for 48 hours, supposedly for personal attacks; the evidence for these appears to be:[21], [22], [23], tells me to shutup, [24].

Frankly, this is absurd. Even if most of these in fact counted as attacks, there's something unpleasant about blocking an editor for attacking oneself; the case should have been placed before other admins, here. The other "crime" that Croatian historian has committed is to remove bad-faith and mischievous additions of warning templates from his own talk page — templates placed there by editors who are in dispute with him, and who are using the templates to attack him.

Admins such as User:Nlu and User:Swatjester are at best being overly sensitive, and acting without bothering to look any deeper into the situation than what is on the surface. Could other, experienced admins look into this, and help to sort it out? I've unblocked him and unprotected his page. Perhaps the two admins involved could step back and let others take over. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel....I'm not an admin.

_Fire!

16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning: The first warnings may or may not have been bad-faith. It doesn't really matter, the proper solution is to ask an admin to review and remove them. Hell, I've got a bad-faith 3rr warning on my page, I just struck it threw and kept it on there until the user retracted it. So a couple different users start reverting his blankings of the warnings, and he keeps on referring to us as "vandals" and claiming he has full rights to his talk page (which is not true as evidenced in WP:TALK). Deletion of warnings is vandalism per

But you are SWAT! :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently that's going right over my head, cause I don't get it. Have I been up too long?

_Fire!

17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: See also

Fine, Swatjester's not an admin; the rest of my comments stand. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For more details on this topic, see

User_talk:Lbmixpro#Problem_with_Rory096

.

This has continued to flood to my talk page, and as it is right now, I want other admins input about this. --

Let me just add one comment on this:

I find it absolutely mindboggling that Mel is claiming that Croatian historian's edits were not personal attacks. (See User talk:Nlu on even harsher language that Mel used on my talk page.) As I've written lately with regard to an unrelated matter, think how you would react if it were anybody else. If we do not allow anonymous IPs and other users to make this type of personal attacks without being blocked, then it is hypocritical to not to block Croatian historian for this type of personal attacks. There is no justification that I see for Mel to further have removed the 48-hour block that I placed on Croatian historian. If there is someone who's abusing admin powers, I feel strongly that it wasn't I. --Nlu (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbiana's comment

I feel I should comment on the issue. I would like to start by writing a Croatian historian quote:

• "Not all nationalism is genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist like the Serbian one." [25]

I'm a Serb. I find that very offensive. So, I posted a "no personal attacks" template on his page. He just deleted it. He claims that I'm mad at him because he voted against me when I applied for an administrator on English Wikipedia, but that is not the reason at all. We're all a little biased, some more than others. But this next quote by Croatian historian is too much:

• "
  Alojzije Cardinal Stepinac was perhaps the most honourable man in history of Croatia of the 20th century, also if compared to great statesmen like Franjo Tuđman." [26]

• "Serb irredentism and attempt to create a Greater Serbia under Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic led to the Yugoslav wars...", *"Serb war criminal Slobodan Milošević in the Hague...", *<<just erased a bunch of text>>, *<<here as well>>

And that's just what I could find in a few minutes... Not to mention, he's very rude: [27]. Also, here's what he wrote about User:Lbmixpro - "vandalize user pages, needs to be banned", and the same for User:Rory096; "vandalize user pages (restoring personal attacks/trolling, deleting content), needs to be banned" for User:OrbitOne and "adminship abuse, removing properly placed warning templates" for User:Pgk.

Enough said. I don't know if he is blocked at the moment, some users keep unblocking him, maybe they think he might change his ways. Not likely. Block him for good - he is a vandal. --Serbiana ₪ 04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a good example of what I'm talking about:

"*"Not all nationalism is genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist like the Serbian one." [28]

"I'm a Serb. I find that very offensive. So, I posted a "no personal attacks" template on his page."

There was clearly no personal attack. Most of the supposed personal attacks atributed to Croatian historian are of the same kind. That Bormalagurski made this mistake is perhaps excusable, but that admins made it and blocked the user on this basis isn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is just too unfair. YOU DIDN'T COMMENT ON ANY OF THE EDITS THAT CROATIAN HISTORIAN MADE TO THE ARTICLES. DO YOU NOT FIND HIS COMMENT ON SERBS SLIGHTLY NATIONALIST???You are clearly not looking at the facts from a neutral point of view. Mel, how would you react if I said that every member of your nationality is a genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist nationalist. Would that offend you? Plus, what Croatian user wrote, offends 10 million people! And you're saying it wasn't offensive? Jesus, Mel, open you're eyes, Croatian user should be blocked!!! --Serbiana ₪ 07:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There clearly is a difference between Serbs and "Serb nationalism". Are you suggesting all Serbs are nationalists? If a Chinese, whose family had been murdered by Japanese occupiers, said "Japanese nationalism is genocidal, aggressive etc.", on a talk page, I would not have a problem with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.214.92A11:08, 30 March 2006 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure who wrote this, but I agree. I'd add only that I detest all nationalism, and that in the context of Wikipedia it probably causes more than half all our porblems with vandalism, pointless edit wars, and emotional blow ups like this one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree too if it was written in that context. Unfortunatly, he stated that Serbian nationalism's the worst, which is quitte different. --

HolyRomanEmperor

14:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment, I'm afraid, especially as it's factually incorrect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats it! I don't care what you do with Croatian historian, Mel is obviously always going to unblock him, and there is no point in discussing this with him. Mel, if you had a sense of what is right and what is wrong, you would stop protecting this Croatian nationalist, and block him for good. But, of course, you will never do that. Plus, you're arguments for helping Croatian nationalism are very bad, and I just don't understand who could've made you an administrator. I'm just shocked how the quality of Wikipedia is going down, when a vandal is being protected by an admin, it's over. I give up, Croatian nationalism has won, it's Operation Storm all over again. --Serbiana ₪ 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:DakotaKahn blocked this user with the following rationale: Username to close DakotaKahn. I don't see this at all. DakotaKahn shouldn't be allowed to have the only User name with the word Dakota in it. The user hadn't even made a single edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. First of all, we can't ban everybody in Dakota! Secondly, I'm not sure DakotaKahn has such a high profile that people are into impersonating her (I might be wrong, and either way no offence intended). --kingboyk 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and we need a page for admins to report non-obvious username blocks, so that the community can investigate. I'm unblocking. --Golbez 23:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I just created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Usernames, WP:AN/U and WP:ANU. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded its why we have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names.  ALKIVAR™ 01:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. RFC should be used when a username's suitability is in doubt, and improper blocks for usernames are, AFAIK, rare enough that we don't need a separate noticeboard to report them. I've MfDed it here - I hope that's the right place to discuss whether we need this. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I speedy deleted it after Zoe said she wasn't aware of the RFC sub-section and didn't mind it being deleted. Technically this speedy is questionable as a) Splash edited it after Zoe created it, making a speedy on the grounds of Zoe's request potentially invalid and b) I nominated it for MfD in the first place. But I don't see Splash as likely to object, or why someone else should have to do it. I didn't even bother mentioning it on the MfD closing notice, but since this is the AN, no reason not to make it clear here. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• shhh, the vandals have ears, of course so does
  corn, but then corn has never been blocked for moving pages to pagename ...on wheels]], probably because corn is a vegtable, not a person, but you never know--Minasota von haippymeils
  00:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to leave that account blocked. DakotaKahn has been stalked by AMorrow, and it's possible this is him. It's not the first account that's been set up recently that sounds close to her name or to one of her relatives. It's also suspicious that the account was set up, but apparently not used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I should really read this page more often. Long before reading this discussion, I noticed that these five accounts were all created within a couple of hours:

• Dakota_d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dakota_d_on_Wheels! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DakotaKahn_on_Wheels! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DakotaKahn_and_Dakota_d_sitting_in_a_tree_C.U.R.P.S.ING! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DakotaKahn_and_Dakota_d_sitting_on_Wheels!_C.U.R.P.S.ING! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DakotaKahn_is_a_bitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DakotaKahn_is_still_a_bitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note that "new users" with zero edits generally do not get "put on wheels" or become the subject of "attack accounts" in this manner. Barring evidence to the contrary, I firmly believe that these five accounts were created by the same person, regardless of whether this person has any connection to the so-called "real Willy on Wheels". — Mar. 30, '06 [08:40] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Thanks for finding those, FoN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks too; having seen those, I have much less problem with the block, though it should have had a note. Mindspillage's note below also contains wisdom. --Golbez 15:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

While the usernames created afterward look suspicious, this isn't the sort of username I would block without at least leaving a note on the talk page, and more likely not at all. Dakota is a pretty popular name, though more so for people who are just barely old enough to edit Wikipedia, and I wouldn't expect someone newly registering to check that their name doesn't clash with an admin's first, and "Dakota d" is somewhat far off to look like a deliberate attempt to confuse or impersonate. As for the names afterward, well, it could have been malicious all long, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is our dear friend who likes to create names riffing off of the current block log and current discussions. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying everything I can to keep from getting in an edit war with User:infinity0 on An Anarchist FAQ. To keep from getting into an edit war with him I put POV tag on the top of the article and have been engaging in voluminous discussion on the [Discussion page] there. He keeps taking the tag off knowing full well that the dispute is very much alive (he knows because he's engaging in the dispute on the Discussion page). Whenever I put it back on, he takes it off: [29] [30] Then, when I note on the Discussion page that he's taking off the POV tag he keep reverting my mention of the fact that he's taking the tag off: [31] [32] --which amounts to vandalizing the Discussion page. It's just crazy. What he's doing is all very disruptive to the process at trying to arrive at a consensus. The article has a real POV problem and I am not the only one who thinks this. I don't know what to do in this situation other than to ask if someone can please put a block on him for awhile. Maybe that will force him to refrain from these antics. RJII 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one is willing to take any action over this, then what am I supposed to do? Is there a policy against repeatedly deleting someone else's messages on Discussion pages? (by the way, he deleted a message of mine from another article's Talk page today as well: [33] )Is there a policy against repeatedly removing an NPOV tag from an article when the NPOV dispute is still going on and a consensus as not been reached? Please advise. RJII 03:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe find another pond to fish in for the moment? Isn't there any way you two can stay out of each other's faces? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The only way I can do that is to sit back and let him make the article POV and keep important information out of it. It doesn't matter if I go to other articles --he often follows me to them --puts things I create up for deletion votes just because I'm the one that created them, goes into an article that I edited that he's never visited before right after I make an edit and immediately deletes them, etc. Believe me, I'd like to stay away from him. But, I don't think I should be the one to allow him to get his way when he's the one that's obviously being disruptive. I'm just supposed to allow him to delete my messages on Discussion pages? That's crazy. RJII 03:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't obvious that admin intervention is needed. Have you considered

WP:3O? Jkelly

03:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop by the article and try and give some suggestions on

WP:DR. --FloNight ^talk

03:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Noting that he's deleting people's comments on other pages as well. Here is someone complaining on his Talk page about deleting comments on the Socialism talk page. [34] I don't understand why you guys are letting him get away with this clearly disruptive behavior. RJII 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I did not mean to delete the comment on the socialism talk page [35].
• RJII kept harassing me on my talk page (see history) and
  WP:POINT
  on the talk page of that article, so I removed the attacks.
• RJII is the one circumventing consensus; none of the other editors have agreed with what he is trying to add, yet he has the cheek to report me for this.
• Furthermore, RJII is currently on probation FOR POV pushing.

-- infinity0 23:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked 209.123.28.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), for 31 hours only, since it's an IP. But I'd really like to block for longer. Could somebody please look to see what kind of IP this is, and, especially, click on the contribs and tell me: is the person using a bot, or is it possible to edit that fast without it? Man, I wish Wikipedia was ever that fast for me. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

P. S. I see Celestianpower did the exact same block at the very same moment. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

Likely not a bot. I would guess he used a WoW style multiple tab editing to pull that off. I do similar when I'm doing multiple repetetive edits on a number of pages. Open all the pages, work through making the changes. If I'm cut&pasting the same change, I can go fairly quickly through the pages, clicking submit on each as I go. - TexasAndroid 17:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's listed in the

Spamhaus XBL, which means it's almost certainly a compromised computer. However, it doesn't appear to be a normal open proxy from my tests. It's probably being controlled remotely via a bot network. --GraemeL ^(talk)

17:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with above. I've had experience vandalising like this on other wikis so know how it works. 15 per minute isn't that high using that method. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd really like to block if not permanently then at least substantially. Would that risk catching virtuous users, or not, do you think? Bishonen | talk 17:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

Peronally, I only block open proxies that I can get to proxy for me. I have let quite a few slip perma blocks and instituted a short block when my testing methods fail to get them to proxy, even if I'm reaonably sure they are open and the failure is in my checking script. I would start off with a 24 hour block and monitor it when the block expires. If it continues, keep escalating the length of the blocks. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahha! whois says "West Milford Public Schools" with a contact of wb at nac.net. I suspect not a bot, but lots of little 'bots'. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: RJII is currently on probation as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#Remedies and has already been banned four times as a result of it.

The majority consensus on Talk:An Anarchist FAQ is that the anti-individualist-anarchism position of the authors is not a major point for the article since they do not mispresent individualist anarchism nor make untruthful statements in the FAQ. However, RJII keeps wanting to give undue weight to this in the article to try to discredit it.

[36]

Previous version has one sentence on the issue: "The authors also explain why they disagree with some anarchist tendencies, such as individualist anarchism."

RJII's version has one paragraph (half the section) on the issue: "They say that they "social anarchists reject the individualists conception of anarchy, simply because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts....However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws one with many flaws and one perhaps more suited to an earlier age when capitalism was less developed and its impact upon society far less than it is now." Why Social Anarchists Reject Individualist Anarchism" - note that this page is about 1/100 of the whole FAQ.

-- infinity0 21:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't fall for it. There is no "majority consensus." At least 3 others disagree with what infinity wants for the article. infinity is being very disruptive. He keeps removing NPOV tags knowning full well that their is a dispute going on and even deleting my comments from the Talk page of that article. (And I am not the only one putting a POV dispute tag on it). I'm trying to provide direct quotes in order to make it as NPOV as possible --that way no one can twist what they are saying. RJII 21:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC) There are indeed others who agree with me. For example, "You folks are arguing different points. RJII is quite correct that the authors of the FAQ have a non-neutral POV. In order to preserve the NPOV of the entry, it might be appropriate to note that fact. As RJII considers it important, and as it is entirely accurate to note their rejection, maybe you should just relent on this one. Libertatia 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" RJII 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII is lying. I don't want anything for the article; 3 others disagree with him and his POV version. There has been extensive rebuttal of what he has been trying to add. I only remove his point-making disruptions. -- infinity0 21:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Now he's making a personal attack. When is someone going to do something about this guy? See my complaints about him a couple sections above. RJII 21:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII is falsifying quotes from other editors. Libertatia does not support his POV version.

• But the meat of the FAQ is elsewhere. Libertatia 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• The real disagreement is that you present the FAQ to be a 'sectarian' social anarchist FAQ, while the FAQ declaratively attempts a more 'ecumenical' approach, while preserving a socialist identity. There is a huge difference between the two, and I have only your unsupported opinion to contradict such declarations of the FAQ. --Aryah 07:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

-- infinity0 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

here's an idea

block them both... indefintly, at least we won't have to listen to either of them anymore--172.168.140.68 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's the easy way out, instead of taking the time to analyze who is truly disruptive here. It's also irresponsible. RJII 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not really the easy way out, and stating the most obvious conclusion that you're simply a troll, won't actually resolve the situation, so blocking both is the way to go, that way you won't feel compelled to violate your block(s) and come back a sockpuppets.

besides if I really had the power to block either of you, do you think I'd be communicating so mysteriously from an ip with only 2 contributions on it?

Were I a sysop, do you think I'd be giving you a final warning to take this dispute somewhere else or be blocked? no of course not, you absolutely shouldn't read too much into this because you're in absolutely no danger of being blocked by an annoyed sysop who is giving you one last warning. absolutely none --172.168.140.68 22:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Let's see. How many things can I quote from the top of this page?
  1. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks.
  2. Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content
  3. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here.
  4. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page
  • This is a content dispute. infinity0, stop pretending it's anything otherwise, and stop using RJII's probation as a weapon against him; it cheapens whatever argument you're making. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • Fine, I shall remain on the talk page, though please take note that I have been through this with him for a long time, and that in my eyes he is being clearly disruptive. Could you at least have a look through it as a neutral party and leave some comments? That would be appreciated. -- infinity0 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This does not require administrator intervention. Take it to the talk page of whatever article you are discussing. -

Hello, would you please remove my name from this list: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp

I asked Check User to perform a test and they determined "Inconclusive".

I am not a sockpuppet Thank you SirIsaacBrock 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, fair use images cannot be placed in the user namespace, per

1. Bunchofgrapes on 00:15, 4 February 2006 here. The request was not acted upon, and was deleted in this edit as "harassment, trolling and botspam."
2. Scm83x on 10:20, 9 March 2006 here. The request was responded to with complete incivility and a misunderstanding of policy here and deleted in this same edit as "harassment, trolling and botspam."
3. MattKingston on 23:38, 14 March 2006 here. The entire talk page was subsequently archived in this edit, though MattKingston's section was cut out.
4. Rebelguys2 on 01:51, 21 March 2006 here. The message was blanked in this edit.

There is no doubt that he understands how fair use works on Wikipedia; it has been explained to him many times over. Regardless, in this edit, he explicitly calls for the "challenge and defiance" of copyright law. Though copyright law may be unpopular and too restrictive at times, Wikipedia is certainly not the place to start his revolution.

After the user was given time to remove fair use images from his user page, but failed to do so, a number of editors have manually removed the offending images from his page. User page and fair use policy states that users are free to remove fair use images from others' user pages – especially after the user has been warned:

1. MattKingston on 00:26, 25 March 2006 here. The edit was reverted as vandalism here.
2. Scm83x on 03:33, 26 March 2006 here. The edit was reverted as "[v]andalism by a novice, petty official" here.
3. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
   , for what is now three reversions at 02:48, 04:07, and 08:39 on the same day.

In summary, this user steadfastly refuses to comply with

• I protected his userpage. He is being civil elsewhere. Ashibaka tock 12:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Can I just but in here and point out that "about to violate
  WP:3RR" is not something you can anticipate, fairly comment on or act upon until he actually breaks the rule. Even discussing anticipated crimes smacks to me of a little over eagerness on your part. My imagination I'm sure. I find the man deeply trying, but he is entitled to the same considerations as everyone else no matter how vexing he may be to one's patience. Giano | talk
  15:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Revert warring, even if it doesn't break
  WP:3RR, or he would have been reported elsewhere. — Rebelguys2 ^talk
  19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is misleading to say that "he explicitly calls for the 'challenge and defiance' of copyright law" since he was referring to the DMCA and software patents, which (IIRC) have nothing to do with fair use. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• The reason the line in question raised my eyebrows is that it followed a discussion with
  Natalinasmpf regarding a fair use rationale. I don't know enough to comment on the contents of DMCA. However, he has certainly challenged and been defiant of fair use policy on Wikipedia, and the whole issue here does, in the end, boil down to intellectual protectionism. — Rebelguys2 ^talk
  19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• To be honest do you not think in disallowing the man to display his favourite album cover on his own user page is just being a teeny weeny bit over zealous. Is it actually harming anyone, is the copyright holder likely to say "Oi! Stop that now" or "Thank you good Wikipedians for stopping one of our fans displaying our album cover". No in short they don't give a stuff about that sort of thing. It's not as though he is claiming he designed it himself, is a member of whatever group it is, he's just one of millions of fans - nothing more - nothing sinister - and more importantly he is not deriving financial gain from the cover. There must be so many more important things you could devote your worthy time too, now why don't you just give him back his album cover and find something more useful to do with your time. Giano | talk 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Protecting the integrity of the project is a pretty high priority around here. Ghost is lucky not to find himself blocked. -Splash^talk 16:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• What constitutes the integrity of this project seems to be open to personal interpretation[37] as I'm sure you realise. So at least you agree we have some leeway here. That's always a good start, shall we move on from there? Giano | talk 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, this isn't a negotiable policy. And it isn't about how we interprete the law. Ultimately, this is foundation policy and it is absolute. Now, we need to allow latitude for those who don't get it, and make mistakes, but not for a deliberate breachs. He is in violation of the conditions under which we may use this site, and if he will not comply, he cannot continue to use the site. We cannot all turn into lawyers and reach 'consensus' as to where this policy matters and where it does not. That way lies madness. And will those who say 'it doesn't matter' underwrite wikipedia legally if a liberal attitude to copyright gets the foundation into trouble? No. Anyway, there is also a moral argument. Copyright owners cannot go around this massive website checking where their rights may have been infringed. Their rights will often be infringed. The onus is on us to make sure we eliminate every violation we can. --
  ^ask?
  16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Doc. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) must understand the policy by now, as it appears he's been warned about many times over. this needs to stop.--Alhutch 16:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Are you quite sure though though that he is in in fact breach of copyright law? If he is - then under the licence template Albumcover were he to accompany the image with a few words describing the album then he would be 100% legal even in your eyes. Would it not be better to try and help him find a solution rather than keep issuing him with repeated "tickets" rather like over zealous traffic wardens, because at the moment it seems to me a rather unimportant action is being escalated and inflamed into what is an unnecessarily angry and hostile exchange. Something which wikipedia has quite enough of already. Administrators should remember they are here to assist and advise editors. At the moment he is being ordered around in an inflammatory way, when he should be being shown a way out of the problem. You are the admins not him. Giano | talk 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that he is in violation of what is apparently Wikimedia Foundation policy. If you would like to restructure Wikimedia policy, it needs to be taken up over there, not here on Wikipedia. R.D.H. has been guided through these policies by several editors, including administrators, over the course of nearly 2 months. However, he has not acted on their advice. Therefore, a page lock was justified. I am also unsure why you accused me of removing your comments here; that was an accident by Tom harrison here. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have also mentioned the policy violation once in an unrelated note to him [38] (I just happened to notice all the images) but I didn't actually remove them, I thought maybe he would have himself. - cohesion^t 03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rebelguys and M.Kingston are not admins. And if I have anything to say about it they never will be. The only admin actions taken here, apart from Ashibaka's protection of my userpage, was undertaken by Reb's friend/roomie/frat brother Scm83x. Among whose first acts as a newly appointed admin was to remove most all the images from my userpage and not just the copyrighted ones. All because he thought I was being a bit "rude" to him earlier. I argued that at least my images were being used in a way that was related to the 'Pedia itself, for "community building" purposes and to illustrate subjects brought up on said page. Unlike PERSONAL images, which have nothing to do with either building the 'Pedia or the community and are perhaps better suited for a blog and/or personal photo album. I would not grudge them their pics at all, except they grudge me mine. First certain userboxes are verboden, now certain images. It is only a matter of time before personal pics are taken away too. This is clearly a case of petty vindictiveness, justified under the aegis of policy. Hardly the reward I would expect for all my contributions here... Wikipedia:Harassment [39] and Wikistalking Mr. Kingston. All in an attempt to make my continued participation here unpleasant enough so I might leave the project. Also disturbing is the fact that the only ones who have come to my defense are Ashibaka, who I mainly know of from the infamous unpleasantness of last month, and my arch WikiNemesis Giano. I now find myself in the especially akward position of having to THANK Giano for his astute and welcomed help on this matter. But I must also warn him that if he keeps this up, I will be forced to start respecting him also:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• It was not an "admin action" to remove images from your user page; our user page and fair use guidelines allow any user to do so freely if there is a fair use violation. In addition, only copyrighted images were removed from your user pages, of which there were four. No other images have been touched; I'm not sure why you believed others were. Please don't falsely accuse other users of ulterior motives and of actions they certainly did not undertake. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 10:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the interest of further resolving this mess, I have proposed
  a Compromise to Ashibaka. Another evening I intended to use working on articles, I've now been forced to devote to defending myself instead. As Giano pointed out, we do actually have better things to do with our time than browbeating a stubborn old man into compliance with a policy he regards as unfair, unduly oppressive and in this case unnecessary (Those images have been sitting peacefully on my page since last year...and we havent gotten a cease and desist order from Sting's or Mr. Gilliam's lawyers so far). This is exactly the sort of petty bullshit which is destroying this community and project. It's getting UGLY here, kiddos...and I fear it is only going to get uglier.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
  07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think that everyone should take a breath, relax, and realize what the central issue is here. We should simply recall that our fair use guidelines prohibit the use of fair use images outside the main namespace, save for case-by-case exceptions (i.e., templates for the main page). Any other arguments, such as R.D.H.'s false and bad faith assumptions of "petty vindictiveness," "petty bullshit," "Wikistalking," "harrassment," and collaborations with a "friend/roomie/frat brother," are moot; in addition, our allowance for personal images is in no way related to fair use. Issues such as these stem from Wikimedia Foundation policies, and discussion should be taken to channels there. It is unlikely that you will get anywhere hurling false accusations. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 10:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rightly or wrongly you have pushed him into a corner back against the wall. So you now have the problem how are you going to help him out. For how much longer is he to be prevented from editing his own user page? I cannot understand why this has been allowed to escalate into such a huge issue which seems to be going nowhere. I am wondering where the more senior and respected admins are while this has been going on. (Another reason for training inexperienced admins!) Were this particular copyright issue to be taken to a legal court the chances are RDS would be allowed to continue his limited use of the image. However, in the absence of a court case, you have to decide how zealously you wish to interpret and administer policy, bearing in mind, who has he hurt?- What harm is it realistically likely to cause? and finally, has anyone actually complained or made official protest over Ghost's actions and use of the image? Bearing those questions and their answers in mind one can then assess the gravity of this case and where you wish to take it.........Without doubt, as I know to my own experience, and you must know surely too, he can be a very belligerent, pig headed and irritating person, but would Wikipedia be a better place without him? I don't think so - He is not one of those non-page-writing editors who flit about the site distributing wise opinions and advice to those that seldom want it, he actually writes pages on encyclopedic subjects, and for that deserves our respect and some consideration given to his views. You appear to have him now back against the wall into a corner, and for some reason seem surprised he is barking and shouting. Calm down and help the poor man out of the mess you have all got yourselves into, exercise a little tact and diplomacy when dealing with difficult customers - and it will be a better place for all. Giano | talk 12:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• A number of us had been courteously explaining policy to R.D.H. for the course of two months to which he made no response. We're not "interpreting policy" – it is one of the few fair use Wikimedia Foundation policies that are explicitly stated and unlikely to be misconstrued. It has come up many, many times, and never have I seen such a response. Never have I said that he isn't a worthwhile contributor; never have I said that he should be banned. I don't understand why you brought the issue of his departure up. We have only repeated to him: whether right or wrong, the issue is that this is one of the most clear-cut fair use policies we have on Wikipedia – here's why – here's what you need to do. I have also told him that, in all honestly, he should just drop the issue, as people were coming in every week or two to ask him to remove the images. We have never retracted our offers for assistance, our guidance through the bureaucratic web of Foundation copyright guidelines, or anything else he needs. If that isn't tact and diplomacy, I don't know what else you could want. We can and still offer help, but it is up to R.D.H. to accept it. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)