Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive133

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives



For weeks now User:Netscott has been agitating concerning this image uploaded by SlimVirgin. He kept insisting that the image be as "Anti-Semitic", against the objections of SlimVirgin and other editors. Netscott then tried to have it deleted as a derivative image; though the photographer had released it, Netscott claimed the poster in the photograph itself hadn't been properly released. Jkelly then proposed that the photograph be used under the photographer's release, and the poster image on the photograph itself under Fair Use. Netscott then objected, saying that we couldn't claim Fair Use on the poster unless we knew the name of the artist. SlimVirgin then went and discovered the name of the artist, and added it on the image page. Netscott then claimed it wasn't Fair Use based on "Counterexample 4". When this was shot down, he complained about the name of the image, insisting it was making claims of anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin then uploaded the image under a new "neutral" name that didn't mention anti-Semitism. Netscott then kept trying to attach the new image to the old name which contained the name anti-Semitism, trying again to make that linkage. When this was reverted, Netscott then tried to associate the name of the artist with ANSWER, a controversial group, and continually kept associating the poster creator's name with anti-Semitism on all sorts of Talk: pages and message boards, trying to get the image deleted again, ostensibly out of concerns about WP:BLP, but in actuality excacerbating any BLP concerns, since it was Netscott alone who kept making this connection, in a dozen different places. SlimVirgin then removed the name of the poster creater from the image page; at this point Netscott then insisted on listing the image as a Copyright violation, claiming the artist was no longer attributed.

The image itself is quite famous; it's been reproduced and discussed on a number of famous blogs and websites, and has been discussed in the media. Netscott's purpose here seems to be to troll as much as possible, agitating in any way possible to get the image deleted, while possibly endangering Wikipedia itself by deliberately associating an individual's name with anti-Semitism. In his relatively brief Wikipedia career Netscott has been blocked 8 times already. In fact he would still be under his last block, for a week, if not for the fact that an admin involved in a content dispute on Netscott's side unblocked him and re-blocked for a day instead. I'm suggesting a 1 week block at this point, though I'm open to the idea of an indefinite block as well. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscott was blocked for a week on August 25 by User:Blnguyen for persistent 3RR violations, but unfortunately user:Bastique, who was involved in that particular content dispute with Netscott, reduced the block to 24 hours. Otherwise none of this trolling would have happened. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Was mildly involved in some of the early issues, but would also support a week long block for persistent trolling and disruption. Given the user's other productive edits I do not think an indefinite block is called for at this point. JoshuaZ 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Total misrepresentation of the facts here. My efforts relative to this image has been to properly establish neutral point of view relative to it. This is what my first edit relative to this issue consisted of. Without any discussion whatsoever SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) reverted my addition. Because Wikipedia is not a soapbox we're not to be making statements about what a given piece of content is (this is clearly spelled out in WP:NOR). On every turn my efforts in this direction have been thwarted. I even went so far as to make a guide illustrative of how a caption needs to read in order for Wikipedia to meet neutral point of view. Unfortunately User:SlimVirgin and to a lesser extent User:Jayjg have demonstrated ownership on this article to the point that virtually all of my good faith edits were reverted. SlimVirgin even went so far as to say that SHE had to verify my edits. ???? With that image as the lead for new anti-Semitism and with no in article text about reliable and verifiable sources statements included Wikipedia is seriously in jeapordy of libel relative to branding this artist's work anti-Semitic and in consequence the artist himself. A good number of editors have been supportive of my efforts including User:AYArktos, User:Bastique, User:Gmaxwell, User:Fastfission (in WikiEn-i) , User:Liftarn, User:Geni to name a few. A number of responses to an RfC I started also were supportive of my suggestions. All of the editing I've done has been in good faith. I've made quite a few efforts to discuss this matter to try to come to a consensus and I've been shut down on all sides by these two editors. Here is the BLP discussion wherein I expressed the very real case that Wikipedia is in libel relative to the artist by publishing his work as the lead image and thereby implying that it is an example of new anti-Semitism (particularly when there's no sources cited in the article as saying that). Both SlimVirgin [1] and Jayjg [2] have themselves expressed concern about libel by contravening Wikipedia:Fair use policy #10 in removing the artist's name from the image page itself (for an image to qualify for fair use an artist or copyright holder must be attributed). I'll have more to say on this but I need to step out for a bit. (Netscott) 03:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That is absolute nonsense. Geni, Gmaxwell, and FastFission did not support Netscott, and in fact several people questioned why he was posting to the mailing list about it. (Geni's position was that we needed the name of the copyright holder, and we now have it.) Liftarn did support Netscott, because Liftarn also wants the image gone at any cost. The image has been discussed with Jkelly and the matter settled.
The issue is not the image now, but the trolling. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You are using the word "trolling" to discount my efforts (in a very propagandistic way). The reality is that I spent the better part of the day replacing deprecated templates and editing on the infrastructure of the WP:BLP/N (like that shortcut itself) noticeboard (and {{editabuselinks}} template). I even made an announcement about it. It was only when you didn't transfer the old image's talk page to the newly named image that a dispute arose. I even sought comments about that. (Netscott) 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User's editing style appears disruptive and tendencious. El_C 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that such disruptive behavior should be stopped. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just asked Netscott to walk away from the article and image in question. Waiting for his response.--MONGO 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked him for 48 hrs. He still should be able to edit his Talk page. Please LMK if you feel it was inappropriate. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicted for the fifth time - I was the original blocker and was briefed about an IRC conversation which lead to the unblock after Netscott was unblocked. At no time was I informed that Bastique was himself involved in editing the part of the article in question let alone the general sphere of Jewish editing. I am quite unimpressed by the excessive levels of agitation which have been employed, in particular when he tags the pic as a copyvio of wikipedia. Leaning 1 week, definitely not indef, as Netscott is a serious contributor. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an indef block, but I take issue with the serious contributor thing. Looking through his contribs, the signal-to-noise ratio isn't good. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree entirely with El_C and Blnguyen. The editing style emplyed by Netscott was overly aggressive, and he has been disruptive in this matter. I also note that I have asked Humus that Netscott be unblocked in the interim so that he can fairly address issues raised here. -- Samir धर्म 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Samir, if he is unblocked to discuss it, he'll just use this as the latest plaftorm for the disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Should he disrupt here, SlimVirgin, he will be blocked. But I think it is only fair for him to get a chance to say his side civilly -- Samir धर्म 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It should not take a village to upload an image to Wikipedia. That Netscott has made it so troubles me. I support a week block. Netscott, you can email me with your concerns and ideas about the image and I will follow up. FloNight 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Humus sapiens for unblocking me. I will not post outside of this thread for the next 48 hours out of respect for you and Samir (the scope) (obviously it's other's perogative if I'm to be re-blocked). Seriously if I had not been treated with such disregard and lack of dignity when I first started editing on this article things probably wouldn't have come to this. At every turn my edits have been reverted first discussed second. How does that foster a good collaborative environment? (Netscott) 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I see, so you tried to get the image deleted under 5 different bogus rationales because you were treated with "disregard and lack of dignity"? Thank you for comfirming your WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's not much left for that image. Its not 'free', but its no longer tagged as such anymore anyways. Netscott tagging {{copyvio}} with the url point to a revision of the image page is a rather strange way to dispute the image, but only thing left is dispution of the fair use rationale. Kevin_b_er 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, is it improper to insist that images are in compliance with Fair use policy? Is it improper to insist that Wikipedia not defame an artist with poorly sourced statements about his art being "anti-Semitic" (particularly not including such statements in the article). When I came to the article there was virtually no relevant text in it's caption relative to the image. Here's what the caption read when I started to call for NPOV on it:

"A placard at a February 16, 2003, anti-war rally in San Francisco. Photograph by zombie of [3]"

Essentially the image was "there" as the perfect example of new anti-Semitism. Then after my efforts and comments by User:Gimmetrow about WP:CAP SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) added some text to at least establish the image's relevance to the rest of the article like so:

Photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist and anti-globalization imagery with some classic anti-Semitic motifs. Photograph taken by zombie of [8]

But where are the reliable sources in that caption? This sets up negative details relative to the artist and as such reliable and verifiable sources need to be written into the article in support of such negative details. (Netscott) 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's determined here that I'm to be reblocked for any length of time then I would just recommend indef. blocking me with the {{indefblock}} tag and all. I probably spend too much time on the project as it is and an indef. block would just motivate me to fully step away from it. I've put too much effort into this project to be treated so disrespectfully and with a lack of dignity the way that I have been in this circumstance particularly by User:SlimVirgin. The funny thing is that you almost can't go anywhere now on Wikipedia and not see an example my work in one of my creations. (Netscott) 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
These are some of the so-called anti-imperialists we have today. "A war for Israel." So ignorant of the nature of imperialist-dependence, always up for the instant counterfeit Jew gratification. Netscott, you are editing tendenciously because you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy. That caption does not need reliable sources, it highlights what the image evokes, and some interpretive leeway is afforded there. It's unrealistic to expect one to find a source which says these things about that image, which makes that line of reasoning tendencious. Similarly, invoking WP:BLP is also tendencious, as it was in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. El_C 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the above, I feel that Netscott has been editing in an escessively agitatory and diruptive manner unconducive to teh improvement and production of quality articles, so I have enacted a block of 7 days, as this has been exhibited previously in many 3RR blocks. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscott is also the hidden hand behind User:His excellency’s evidence against established editors in his case before the Arbitration Committee. Netscott has cynically encouraged and used His excellency to rid Wikipedia of Jewish and insufficiently anti-Jewish editors, who he claims are using “Wikipedia as a tool to spread propaganda.”.Postmonger 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Slim, did you really mean to revert to keep that disgusting allegation from an obvious sock on this page? And "Postmonger", nice work against a blocked editor who can't defend himself here. Haven't you been insisting that I'm that hidden hand, or don't you find that quite as safe? The same accusation against me has more substance, if anything [4] [5] (although please note that the arbcom seems rather strikingly far from endorsing it). Bishonen | talk 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC).
Hi Bish, I don't know either of the players. I only reverted an anon who was removing a post. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed this. Netscott gets blocked for 48 hours, and then you block him for 7 days without additional cause? This is extremely bad administative behavior on our part, and goes many lengths to support the claims that we are acting as a Cabal. You're being excessively punitive, and acting on mob mentality. Bastiqueparler voir 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Bastique, it was you who triggered this. You reduced Netscott's last block in violation of WP:BLOCK even though you were involved in the content dispute on his side. It's clear to anyone looking at this that Netscott has developed an unhealthy obsession and needs a substantial cooldown period. It was to be hoped he'd realize that on this own, but he didn't, and therefore the 7-day block was a very good idea. If you hadn't undone it, this latest situation wouldn't have occurred. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Slim, it was you who triggered this. Persistent goading of users with insults and threats, knowing that they won't take any action against you, because going up against you means going up against your gang. And any remarks about your own misuse of admin powers will certainly get a user blocked (like out of process oversight, etc.) Bastiqueparler voir 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Blame me. I should have blocked him for a week. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't be blocking anyone involved on those pages. Bastiqueparler voir 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why not, given that you abused your admin tools in relation to Netscott. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Hypocrite. Bastiqueparler voir 22:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what he's supposed to have done wrong. He was spot on that the image was originally incorrectly tagged as if it were a free image. His fair use concerns have been reasonable. He has been civil. I think he should be unblocked unless some solid evidence of misbehaviour is presented. Saying that he "is trolling" is too vague. He has certainly pursued the matter with determination but so have those on the other side of the argument. Haukur 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Haukur, please inform yourself fully before commenting. This has been among the most disingenuous trolling I've encountered on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The civility bit is actually subject to debate, but regardless, the tendencious editing-style is a problem — see my comment directly above. El_C 01:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The users in question, the ones calling for Netscott's unwarrented ban, have a habit of distracting from the actual issues. Netscott behaved badly, but in response to other users behaving just as bad. Netscott wasn't warring with himself, unfortunately, he caught a throng of POV warriors who will not tolerate any page other than the way they say it. I actually am very neutral on the particular topics, and try to remain so when working on these pages.
Furthermore, when I was willing to offer a compromise, to try to come to a middle point, I am responded to within minutes with cacaphony of aggression and antagonism, as if there are users repeatedly refreshing their watchlists. How someone can respond within three minutes [6] with such an incredible surge of energy is beyond me, unless they're doing exactly that. Note that I soon got off that article, which most sensible people will do, when faced with such an onslaught of animosity. Bastiqueparler voir 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Not nonsense. Bastiqueparler voir 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Your analysis is factually inaccurate, and you're basing decisions and opinions on limited information. If you were to read all the diffs (going back a couple of weeks), you'd see that Netscott has been massively disruptive around this issue, and that others have not. You'd also see that he has caused similar problems elsewhere, based on a failure to understand our edit policies. You're doing people a disservice by equating behaviors that you've only spent a short time examining. That's all I'm going to say on the matter, because the amount of time spent on this has been ridiculous. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are users who make it impossible to take a neutral side in their articles, to try and take a common ground to make the articles less POV and more encyclopedic. Bastiqueparler voir 02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Bastique, I find it difficult to believe that you would still attempt to edit under the veil of neutrality on the subject. In every single instance that you have come into contact with an article that even remotely relates to the wider topic, you take the same position and always end up defending the same people, all the while insisting you are a standard of impartiality. Furthermore you do this in such a way that implies authority that must be listened to. Frankly I cannot see a signifigant difference between you and Netscott.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Prior to this article, I was responding to complaints at m:OTRS that you, and others, owned certain articles and wouldn't allow anyone else to edit who had a difference of opinion from yours. This has happened a number of times with you. If you can't see a significant difference between me and Netscott, its your head is so stuck in your own limited worldview that you can't see anything beyond that. You do have a knack of completely pissing people off, Moshe, and my responses to you might have been tainted with a bit of rage at your accusations and insinuations.
Because I'm an admin, I don't edit articles in which I have a strong opinion, or haven't in a considerable time. I have a blog, that's linked from my user page. Try to find anything remotely connected with a pro-Israel or anti-Israel policy. I do have strong opinions. I try to remain objective, and that's why I don't edit articles in which I have strong opinions.
My opinion is that you guys are POV-pushing in a most nasty manner. When someone trolls and disagrees with your point of view, like Netscott, you get him blocked. When someone trolls and agrees with your point of view, you call him or her a contributor. There is a very large double standard on articles in which Slim Virgin and Jayjg have an opinion. People don't want to edit them if they have a Neutral point of view, because POV pushers like yourself will gather together and eat them alive.
Prior to this entire incident, I had at least a positive opinion of SlimVirgin. The incessant harping about my actions regarding Netscott, however, are hypocritical to say the least. Netscott deserved unblocking, because the actions should be applied unversally, not just to people whose opinions are not of your own. Bastiqueparler voir 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I apoligize for how condescending this may sound, but I actually find it funny that you have chosen to take such a tone in your response. You couldn't have shown a better example of the false authority mixed in with inappropriate personal remarks and irrelevant commentary that I pointed to in my previous comment here. Furthermore it is utter nonsense- to add some backround for people who do not know, the "people" I have "pissed off" that Bastique is referring to is User:Alienus on the IRmep article. I seriously invite anyone to look at the record of that user, as he is currently banned for a year after a whole wiki-career of bad behavior. Bastique not only found himself on the same side of the above user, but he rigiously defended his actions while belittling and disrespecting me for not agreeing with him.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Bastique, who is supposed to be an administrator, directed Netscott to Wikipedia Review. [7] SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Bastique meant that as ironic commentary. I hope that's the case. Tom Harrison Talk 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It was. I'm sure Netscott is more than aware of Wikipedia Review. Oddly enough, there are people who are "supposed to be administrators" that regularly comment at Wikipedia Review. At least Slim Virgin reads it. Bastiqueparler voir 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You're quite wrong there. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Funny.. if you don't read it, why is it that every time they linked to an old edit of yours that Jay would turn around and oversight it?
I've had no more involvement in the issue since I realized that you and Jay had decided to be WP:OWNers of the article and I realized that the group there would soon be accusing me of being anti-jewish if I continued to push for NPOV in the article. ... But I must correct you above, I did support netscotts basic actions if not quite the level of haste and aggressiveness he's carried them with. If it were my call, I'd say the lot of you should be blocked, and the the article should be blanked until you can learn to behave like adults... but I tend towards the draconian like that.--Gmaxwell 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I came off too harsh here and it's not fair to the parties involved. To me it would appear to me that in some subject areas we have a group of dedicated and hardworking users who spending a huge amount of effort protecting the articles against outside bigots and POV pushers. The problem is real, and much of the work they do is good. However, it appears that the stress of this work is causing paranoia... where we see a lurking POV pusher behind every action, even actions by topically disinterested but hard working Wikipedias. This results in a situation where some editors, myself included, are honestly afraid that if they wade in again and argue for neutralizing edits on such articles that they will be cast as some sort of bigot by people who are trying to protect the articles from the actual bigots. This fear translates into frustration and results in a break down of cooperation and communication. So even in the absence of establish article protectors who are themselves POVpushing (which I do believe, from JayJG's unfortunate comments WRT NPOV not applying to images on the enwiki thread that we do have as well) we've still got an environment which is not friendly to cooperation. I don't know how to solve it, but my barb above certainly wouldn't help things. I apologize for that. --Gmaxwell 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) I am sorry if some see Moshe, Jayjg or SlimVirgin as part of the problem, because IMHO they are a part of a solution. Not sure where is the right place to address this, but it would be hard to find an article related to Jews that is not under daily attacks: from subtle POV to blatant vandalism. WP's openness and popularity are great but someone needs to keep repairing and NPOVifying it. If you see this process as some kind of conspiracy, too bad. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Known vandal pattern of User:YaR GnitS and associated socks. [8][9][10]

May need to be semi-protected as Insane Clown Posse was last time this vandal struck.--Rosicrucian 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also vandalism of archived AFD [11] similar to vandalism pattern on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay ICP. Would suggest sprotect of this as well.--Rosicrucian 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Billsonator (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user keeps trying to recreate Talk about spyro, which was speedied twice (G3 and G4). He's removing speedy tags and posting copyvio images on Talk About Spyro, and has an extensive history of vandalism and trying to turn various Spyro the Dragon articles into discussion forums. He also has a history of posting linkspam in these articles. Probably needs a block, since he's been ignoring warnings for a while now. I would have reported him to AIV, but his vandalism is spread out over a period of several months. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Duke53 and 2nd Piston Honda[edit]

Moved from WP:AIV--Konstable 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Duke53 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) I made and honest mistake while cutting and pasting one of his comments in a discussion page (just so i could edit it and reply in similar manner) and forgot to remove his signature. He responded in a fury about someone posting under his name, and then i saw what happened, and immediately corrected the problem, said it was a mistake, and apologized. Well, because i guess of our edit warring before hand, he seized the opportunity and threatened to report me for impersonating him, and has been vandalizing my talk page with threats ever since. This guy is out of control. 2nd Piston Honda 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 2nd Piston Honda (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) After he posted to a talk page he deleted my posts commenting on his behavior. He then attacked me personally, calling me 'douche',' asshole' and 'ass' at various times. I put up warnings at his user talk page (as per Wikipedia policy) which he promptly deleted; while at his talk page I noticed another editor had previously admonished him for deleting material elsewhere.
A brand new administrator took up this case and 'compromised' by deleting everything. He said that 2nd Piston Honda had 'made 2 mistakes' but (apparently) 'no harm, no foul'.

Everything he says that I did, he did. He must be taught that he has no right to be impersonating other editors and that it isn't his right to delete materials, which he now has a history of doing. I feel that he should be suspended for a while to think about his actions at Wikipedia. Thank You"Duke53 | Talk" 00:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I was the administrator involved. Here's a link to the talk pages of both Duke53 and 2nd Piston Honda before I blanked their warning warring.

My take of the situation: 2nd Piston Honda made a mistake and forgets to remove Duke53's signature after cutting and pasting on Talk:George W. Bush [12] for which he apologises for at [13]. Duke53 refuses to accept Honda's apology and takes further offense when Honda tries to return the thread back on topic [14] and begins "WikiLawyering" accusing Honda of impersonation, talk page vandalism and starts issuing warnings on Honda's talk page. Honda loses his cool and calls Duke53 an "asshole" [15] for refusing his apology.

Both users then proceed to war over issuing warnings to each other for vandalising each other's talk pages and for removing each other's warnings from their respective talk pages. Honda then makes the above report to WP:AIV requesting that Duke53 be blocked. I refuse to block either of them citing that they were both "making mountains out of molehills." In attempt to de-escalate the situation, I offer both of them the chance to remove all the warnings that they've given to each other over this whole incident so that they can both walk away like nothing ever happened. KojiDude (talkcontribs) recommends that both users accept my compromise. Neither takes the opportunity to do so, so I intervene and remove all warnings issued related to this conflict stating that it was over and signalling that I was to take no disciplinary action against either. Honda agrees, but Duke53 disagreed with my handling of the situation and now we are here. What an "eventful" first day as an administrator I have to say. *sigh* --  Netsnipe  ►  01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You got part of it right, but I never removed a single thing he wrote on my talk page. The truth about that puts some things into a different light, don't you think? Little details about the truth matter to some of us. "Duke53 | Talk" 04:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
p.s. Ever consider the fact that the reason that "Honda agrees" is that he's the one who made the personal attacks and broke Wikipedia policies at will? Just a thought. "Duke53 | Talk" 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I commend Netsnipe for a careful investigation and a cool-headed mediation (especially in the face of sniping criticism from one of the parties). Good job for a first day. — ERcheck (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Duke53, you've said a few times that 2nd Piston Honda has never apologized - is it possible that you missed the apology he made in the edit summary of this early edit? If so, that would explain your adamant pursual of the topic on the GWB talk page, which Honda in turn interpreted as belligerence, and which then spun the situation out of control. I think Netsnipe has done a fine job here, and was right on the money when he said "mountains out of molehills." Just my two cents. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting quite ridiculous. Duke53 needs to read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA, especially for the comment [16] that Netsnipe has much to learn about being an admin and "dropped the ball" on this issue, apparently for not punishing Honda to his liking. Yes, very nice, insulting the person who's trying to mediate the conflict in the first place. Don't be dense about it, Duke53. Hbdragon88 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I will answer Peruvianllama and Hbdragon88 both in this paragraph. The apology for calling me a 'douche', an 'asshole' and an 'ass' is still forthcoming. I believe that those names could be considered a personal attack under Wikipedia policy. Deleting items from a talk page is also against Wikipedia policy; he did it repeatedly. I followed Wikipedia policy. As for insulting the administrator, well, it's not my fault that he's new at it. I'm not about to put a 'class' of people here on a pedestal, simply because they have a title. If that administrator thinks he did a good job then he's got low expectations of how Wikipedia should be administered... ignoring numerous instances of Wikipedia policy being broken is not good administrating, no matter what your friends may tell you. If I were to be banned I would hope it is for breaking policy, not for telling the truth about a situation that arises (or for someone's 'interpretation' of my words). "Duke53 | Talk" 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. I am civil when treated civilly; after that, all bets are off.
Nowhere on WP:CIVIL does it say you can be uncivil to others if they are uncivil with you first. Danny Lilithborne 06:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what it says about the "other party". The guideline is about every user, and specifically it says incivility is: Rudeness (dragging this out), Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (accusations against Netsnipe to learn how to administrate), Personal attacks ("imposter" and other terms), and calling for bans or blocks (2nd Honda, repeatedly). Hbdragon88 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleting items from a Talk Page is not always strictly against Wikipedia policy. The first time Honda deleted items, it was to keep the discussion moving as s/he thought the issue had been resolved. The subsequent times were (I presume) because Honda interpreted your persistence on the matter as a sign of belligerence. Honda shouldn't have called you names - that was out of line, and there are channels of dispute resolution that can be followed if you still feel slighted. For your part however, the better strategy would have been to try communicating with Honda instead of repeatedly posting templated warnings on her/his talk page. The warnings are there to standardize our (the Community's) message to those new to Wikipedia, or to those who don't yet understand the basic policies. Once you grab their attention with the warnings, it's almost always better to then engage the other party in more dynamic discourse to resolve the issue if there's been a misunderstanding. You both handled things poorly near the end by calling every edit made by the other party "vandalism", and responding only with template warnings and alerts to WP:AIV. Initially, it was you that forced the issue with your persistent posts; later, it was Honda that stepped over the line with the foul language. They might not have been equal transgressions, but I agree with Netsnipe that for now, there isn't much more to be gained from pursuing the matter. If you'd like formal mediation, I think you know where to go, but if you'd like something more informal, if there's anything I can do, I'd be happy to help. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:The truth hurts?.jpg certainly does not promote a positive wiki-environment. -- tariqabjotu 06:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, sauce for the goose and all that. It's easy to talk about all these ideals & policies, but here is proof that those ideals & policies can be ignored to fit one guy's version of that individual situation. I really, really don't appreciate getting lied to, and that has happened a few times in this incident. Duke53 06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are "beating a dead horse". There is nothing more you can say or do to get 2nd Piston Honda blocked. What happened has happened and my decision has now been reviewed by other administrators as you've requested. So far, I haven't received any criticism over my handling of this incident by anybody else. You've been so caught up in your own self-righteousness that you haven't even realised that it could have easily gone the other way and you could have been blocked instead if I hadn't exercised self-restraint and accepted Honda's WP:AIV report at his word. Instead, I tried mediation and neither of you got blocked as a result. By wasting more of our time here with you incessant complaining you are now entering Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point territory. Move on and get back to writing an encyclopedia. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I would liked to have heard it from those 'other' administrators' myself; not that I don't believe you, but .... Yeah, I was deathly afraid of getting blocked for following Wikipedia policies. Move on, and start learning how to administrate. "Duke53 | Talk" 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Just, wow. Danny Lilithborne 07:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, Netsnipe, on your sensitive handling of this. --Guinnog 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the matter has been handled very effectively by Netsnipe. Metamagician3000 08:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"I really don't care who gets angry" [17]. I think this is a rather alarming comment. Hbdragon88 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


You all probally know me form Wikinews. Well we have a problem there. It has been confirmed, via checkuser, that wikinews:User:RadioKirk shares the same ip adress as wikinews:User:MyName. I just wanted to share this with you so you can figure out where to go from there. PVJ 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the IP? ForestH2 t/c 01:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) PVJ 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. I seem to remember a similar incident a few days ago where a troll came on WP:AN or WP:AN/I and claimed RadioKirk was vandalizing on another wiki. Turns out he wasn't. — The Future 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Disregard that, it seems as if the account was created to impersonate RadioKirk, was discovered and then transfered over, thats why the ip's matched. I still have my resrvations though :) 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
PVJ's blocked. Exactly what I thought.. — The Future 02:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See here and here; this is the same person who has repeatedly impersonated me and now is trying to claim I'm somehow behind the whole thing. I've indef-blocked PVJ as yet another sock of RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, there is no n:User:PVJ. Big surprise, eh? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Per continued harassment by this user and the decided lack of valuable edits (even most of the seeming good edits are interrelated), I have blocked for 6 months. Review is appreciated. Please. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> The only problem I see is that you commented and replied to yourself three times above </sarcasm> :) No problems otherwise. — The Future 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL okay, remove indent ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Much better :) — The Future 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with talking to yourself? NoSeptember 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with that. NoSeptember 13:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought. NoSeptember 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
lol, sure... nothing wrong here. :) — The Future 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, please see this RFCU and the oh-my-God-I'm-stunned-NOT! revelation that my block of PVJ affected (see above) and Old TI-89 (see my talk page history and the users' contribs). The sock farm continues... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yea, that was shocking *sigh* Well, at least if he creates any sockpuppets, this IP range (static?) will be blocked from editing. — The Future 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* indeed. I'm trying to maintain a sense of humor through all this but, you know, sometimes a fucktard will always be a fucktard and a little boy will always be a little boy. The trick is to keep laughing at the pathos that is this prime example of herd-thinning, lest it think it's "winning" somehow... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Old TI-89? I was under the impression that he was a good faith contributor. I encountered him last night on vandalism patrol, and I contacted him on his talk to congratulate him on his vandal reverting efforts and ask him about his username. He seemed a pretty civil user. I think the only strike against him is that he has a similar sig as RadioKirk. Just my 2¢. »ctails!« =hello?= 03:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And the fact he was picked up as collateral damage after a block RadioKirk gave out to a recurring vandal, nope no other strikes against him :) — The Future 04:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This vandal has a history of appearing to be a good-faith contributor and then "turning"; I fully intended to WP:AGF until the "coincidences" became too much to ignore. The fact that PVJ and Old TI-89 "share" an IP (all IPs in this case return to RCN Corporation and resolve to [IP#], and that all "editors" in this case share certain idiosyncrasies which I would ask others to investigate, demonstrate a commonality that is beyond question. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: despite the active {{unblock}} request on his talk page, Old TI-89 wants this known, including the call into question of my competence (invoking the incorrect block of Ferick [an innocent user targeted by this vandal], which was a specific block, not a user caught in an IP block designed to stop in-progress trolling, as in this case). This vandal has attempted several different paths toward what he hopes is my desysopping: impersonating me and asking to be desysopped, impersonating me and vandalizing other Wikis, reporting "me" here, self-identifying as Ferick to affect that user (the vandal since registered TheFerick—I blocked under WP:USERNAME), and generally calling my abilities into question. Note also that Old TI-89 asks of someone else is "goeing to look at this, besides this RadioKirk, who blocked me for no reason in the first place" in identical language to other such requests by other established socks, and as if he's never heard of me before despite admittedly copying my signature and monobook.js file. If indeed this user is not yet another reincarnation of this excessive vandal/troll, then he sure seems to be going to a lot of trouble to look/sound like it... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we were contacted on freenode, in #wikipedia, by User:Old TI-89, who claims that he has nothing to do with User:PVJ. After checking the vandal's past contribs, I really don't know what to do with this. If I had to suggest, I would say to go ahead and unblock the user, then keep a careful eye on them. It's really the only thing we can do right now, seeing as PVJ has a history of acting civil, then turning around to vandalize. Shadow1 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just been advised that there's a RadioKirk on the Polish Wiki; registered 25 August if "sie" is the abbreviation of "sierpnia", this is the user's only contribution as I type this. I have no clue at this point if there's a relationship to these goings-on. Meantime, I will unblock Old TI-89 as a show of good faith, which has been extremely difficult under these circumstances. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh this is nice, thank you! I was pretty disapointed in this incident, and I HOPE it won't happen again. I would like to thank shadow1 for helping me out. Feel free to keep a close eye on me, you can be assured I seek no trouble. Old TI-89 (u|t|c) 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Given PVJ's use of the same IP, would you have an objection to my attempting an anon-only, stop-account-creation block on that IP? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If that means I can just edit if I logon; no, that won't be a problem. Old TI-89 (u|t|c) 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That's what it's supposed to do. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Be advised of Essjay's comments regarding this IP address at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nookdog. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This refers to, the IP orginally mentioned in this section. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maru bot edit[edit]

Hey there. It seems that Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · count) is running a bot through his main user account yet again.[18] He currently has an open request for arbitration for just this sort of behavior. Do we need to warn him/block him? I don't claim to be the leading expert on bots at the moment, but this certainly does not seem proper. Grandmasterka 03:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No judgement on Maru's overall actions, but offhand this looks like just software-aided human editting, fixing links to disambiguation pages (a common task). See a few seconds after your diff: [19], the work being done in the last batch of edits almost certainly was done with human judgement. --W.marsh 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh... Okay, I didn't see that one, the ones I looked at all looked the same to me. Still seems like a pretty poor time to be running any kind of "robot" edits through the main account, when it's part of the subject of his open RFAR. Grandmasterka 06:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of these changes are occurring as fast as 10 per minute. Is this really a human-assisted bot? I would certainly add this to the evidence page in the arbitration case. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Nah, glancing at about 10 of them, they all made the correct decision, and this is the kind of stuff an AI would not be able to do (making decisions based purely on context). So I think it's reasonable that it was just human-assisted. I've heard people on IRC claim speeds about that fast with the python disambiguation solver. Most edits do seem to have been at a more reasonable 3-5/minute pace. --W.marsh 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

AIV backlog[edit]

Currently almost an hour's backlog. »ctails!« =hello?= 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's mostly cleared up at the moment. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies from 'Mr.Pelican Shit'[edit]

Hi, I am specifically one of the people involved in Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mr.Pelican Shit. I want to apologise for our misdeeds which we actually stopped doing a long time ago - about late 2005. The pelican shit thing began as a joke after a night out when we came back from a club in Stockton-on-Tees and we ended up covered in white stuff (actually foam, but one Australian guy said "bugger all, that's pelican shit!" and we found Wikipedia when researching info on Middlesbrough for coursework in college.

Anyhow, we hope we can be forgiven for it, we want to contribute positively. Can you recover the deleted Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mr.Pelican Shit page and move it to my userspace for posterity.

We want to make encyclopedic contributions on North-East England and Teesside-related topics.

Hopefully all can be forgiven. BTW, those on Wiktionary and Commons were imitators, and not us. --Langwath 09:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If one would really want to keep the past behind them, why would they want a page on their past vandalisms moved to their own userspace? RN 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is for transfer to a MediaWiki installation I run - which is sort of like a 'Best of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense' extended version - for our local area network! Anyhow, no more 'pelican shit/bluxo/asspus' stuff! --Langwath 09:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe someone could just e-mail it to you? RN 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll have email working from this account soon enough. Also see if the WoW/Communism/Johnny the Vandal/ncv/marmot pages can be recovered, the GFDL doesn't stop us from using them, does it?? I can say that at college the hits for the WoW and Communism pages resulted in them getting blocked by sysadmins in college!

But anyhow, is there a WikiProject on North East England I could get involved in?? --Langwath 09:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, yet more proof that WP:DENY is working. All the more reason to not cave in and give them back their vandalism page "for posterity". Yeesh. --Cyde Weys 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he's apologizing only because he wants the page. Anomo 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


User:WolfStar2 is apparently a bot operated by the banned user User:Thewolfstar. None of the edits it has made seem to be productive, and it reverts attempts to undo its edits. --Stemonitis 10:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone please ban this immediately indefinately as a sockpuppet. See diff [20] for example. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Your post ate mine[21]. I have blocked indefinitely. Cheers. AnnH 10:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And I edit conflucted with you... —Xyrael / 10:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. I literally waited 3 and a half minutes for my edit to go through due to a routing error on my end. I figured something like that would happen. Thanks. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And now we have WolfStar3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) AnnH 10:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
<Sigh> Let's all sing: "I ain't gonna tolerate Maggie's farm no more." (And, of course, we still have her arguing and disrupting, just one heading below.) Geogre 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that there is no RFCU filed on WhiskeyRebellion; it could merely be another editor interested in anarchism and human rights. Until that suspicion is cleared up (which I hope it will be; hence posting the reminder about the previous AN/I discussion), we should try to assume some good faith. Captainktainer * Talk 12:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry / D Sanchez / R Lopez[edit]

There is strangeness going on here, and I'm hoping someone can sort it out.

I've blocked SN for 3RR. SN says he was reverting socks of R Lopez (). User:T Turner says [22] that SN may well be RL. But T Turner is indef blocked as an attack account. Meanwhile D Sanchez [23] is going around adding SN to the list of RL socks...

William M. Connolley 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked D Sanchez indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet and I've reverted his edits about Stirling. I have no idea about the Lopez sockpuppet tags he added, so I've left them in place until I can work out what's going on. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You're both right--there is something strange going on here, and I've been having trouble figuring out exactly what is going on. There is at least one abusive user who is certainly at work making sockpuppets to attack and harass Stirling (User:T Turner is an obvious example, and Ray Lopez (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) himself is an obvious impostor/sockpuppet (this delightful edit [24] says it all). Here's another fine user Coqsportif (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) who might be involved, since "Ray Lopez" became active shortly after he was blocked. On some of the most recent stuff -- such as (talkcontribs) -- who is in Italy and doesn't appear to be an open proxy -- I dunno. I think there's more than one person harassing Stirling.
I think a checkuser on the Stirling-harassers, at least the recent ones, might be in order. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK... on this basis I'm going to unblock SN for 3RR, whilst reminding him to be a bit more cautious William M. Connolley 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding page protection of Muhammad[edit]

An edit war has been ongoing concerning the into of the Muhammad article. Some editors have been changing the longstanding intro (which achieved a concensus some time ago) to a new version. (I'll hold my opinion on this affair.) It appears FayssalF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has locked the page due to the edit war. While I have no problem with this, I am concerned about the specific administrator who locked the page. The page lock states, "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version." However, FayssalF himself was involved in the revert war, reverting at least twice from the previous consensus version. And rather than locking the page outright, he reverted once more to his desired version before full-protecting the page. I think this is a clear endorsement of a version and another example of administrator abuse from a user who has himself been involved in multiple revert wars on this very article. —Aiden 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the article should indeed have been protected, I object to FayssalF's use of the rollback tool to revert non-vandalism, as well as his revert prior to protection. He definitely should not have performed the protection himself, and the tone used by FayssalF on User talk: in response to the IP's comprably polite (and correct) statements on FayssalF's talk page is unnecessarily harsh. -- tariqabjotu 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Has this what it's come down to? IP addresses are immediately seen as sockpuppets or their edits treated in bad faith? Hbdragon88 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Ian Pitchford Removing warnings from his Talk page[edit]

According to WP:V, users may not remove legitimate warnigns from their Talk pages. User:Ian Pitchford has received numerous warnings - for 3RR, for misuse of anit-vandal tools etc.. - which he keeps removing from his Talk page. he has been warned not to do this, yes keeps one doing it, and claiming he is "archiving" - though no archive exists on his page Isarig 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I too warned him on WP:3RR several weeks ago about some very questionable reverts he was making to 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He immediately blanked his entire userpage including the discussion on his edits, calling it "archiving". —Aiden 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User Fix Bayonets![edit]

Fix Bayonets! (talkcontribs) has, in the last hour, made a legal threat against me[25], violated WP:3RR at Sons of Confederate Veterans[26], blanked my comments on that article's talk page multiple times[27], and removed multiple warning messages on his/her user talk page.[28] I have also reported suspected sock puppetry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fix Bayonets!. I would like an admin to review this user's actions. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, I'd do indef but I kind of want to beat into him civility. It may yet be possible. --Golbez 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The block was changed to an indef per the legal threats, fyi. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I want to announce vandalism on my user page. --Peter IBM 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Peter IBM has been indefinitely blocked as a Bonaparte sockpuppet. — ERcheck (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Bint Jbeil, Redux (not the user)[edit]

There is another revert war brewing at Battle of Bint Jbeil. I had to protect the page a few days ago, due to a revert war about the same thing this revert war is about, sources. User:Isarig continues to revert, citing articles and advocating a page version that is not backed up by the same articles he cites. I am too involved in this matter to execute the protection myself, but if the revert war escalates, I see no choice. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to mention that you are part of that revert war, having earlier pretended to be a disinterested editor. This is not a revert war, but a content dispute. I have added new sources, new information and quoted your sources verbatim, to remove the POV you had introduced. You have refused to justify your edits on talk, and recent editors have sided with me on that Talk page. Not every content dispute needs to lead to a page block - feel free to explain yourself on Talk before resorting to extreme measures. Isarig 23:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indrancroos (talk · contribs)[edit]

Indrancroos has turned the indian martial arts discussion page from a discussion about the merits of the article to a discussion about me... he has accused me of racism on multiple occasions, and yet has yet to substantiate anything about any statements that i have said that are racist... he has yet been able to bring in any statements of racism that i have made... i have attempted to tell him to stop doing this and yet he continues... two whole pages of the discussion panel consist of his ramblings...Kennethtennyson 03:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

59% = consensus?[edit]

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --SPUI (T - C) 05:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait since you lost? 41% isn't consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
With more discussion, perhaps a clearer result could ensue - perhaps for a better policy not discussed yet. Stephen B Streater 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You got it right first time. Consensus descisions are strongly non-zero sum. In a debate with only rational agents, nobody actually loses. (though some might not be perfectly happy, of course).
If you think that a majority vote is the only solution to resolving this particular dispute, well ... I don't know... but ok, I'll grant you that point for the sake of conversation today. I'm not going to argue with your actions.
But let's agree that it definately isn't consensus! :-)
Kim Bruning 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
On many issues, it doesn't matter in the end which decision is made as long as a decision is made. This applies especially to trivial matters. If you check the principles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways, you'll see that this is exactly the tack taken by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 09:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted an attempt to close that as "no consensus", since the admins in question appear to still be discussing it... For the record, my opinion is that consensus is a goal, not an absolute requirement; when something has come to a boil (as with the hint from arbcom) and we count heads on it, a clear majority is acceptable if it'll just stop the arguing. Shimgray | talk | 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've warned SPUI (User_talk:SPUI#State_route_naming_conventions_poll) about his try to close and he has replied with an interpretation of ArbCom's directives in this matter that I do not think is supported. If he reverts back to that "rejected" template, I will consider it disruption and will issue a block. His contributions throughout this matter have, in my view, attempted to stymie the functioning of the process to get to an outcome, any outcome so that this trivial matter can be put to bed. ++Lar: t/c 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Could the remainder of the page be locked from editing to prevent any future vandalism or unwanted editing? I don't think anymore discussion is needed on Part 1 until after the admins cast all of their votes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is that that page and proper wikipedia policymaking don't really have much correlation with each other.

Now as to achieving consensus, I wonder if the arbcom ever looked into King Solomon for ideas?

Well, whatever the case... as a start, I propose deletion of all highwaycruft. That'll end the situation swiftly. <looks innocent> Kim Bruning 12:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Arbcom, an arbitrary decision is better than no decision, and per common sense, 59% is better than arbitrary. Accept it, or get banned. Sorry. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Quote the relevant passage that says I'll be banned please! :-) Kim Bruning 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
SPUI is one of several Wikipedians who takes the tack that "It ain't a consensus unless it agrees with me!" *Dan T.* 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Also the only person ever blocked for successfully violating WP:IAR ;-) Kim Bruning 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Didn't Ed Poor get blocked for deleting AfD? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, as Angela suggested on Wikien-l, we ought to try consensus polling. --bainer (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a solution to this issue: Block anyone who isn't a highway expert. Block anyone who's ever named a highway article wrong. Block anyone who's ever gotten frustrated and made bad edits in the middle of a highway naming dispute. Block anyone who's part of the 59%. The reasoning? Anyone who's made mistakes in the past is likely to make mistakes again, and that constitutes disruption.

Yes, this may be an extreme viewpoint to take. I don't care -- this whole thing is frustrating. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Relax, SPUI, it's just some non-binding poll. Right?

That's official policy for you, and a pretty good description of reality around here too. This has annoyed me often enough in the past, it's just about impossible to just make a decision and move on. Someone will always show up and say: "Hey! I wasn't a part of that 'consensus', it's utterly wrong - let's do things another way." Haukur 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Its supporters are treating it as fully binding, and plan to move all the highway pages once the details are hammered out. --SPUI (T - C) 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
SPUI: Perhaps if you (and to a lesser extent, others) had collegially worked with everyone else to reach a consensus prior to this, instead of having it have to go to ArbCom, it wouldn't have come to this. It certainly would have wasted far less time on everyone's part. But you and others did not and ArbCom acted. What I see here is disruptive wikilawyering on your part after the fact, trying to block implementation. You need to accept that this is how it's going to play out.
Note that one way to achieve consensus is to block or ban those who are disruptively interfering with the attempt to reach it, until only reasonable people remain. Your contributions to the encyclopedia are enormous. Yet, no less a personage than Jimbo himself has asked you to change your disruptive, contentious ways, remember? No one person is indispensible to this project and if the project has to get along without your positive contributions in order to also get along without your negative contributions, so be it. There are a number of admins who are prepared to block anyone who is contentiously and tendentiously disrupting this process. I suggest you internalise that and move on. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree emphatically with Lar here. This bloody stupid dispute keeps popping up on WP:AN, AN/I, RfC, and now RfArb. Pick one convention – any convention that's not patent nonsense will do – and get on with all your lives. (It seems that the ArbCom-imposed process has generated such a result. I haven't looked at the poll to see what that result is, but from previous exposure to this issue I know that both of the favoured alternatives were reasonable.) Please add me to the list of admins who are sick and tired of this, and who are likely to block any editors who are responsible for this utterly pointless fight returning to WP:AN or any of its subpages. There are lots of useful things to do on Wikipedia. Pick one of them and stop bothering the rest of us with this issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe it even made it this far. I'm sorry to say that, as a result of this naming mess, we have loss a great number of contributors to the highway projects because of edit warring, mass page renames, and attacks on character as a result of only one or two people on Wikipedia. It's very sad that these warring individuals spend so much time worrying about something so trivial that it devolves the quality of the encylopedia, through contributors leaving, rather than improve upon it. As a result, many articles are no longer being formed or created out of fear that their contributions will be made meaningless as a result of a shift in the page, or a renaming that makes it inaccessible, or whatever is their reason.
I am sick of this as well and would like to see a consensus made once and for all, even if it upsets one or two heavy contributors. These same opposers to this legitimate vote are also the most vocal, sadly, but they are merely editors as we are all. And as such, I will agree with Lar, that no one person is indispensible to the highway project (or editing on Wikipedia in general), that any disruption in the process of this vote, or disruption after a consensus has been reached (through edit warring) should be blocked and that this nightmare be put behind us. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the poll is 59/41 shows there is considerable support for SPUI's position and we shouldn't belittle him for that. However it is important to consider the Arbcom ruling (which seems to me common sense) that sometimes a decision has to be made and in those cases an arbitrary decision is better than no decision. Of course no decision is final but that does not mean continually fighting over it. To me it means accepting a decision, living with it for a few months, and then revisiting the issue. At this point the only viable options are to close as no decision, meaning the highways articles will remain at status quo ante and perpetuating the argument indefinitely, or closing as decided, resulting in a plausible solution that may nevertheless disappoint or even infuriate one editor. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would have accepted a 59/41 had it gone the other way. We have a definite majority that while not quite 66% generally used for consensus, it is damn close. And it is definitely the clearest will ever expressed in the highway argument and probably the clearest there will ever be. There was nothing uncouth about the vote, it was performed fairly, there was discussion involved and a decision has been reached as arbcom demanded. This should put an end to it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know SPUI and I don't know the long and horrid background, but is there a reason SPUI has not yet exhausted the community's patience? He's got a block log as long as your arm, and he seems to acting in an intentionally disruptive manner today. Friday (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I find myself asking that same question regularly. I think Wikipedia would be more credible and attract better writers if we dropped our bad habit of coddling and enabling sociopathic behavior. You can't blame SPUI - he hasn't been sent the message that disruptive behavior is actually uncacceptable. At least, that's how it looks from where I'm standing. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the bottom line here is that some admin (not already involved) needs to be bold, close the poll per Arbcom ruling that a plausible decision is better than none at all, and be prepared to back up the decision with blocks. SPUI will either accept the result or contest the page moves, in which case he should be blocked. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the process currently in effect. The poll is closed and admins are weighing in. Ashibaka tock 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Benefit to the project. Disruptiveness and stubbornness aside, most of us are extremely reluctant to lose his expertise on highway topics. Powers T 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Most of us? Should we run a poll? I'm thoroughly fed up with this endless conflict over something so utterly trivial, all caused by SPUI refusing to accept that he could ever have to compromise about anything, that he has to work with others, and that he doesn't have unlimited licence to do whatever the hell he wants. I fully support Lar's block, and if SPUI persists in this sort of behaviour after the block expires, I'd support making it permanent. I see very little benefit to the project in keeping him around. --ajn (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI Blocked[edit]

I'm exhausted. I warned him and he argued about what the meaning of the warning is about. Blocked for 31 hours. I invite review of my actions. I assume this needs to go on the ArbCom case page too... I'm not ready for a permanent block at this time, I still hope this valuable contributor can be convinced to not be so abrasively tendentious. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should he? We keep making it abundantly clear that he can do anyting he wants, and it will all be accepted. Would you change? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
He won't. As you stated above, no one person is indispensible to this project. If that means SPUI must be blocked, even if temporairly, to gain some ground on this project and hopefully keep some editors from bailing ship, then by all means, go ahead and do it. I'm sick and tired of going on this merry-go-round of a chase to get SPUI to conform to policy, because it hasn't worked since day one. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reduced the block to 5 hours saying "Block shortened to 5 hours out of consideration that you are engaged in a number of important discussions, but when you look at the sort of forest fire you tried to start I think it is pretty necessary. Ashibaka tock 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)". That's fine by me, but if when I get home late tonite, it hasn't worked and SPUI is back at it, I'm reblocking. For longer. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd support the next block being indefinite- I've no idea what his credentials are as a highway expert but it's blatantly obvious that he's been a very disruptive editor for a very long time. Friday (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No user is indispensible - Wik showed us that. SPUI is very similar to Wik, in both his disruptive abilities and the high quality of his many edits. It would be sad to see SPUI go - then again, it was sad to see Wik go, too. I hope things can be worked out. --Golbez 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While SPUI has contributed much to the highway article system at Wikipedia, other users can fill his shoes. The amount of people that we have lost as a result of this debate, SPUI's edit warring, and general mess should tell you there are obvious trade-offs for keeping him on here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I won't shed any tears over SPUI's self-inflicted travails. But, you know, he does have at least a small point. That naming convention poll was vague and confusingly constructed and garnered a weak majority - it should in no way be taken as license to run rough-shod over any remaining objections. But despite my reservations about the actual poll, SPUI has proven time and again to be a real PITA. olderwiser 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I second all of the above. I happen to largely agree with SPUI on the poll: it's confused as to its scope (started off as being on "US state routes", then wandered into Canada and US territories after the first round of voting), its process (is a non-consensus outcome on the first part binding on the options for the second part? are some states exceptions on the basis of having unique common names that contradict the part one majority, while other common names are precluded by it?), and its basic mandate (is it to determine the common name, or pick a naming convention that's able to override that principle? is there a consensus to accept a non-consensus? has arbcom mandated picking an NC, regardless of consensus? do the judging admins in fact determine if there's consensus?). But let's face it, SPUI has gotten away with murder in the past (industrial-scale incivility, rampant WP:POINT -- including nomination of deletion processes for deletion, signature-spamming campaigns against a certain Wikiproject, and doubtless much else I've blocked out of my mind), so it's hard to argue that he's being done a huge injustice if he's for the time being out of "community patience". Alai 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The poll was more than vague and confusingly constructed... it was written almost entirely by SPUI's primary adversary in all this, that user's preferred format was listed first, when SPUI objected to some of the judging admins the requirement that they be accepted by all participants mysteriously vanished, one of the people supporting SPUI's proposal was badgered into withdrawing his vote by a mob over a minor point of protocol, et cetera. The poll has been atrocious. However, a solution which is preferred by a significant majority, at least acceptable to most others, and strongly opposed by only a handful is a consensus... and that appears to be the case here. I think it could have been a much stronger decision if either side had been a bit more willing to work towards overcoming the concerns of the other, but as it stands it seems a disputed consensus is the best we are likely to get. --CBD 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
So what would you have proposed, moving Principle II to the top? Oh wait, that would seem like favouritism towards that principle and then we would all be complaining about that, right? Give me a break, I can't even believe you are complaining about the order. People were given clear instructions in a suitable format, agreed upon by admins, that stated what each principle was and what it stood for. If you had such objections to it at first, you should have voiced it then, and not now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
People were given clear instructions in a suitable format, agreed upon by admins, that stated what each principle was and what it stood for. I suppose "clear instructions" are a matter of perspective. I've been around a lot of straw polls and this ranks near the bottom in terms of clarity. olderwiser 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Seicer, I did not "object then" as you say because I wasn't aware of the problems. The poll specifically asked for admins who were not involved in the highway debate. I wasn't. And hence I did not know who the major players were, what positions they supported, et cetera. After having read the poll discussion, past discussions, the ArbCom case, various Wikiproject debates on the issue, past policy proposals, et cetera in order to make an informed decision I am now sadly far more familiar with the issues and participants than I would like to be. :] As to the rest of your intemperate rant... it is behaviour like that which led to this being a debacle rather than a reasoned discussion. Though one of the more minor problems here, order of options is routinely considered for possible bias in professional polling and, while something must go first, it would have been better if the one which did hadn't been the one preferred by the person who designed the poll. For instance, I doubt many people would have objected to listing 'Principle III' first... if it had been listed at all initially. --CBD 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
So, if Principle II would have been listed first, would it not be out of line to say that it was biased towards Principle II and not Principle I or III because of order? There is no easy way to go about this, but since it is clearly defined in the table of contents, all one has to do is read and find out. That's not being "intemperate", thats being reasonable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User:TwinsMetsFan got their first, hence he put Principle I first. Did you look at the diffs below? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I constructed that poll to be as fair as possible. The reason Principle I was listed first was that they were the first ones to see the poll (check the history [29] if you doubt me.) The person who was "badgered" into changing their vote left comments next to their vote, and when a judging admin removed it, he reverted many times. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Check the discussion if you don't believe me. Judging admin problems? We were reluctant to remove any admin since we were originally short, and the objections seemed to not be well-supported. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
All true, but somewhat missing the point. I wasn't saying that anyone 'set out' to bias the poll, but that there were definite problems with the way it was done. As someone heavily involved in the dispute you really shouldn't have been the one setting up the poll... and rather than stepping back you have subsequently made comments about you deciding how it should be run since you did set it up. Yes, getting enough admins is a reasonable argument... but can you really look at the fact that you were the one waiving the requirement that admins be accepted by participants after SPUI objected to some of them and say that looked 'fair'? You, of all people, getting to say that SPUI's objections "seemed not to be well-supported" and 'changing the rules' after the fact to ignore them? Then insisting 'we must follow the rules' (which you wrote) when a supporter of the other position wanted to include a one line comment with their vote? There's just an inherent conflict of interest which ought to have been avoided because no matter how fair you tried to be you're the wrong person with the wrong history on this issue. Until I read up on the background I had assumed you were an uninvolved party... because that's the only sort of person who should have had so much control over the process. But, water under the bridge. We are where we are... and I think we can construe a weak consensus from the result. Just don't say that this was 'the best that could be hoped for' or that SPUI and others who share his viewpoint (Polaron, Rory096, et cetera) have no grounds for complaint on the way it was handled. Because they do... and the 'we do not have to work towards consensus, we have a majority' attitude openly stated by some really isn't helping matters. We should all ALWAYS be trying to develop a true consensus. Of course, this is not to say that there weren't (or aren't still) problems on the other side as well. --CBD 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, we had developed a consensus against including comments when voting. You seem to be missing that point. Also, if you examine the discussion closely, I was not involved in that at all. I just logged on to Wikipedia one day and found out that all of that happened. I didn't revert any comments or anything. With the judging admins, I was not sure what to do at that point. Noone else seemed to agree with SPUI or have any objections, so I let it slide. And as to my creating the poll in the first place, noone was doing crap about the issue. We had users like User:Northenglish leaving over the indecisiveness. So I figured that we needed to do something. Noone else was. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, you have to admit that it was better than what was going on. SPUI's alternative was mass page-move warring, using {{cleanup-title}}, etc. This way actually got something done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Something being better than move-warring doesn't mean much. How about we come to a decision that everyone can actually agree on. Discussing, rather than banning comments and just voting then saying we have a consensus, would be a great alternative to this debacle. --Rory096 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Try discussing with someone who doesn't believe in compromise. Try discussing someone who doesn't believe that there are alternatives. Try discussing with someone who believes that he is right and everyone else should just shut the hell up and listen to him. I'm sorry, we tried discussion, and the result led to animosity on both sides. I'm not belittling your alternative; it's just that there is this harsh reality that cordial discussion won't work well, if it will ever exist in this debate. --physicq210 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You can't say that's not true of both sides. When SPUI refuses to give in to the non-parentheses side, they don't make counterarguments to his arguments, they just call a vote, and when SPUI complains that the vote isn't valid, they just push to have him banned. Both sides should sit down and discuss the merits of their sides, and whether their arguments do make sense and are better than the other side's. --Rory096 22:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We kindly asked him many times to stop so we could discuss. We started a mediation case. Then an RFC. Then ArbCom. We gave him many chances. You can read about my and others' attempts here. But he was not willing to compromise, saying "I'm right." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
So now, ArbCom has succeeded in making him stop move-warring, and he agrees to discuss it. Why won't you discuss it with him? You ask him to "Please stop now"[1] when he finally makes an attempt to understand your position, rather than explaining it to him and hopefully convincing him you're right. It just doesn't make sense to me. --Rory096 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Because we discussed it ad nauseum for months upon end. Continuing to do so is beyond my sanity. And, pardon my lack of good faith (for good reason), he is most likely only trying to start another "discussion" about the decided-upon principle. --physicq210 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, then why don't you just link him to where it was explained why this decision was reached, instead of just giving links to how? Of course he's trying to start a discussion; just because the designated time period for discussing the method of disambiguating is over doesn't mean discussion is banned, he still wants to know the reasoning behind the other method so he can better cope with its being used. --Rory096 00:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I did. Instead of reading it superficially, maybe try reading the linked articles I provided more thoroughly. And no, discussion is not banned, but repeating the same discussion ad infinitum is pointless. --physicq210 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not the same discussion. The difference is that this time SPUI is willing to listen. --Rory096 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if he finally wants to discuss, the answer to his question is surely within the links I gave him. --physicq210 03:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The most obvious fact here is that very few Wikipedians really give a toss about parentheses or roads, we just want an end to this ridiculous edit warring and the Arbitration Committee does too and it has provided us with the means to resolve the problem. SPUI himself is under Wikipedia:probation, as are all other parties to the Highways arbitration case, and as a contribution to resolving the problem I hereby ban all of those involved from editing or moving those articles until we have all agreed on a policy . What, you say that's a bridge too far? Too bad. That is precisely what the arbitration committee said in the Highways case. The only reason these people are arguing now is that they think it's more important for their argument to continue than it is to permit Wikipedia to reach a conclusive decision on an utterly trivial issue. Let's tell them that it's time to recognise that "I am" is not the rule on Wikipedia. Let's tell them to get back to work or fuck off.. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --physicq210 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Editing any highway article? Or just those controversial edits? --Rschen7754

(talk - contribs) 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For now, just say all. This needs to end, now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It may not be ideal, but I'll support this and do it myself out of the community spirit. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose we need to alert people somehow? How far does this extend? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That goes too far. My highway edits are constructive and do not involve mass page renames, adding unwarranted tags, or bickering endlessly on how a highway should be named. To ban any highway edits would involve a great deal of work on your part, to which is not justified nor approperiate. Let's get off the emotion bandwagon and let's talk facts:
*Only one or two users in the entire highway project are involved in the mass page renames and adding unwarranted tags. Namely SPUI.
*Only two or three users are continuously complaining about the entire system. To them, if it is not done in their way, its not to be done at all. After the mass page renames and mass tagging of articles (e.g. such as Ohio state highways), SPUI was asked to stop and discuss. After that failed, a mediation case was started. And then RFC, and now ArbCom. Per what Rschen7754 noted.
To be clear, let's keep a watch out on the articles, not ban constructive editors from doing constructive edits. I have yet to do anything wrong in this case, therefore I should not be punished for waging a vote in a legitimate process judged by several admins. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think what Tony Sidaway meant were the article renamings. --physicq210 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. My profuse apologies to all involved. I overstepped the remit by saying "editing" and did not intend to limit or hamper normal editing. It was only moving, renaming that I intended to limit, and I tried rhetorically to point out that my supposed order was in fact an enforcement of the status quo. I fucked up hugely. I apologise, again, to all involved. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody's not happy[edit]

[39] [40] --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And this: [41]. --physicq210 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's SPUI, who made near identical comments earlier about the same topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We know that. Hence the sarcasm. --physicq210 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Add unsigned comment or delete comment until he can sign it so it doesn't appear to be "anonymous"? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What comment? --physicq210 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. I had too many windows open and got confused in the page histories for various pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It continues[edit]

See later post below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi redux[edit]

Tobias Conradi (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) persists in assuming bad faith, accusing other editors of lying, disregarding warnings and in general unacceptably incollegiate behaviour, despite multiple warnings, and multiple blocks. Here is just one example [42] I ( Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have blocked him for one week because I am thinking he still, despite much warning, counsel, outreach, discussion, and general expenditure of time and effort, does not get it. Please do not unblock or shorten without seeking consensus here first. My next block of this editor is likely to be indefinite as I think he's getting close to exhausting the communities patience. As always I welcome review or feedback on my actions. ++Lar: t/c 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, to me this looks more and more like harassment of the user. Yes, Tobias Conradi reacts very badly when he is treated in an unfair and/or abusive manner. Perhaps various admins ought to stop doing that? Maybe Chairboy and Pschemp could not improperly delete perfectly valid stubs ([43] [44] right after he creates them? Maybe Pschemp could not place an unwarranted block on him for trying to move a discussion about the 'Kayah Li' article to the Talk:Kayah Li page? Where exactly is that proscribed by policy? Or a block for it remotely proper? Maybe you, Lar, could stop warning him on civility every few days while saying nothing about your fellow admins making incivil comments and personal attacks ([45] [46]), to him? You badger this user constantly with threats of blocks, telling him that he has to keep your warnings displayed on his talk page or you will block him for removing them, and insisting that he should not complain about admin actions... even though many of those admin actions were in fact improper or mistakes. Then you act surprised when the user accuses admins of stalking and abusing him. I can't imagine that it would look like anything else from his perspective. It looks rather alot like that from mine. This user has been blocked for 3RR by the admin who was edit warring with him, mistakenly blocked for user page vandalism that turned out not to be, blocked for complaining about that mistaken block, blocked longer for complaining about that block, et cetera. He has reason to feel abused by admins. It is absolutely true that Tobias Conradi should do a much better job of responding to such things politely and moving on... but I for one get tired of watching a pack of admins harass and abuse a user and then point and say, 'look how angry and incivil he is being'. Stop harassing him and the problem would end. You say that you want to help him be a positive contributor, but it seems obvious that he is only not such when he is fighting with admins whom he thinks (often correctly) have mistreated him. Stop mistreating and/or fighting with him and the problem goes away. --CBD 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
CBD, would it be accurate to sum up your above as "if you stopped enforcing policy, Tobias would stop breaking it"? That sounds like a circular argument. I deleted a sub-stub (Kayah Li) that all the other admins I consulted agreed met CSD-A1 because it lacked sufficient context. That's the extent of my action, but then Tobias instantly jumped to calling the deletion admin-abuse. In fact, the first thing he did was add me to his admin abuse page, THEN he left me a message telling me to undelete it. The fact that I ended up on his 'abusive admins' list before he even talked to me is significant. As far as I know, I've never interacted with him before this, but he jumped straight to abuse. For your argument to work, he would have needed to have been 'persecuted' by me previously. Instead, we've got an editor that jumps straight to assuming bad faith. I immediately copied the content of the deleted article to his userspace with the encouragement that he expand and repost it. Instead, he planted his heels in the ground and just kept calling me an abusive admin. I've been polite, civil, and encouraging to him the entire time, but he has not returned the favor. He has alternately called me a liar, stupid, and malicious. He has accused me of vandalism and deleted my responses on his talk page. Finally, he has a page with a list of abusive admins that have attacked him. CBD, ask yourself if it seems at all unusual that he's had soooo many run-ins with evil administrators. At what point do you start to examine the claims critically? I've offered to help Tobias with setting up an RfC against me (in light of his continuing claims that I've maliciously abused my "powers") but every time he backs off. His persecution complex does not, it appears, seem to extend a formal airing of issues. I am beginning to have a difficult time assuming good faith on his behalf based on what appears to be an almost pathological victim complex. I feel that if he were really interested in the Kayah Li article that started this whole thing, he would have spent the 30 seconds needed to add context to the userfied content I sent him and reposted it. Instead, he has attempted to turn this into some sort of circus. He has created a page called the 2006 Kayah Li incident, a grand name for a sub-stub that was appropriately deleted under WP:CSD. He is a prolific editor that has amassed a tremendous number of edits, but that edit history does not appear to have come with a commensurate maturity, understanding of WP policy, and civility to other users. I endorse Lar's block and hope he will come back a productive user who does not choose picking fights over contributing to the project. - CHAIRBOY () 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
To answer your first question, no, obviously that is not anything remotely like an accurate description of my position. Say rather, 'if admins would stop violating policy Tobias would stop responding in kind'. The fact that other admins supported your deletion of this does not change the fact that it was not a proper use of CSD A1... as many people have since affirmed. Indeed, admin support of a plainly out of process deletion rather proves his complaint. It was a valid stub which provided complete context of what the subject was. Yes, he reacted very badly to the deletion... see above where I've said this repeatedly. You call his reaction a "persecution complex" (demonstrating some of that 'perfect civility' with which you have treated him)... but generally those only come into existence following actual persecution. No, he doesn't have past history with you... but as I demonstrated he does with other admins. Consider that maybe he isn't 'acting in bad faith' as you suggest above, but legitimately feels 'persecuted'. Because he has been. --CBD 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
With respect, CBD, I think we're going to have to disagree about this. I welcome scrutiny of my actions, and if there's an RfC, I'll be there. Please find an example of incivility in my dealings with Tobias during this, you just implied that I've been rude to him and I'd like a diff please. - CHAIRBOY () 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Um... look up. You don't see anything 'rude' about, "almost pathological victim complex"? I don't think you've committed any heinous incivility (his has been notably worse), but no... you haven't been perfectly nice either. I'm sorry you don't agree about the nature of A1, but there really just isn't any question about it. That was not a valid A1. The context of the article was absolutely clear. --CBD 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, I said that I felt he had a victim complex, and I said that above. You said "demonstrating some of that 'perfect civility' with which you have treated him" in reference to that. When I asked for an example, you pointed right back at the same text. That's self referential. You implied that I had been anything less than civil with him when talking to him, and I've asked for a diff. Please provide it. - CHAIRBOY () 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Since saying he has a "persecution complex" and an "almost pathological victim complex" are somehow not incivil how 'bout the condescending, "I'll accept your apology now." Again, I'm not saying you were horrifically mean, but this tenacious 'no I was right' reaction is just the sort of thing I was talking about. You weren't right. You haven't been acting "with nothing but civilness". Congratulations, you're human. So is he. Cut the guy some slack and consider, 'hey maybe me deleting his article like that might have been annoying'. --CBD 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well CBD, I sometimes find you annoying but i don't respond with immediate, constant blatant incivility. Stop making excuses for Tobias's bad behaviour. Annoyance doesn't excuse his actions, especially considering chairboy never interacted with him before. pschemp | talk 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Me? Annoying? Impossible. :] No, I don't 'make excuses' for him. I have said (over and over and over again) that his reaction was wrong.... but that isn't the only problem here. The actions against him were wrong too... and until people start addressing that it seems obvious that the problems will continue. Yes, we should try to get him to be less hostile to admins. Step one - stop giving him reasons to be hostile. Seems better for everyone. Constantly harping on him... how's that working out thus far? Anyone think it's sure to work if we just keep at it? --CBD 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but Chairboy was correct in his deletion, kindly put the deletion in userspace, was never hostile to Tobias and has never harped on Tobias in his life. Tobias's reaction was rude, uncivil, and unwarranted. Tobias is a victim of nothing but his own temper, and never assumes good faith in anything, and you are making excuses for him by claiming he is the victim. He brought all of this on himself by not being able to control his temper. His reactions were his choices, no one else's, and just as you said, there is no excuse for incivilty, so why are you trying to give him one? Even if Chairboy's action was a mistake, (which it wasn't) Tobias reaction is out of line. Way out of line. This is a simple matter of a man who can't control his temper, when nothing was done to deliberatley provoke him by Chairboy. That is unacceptable behaviour and actions against him resulting from this uncivilness are entirely justified. pschemp | talk 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi is either performance art or someone who doesn't get it, I agree, but let's escalate from week to months rather than indefinite, please. Geogre 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think indefinite is warranted here, as Tobias is a productive contributor as long as no one disagrees with him. The attempt to paint him as the victim is laughable though. Tobias has been yelling admin abuse from day one, before he was ever blocked for his quite uncivil responses and rants. CBD is also ignoring Tobias's use of IP sockpuppets and meantpuppets to get around his blocks, and the fact that even the people who try to be nice to the man get lambasted by him. Aditionally, moving an irrelevant personal argument about speedy deletions to the talk page of a deleted article is not appropriate. Chairboy has acted with nothing but civilness here, has no hostory with Tobias, and yet has met with incivilty at every comment. He even userfied the deletion so Tobias could work on it. I'm sorry but Tobias has shown that he in incapable of dealing with even the smallest disagreement in a civil fashion (even before the alleged mistreatment) and as such deserves blocks until he can learn to play nice. Excusing incivilty because Tobias has an admin abuse chip on his shoulder is unfair to those editors who do remain civil in conflicts. pschemp | talk 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think indefinite is warranted this time, which is why I went with a week. And I'm not averse to trying months next time rather than indefinite. But I have to take issue with some notions mooted early on in this thread, namely that giving civility warnings (when instead, based on prior history and the knowledge that the user has been told what the problem is) instead of just handing out a block, or giving out more than one block, is somehow stalking or harassment. (and further, I think calling it that shows disrespect to admins and their judgement... CBD ought to know better) Taken to the extreme, that means that any one admin could only ever give out one warning or block to a particular misbehaving user. And that's not workable. Further, while I think that admins should be held accountable if they are incivil, I'm not seeing that there is massive incivility on the part of admins in this case (I admit bias!), and more importantly, I don't think it appropriate that a user get a "free pass" because an admin wasn't civil. That's a double standard, it says admins have to be perfect or else users can be as nasty as they like. Anyone who reviews Tobias's discussion with other users will find a pattern of repeated nastiness that there seems to be little prospect of ever changing. His interaction with Chairboy is perfect evidence of it... continued hostility and wild accusations of all sorts of things and no acknowledgement that he did anything that could stand improvement. If you want more, look at the tail end of User_talk:Tobias_Conradi#Blocked_for_one_week where a previously more or less uninvolved editor Evertype (talk · contribs) gives some good advice and Tobias rips into him for it. We need to get away from the notion that a lot of previous conttributions give you a free pass to act like a prat. I've seen it in several cases lately and it's corrosive and damaging. I agree with pschemp, above but note that "Tobias is a productive contributor as long as no one disagrees with him." == "NOT a productive contributor" because disagreements happen. They are part of how things get better. If you can't disagree civilly, your contributions, however large, can be done without. No one is indispensable to this project. So, I will continue to monitor this user's behaviour and if it doesn't get better, probably block again, or, seek another editor to apply it. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Lar, again... the fact that Tobias responds very badly to mistaken, questionable, and/or incorrect admin actions is a reason to block him. It is absolutely not a reason to continue to engage in mistaken, questionable, and/or incorrect admin actions against him. You all keep going on about how he should not "get a 'free pass'" because of 'number of contributions'... which is a complete straw man. Have you seen me saying that what he did was ok? That he should not be blocked? No. I'm saying that admins should not be deleting his articles out of process, hounding him over every civility infraction, subjecting him to incivility and personal attacks in turn, blocking him for edit wars they took part in, telling him not to complain about admin actions, forcing him to keep warnings displayed on his page, et cetera. On your intention to continue to "monitor" Tobias I refer you to Wikipedia:Harassment#Coolcat.2C_Davenbelle.2C_and_Stereotek and leave it at that. --CBD 13:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"Have you seen me saying that what he did was ok?" I have seen you leave that implication. First, you characterise admins monitoring his behaviour as "harassement" which leaves the implication that he did nothing incorrect, at least in the way that he apparently analyses things (based on my own analysis of his statements) Also, see here: [47] See also here:[48] where you don't address that he has things he needs to do to get it lifted, just that you want it lifted. You're leaving him the impression that you think this block is not justified. Given who you are dealing with, it is my view that you need to be a lot more careful and precise in your statements. As for my monitoring Tobias, I don't see the issue you do with watching a problematic user to see if they continue to cause problems. Because this user is problematic, nothing you have said refutes that. I think you need to think harder about whether your actions, in general, are helping, or undercutting, other admins and their efforts to make this a better place. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Lar nails it in one. Nandesuka 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Lar, the "implication" is in your imagination. I have stated unequivocally over and over again that Tobias's actions were unacceptable. Your citation of a few edits where I didn't say so (nor that they were acceptable) as evidence of an 'implication' in contradiction of my numerous direct statements strikes me as disingenuous at best. You say that warning against harassment "leaves the implication" that what the user did was fine... no, it really doesn't. Why would it? I refer you again to that link. Note that it covers a situation specifically where the user did do things wrong... but the ArbCom found the "monitoring" and continuous badgering on that to still be harassment. It isn't an 'either / or' situation. Both can be true. As to me stymieing 'efforts to make this a better place'. Look at the results of your efforts here. How are they working out so far? Making alot of good progress in getting Tobias to be civil are you? If not... consider that maybe there is a better way to go about this. Maybe not threaten him with blocks if he doesn't keep your warnings displayed on his talk page. Not excuse or ignore admin violations of process and policy against him. Not hound him constantly. I'm sorry, but if these are your efforts to "make this a better place"... they obviously weren't working long before I noticed the train wreck and tried to do something about it. I'm sorry, but isn't it obvious by now that the approach you have been following just keeps making matters worse? I'm not saying that's your intent... but can you honestly tell me it isn't accurate? Likewise Nandesuka... I'm not about to apologize for 'undercutting' your efforts to wheel-war, engage in personal attacks, and place punitive blocks clearly well outside the bounds of policy... because I really don't think they do a heck of a lot to "make this a better place". Rather the opposite. --CBD 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that analysis is that the block was handed out for his actions with respect to Chairboy. These have been demonstrated as being completely unacceptable. Tell you what though, next time I see something egregious I'll drop you a mail and let you warn him instead of me. You can do it in a way that satisfies your critieria of how it ought to be done... If you warn him and he responds positively, great. If he goes off (as, unfortunately, given past history, I have every reason to expect he will), YOU block him instead of me. But if you can't demonstrate satisfactorily that the infraction (whatever it is) wasn't egregious (I assume your mail is turned on?) and you don't warn, I will. And if after he's warned, if he goes off, I'll expect you to block. Again I'll use email to discuss it, but if you won't block and you can't explain why, I will. I think that if you mean what you say about not tolerating his behaviour, this will be entirely satisfactory to both of us, because you'll be handing out the warnings and blocks... But if you don't... well, consider it "put up or shut up", you don't just get to snipe at everyone else indefinitely. It's time for you to do better than me, or... admit you're wrong, that this user is incorrigible, or at least that all the admins that have tried so far are acting in good faith and not just harasssing him. Now on the other hand, if knowing it's YOU on the case instead of any of the rest of us causes him to straighten up and fly right so as not to make you look the fool, well, that's a win too. It's time this user's issues were resolved, one way or another. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Entirely reasonable, and while blocking isn't my preferred method of 'conflict resolution' I've done it before when acting as a 'proxy' in similar circumstances. It is at least worth a try and I'd think preferrable to continuing a downward spiral with an inevitably bad conclusion. In reference to the 'outcome' you cite above... even before we undertake this effort, there is no question in my mind that you were acting entirely in good faith. I believe you were trying to help Tobias... I just think you were going about it the wrong way. --CBD 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Done and done. I hope not to ever have to send you a mail about this, but if I do I look forward to working productively with you. I can't speak for other editors but maybe they would be willing to do the same in this case? ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike Garcia[edit]

I just blocked Mike Garcia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinitely following this edit to his talk page, where he seems to admit being behind "Johnny the Vandal". the wub "?!" 08:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Mike has a troubled history, but do other people see that admission as being a little vague? Geogre 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Abso-fragging-lutely. What that diff actually says is "anybody trying to create an account with email <> is 'Johnny the Vandal'…". Try reading it again. HTH HAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Boswell (talkcontribs)
    • Well, if it's true, it certainly doesn't surprise me at all. --Conti| 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, now you mention it, it could be read another way. However I think the reference to Jimbo allowing the account back in means he is referring to his own account, since it was Jimbo's personal intervention that got User:Mike Garcia unblocked in the first place. Notice that Mike's recent edits have been almost solely tagging supposed sockpuppets of JtV. The way I see it, this admission could have something to do with the increasing appliance of WP:DENY and the recent deletion of {{Johnny the Vandal}} and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Johnny the Vandal. I have informed Jimbo on his talk page anyways. the wub "?!" 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, I've never had any good fortune dealing with Mike, and I was trying to not refer to his distant past, but, because of the ambiguity, I'd recommend lifting the block, or at least shortening it, until this is hashed out a bit more. (Again, Mike has been a ball of frustration for me, but I don't see him quite admitting to being JtV, and it's within Mike's personality to start on something like catching JtV and then following through to the exclusion of everything else, so that's no evidence, one way or the other.) Geogre 14:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody told Danny about this? It was through his efforts that the unrepentant troll who is Mike Garcia was allowed back to Wikipedia. Danny probably has good rapport with him, and might be able to get some information. It does look like he's been playing us all along, though, especially referring to Jimbo as "Wales", which implies a little more ... enmity, I guess would be the word, than someone who seems to have autism, or whatever other things he has claimed to have. I've never been happy with his returning, especially his repeated nastiness to me and to Hephaestos, and I blame him for Hephaestos having left Wikipedia, and never understood the rush to bring him back. Unless and until he makes a completely understandable explanation, keep him banned. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the critical thing is that first sentence. I'll go check, but Danny is his mentor, so he should want to know. I've no words to say in Mike's defense, but he went several months with legitimate, if...socially unaware...edits. A person with autism could well choose the wrong level of familiarity, misunderstand nuance, and get obsessive about tracking a vandal, but that's neither here nor there. If there are no notes about this on Danny's page, I'll drop one. Geogre 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Though Mike is (in?)famous for being an AOL user it may be worth running a checkuser - he could be one of the lucky ones to be getting an XFF header (or is that still not implemented?) Also I'm going to be away for a few days, and just want to make it clear I have no problem with anyone overturning/shortening the block if they feel it appropriate. the wub "?!" 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, at least this explains why it's been virtually impossible to use AOL over the last few weeks. And no, there still aren't any XFF headers, and there probably never will be. But if a vandal is stupiud enough to use a 172, those can be checkusered-- 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's possible his account has been compromised by someone else. Would Mike Garcia rea