Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive194

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

Noticeboard archives

Notability (people)[edit]

Edit-warring on Wikipedia:Notability (people). There was a brief pause but one of the parties has expressed an intention to resume here. It looks like this will continue until someone gets blocked or the page gets protected. Somebody please intervene. --Ideogram 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that attempted discussion so far has been unproductive, to put it mildly. There was a failed MedCab attempt here. I think the parties need some "guidance" but I am at a loss as to how it might be provided. --Ideogram 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There haven't been any edits in two days. When I came here for intervention, I was told to go the dispute resolution route. That failed, and Radiant has apparently ceased being disruptive, so there doesn't seem to be a problem. I don't intend to "resume" anything other than institute the consensus version that existed for years, so don't worry. This is the exact same route I took at WP:MUSIC with no problems once "discussion" died down ([1][2]), and something I plan on doing at WP:WEB once things appear to be dead as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    •  Note: The page has been fully protected [3] per my request [4]. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Lame. Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wait until it's unprotected, then. If you want it resolved, you know who you have to go to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So what you;re saying is, if it's unprotected you'll resume the edit war? C'mon, Jeff, you know that's not smart! Guy (Help!) 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There doesn't appear to be anything to resume. Radiant has appeared to cease the disruption, so there's no apparent problem. The question should be whether he plans to continue to push his own agenda. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Judging from your comments, I believe it would be useful if the page stays protected until you two have forgotten the whole thing. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a long memory. Since I have no interest in bumping the conflict up to the next level with Radiant (this is similar to what he pulled at WP:CREEP), we'll simply sit at a stalemate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, do you have a personal feud with Radiant? Seriously, I suggest both of you knock this off now before one of you ends up blocked. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's to knock off, we haven't been in contact for three days. Maybe sometime someone will block him for the disruption and tendentious editing, but it would be punitive at this stage, so I guess there's nothing else that can be done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Spoken as someone with little knowledge of the situation, IMO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Radiant appears to be engaged in a good faith effort to reduce the Byzantine complexity of our rule base. More power to his elbow. I'd have thought Jeff would be onside here, but apparently not. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Funny, I see Radiant as being engaged in an effort to simply force his view of the project on everything, regardless of whether consensus exists or not. Whether I agree with your (or his) intents here is irrelevant - those seeking the change have not made even the slightest bit of effort to gain consensus, and that's a major problem. Unless consensus is being abandoned along with everything else here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's interesting, as I would describe Radiant's efforts as moving in exactly the opposite direction, increasing the redunancy and complexity of the rule base, coupled with an obsessively bureaucratic attitude that strikes me as surprising and disappointing. Further, the comments here alone demonstrate an unhelpful personalization of this conflict on the part of both parties. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And there we have the problem: I am quite willing to discuss this, but Jeff is more interested in making derogatory remarks than in actual discussion, as should be obvious from his comments here. That is precisely why mediation didn't work out. Last week, Jeff stated that he would basically continue his harassment until I gave in regarding the underlying issue. As long as he keeps up this destructive approach, I don't really see this debate going anywhere. >Radiant< 11:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Kind of have to agree with Peter here. Look, both of you have been around for a while. You know enough about how this place works to sort this out yourselves without kicking off more pointless wikidrama. No one seems to be assuming much in the way of good faith, which might be a good start. You both have the best interests of the project at heart: bear that in mind and work from there. But that does not require this mutual attack session. Moreschi Deletion! 12:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Good faith only needs to be extended for so far. That line was crossed quite a while ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There has not been a single moment where you've shown any willingess to discuss anything, Radiant. If you're really willing to discuss it, prove it for once instead of playing the victim card. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • You've said that you want to distance yourself from your past at Encyclopedia Dramatica, but ironically your edit patterns with respect to this issue are quite similar to those associated with ED. For instance, making allegations about the issue but not substantiating them, denying facts because "you don't see them that way", persistenyl attacking the people who disagree with you, and forum shopping are all indicative of wikidrama. I just said that I was willing to discuss if you would lay off the harassment; you respond by denying that I want to discuss, and adding a personal attack. You don't seriously think that that is a way of resolving anything, I hope? >Radiant< 12:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I just know what I'm getting from you, that's all. *shrug*. I know better than to expect any less than bullshit like that last statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's some evidence of what I've had to put up with: this just occurred today, with the typical snark and snarl, and he has yet to even comment on the talk page. He's also started in here as I've watched this burn slowly without his "input," and have you taken a look at WP:CREEP? Yup, I'm the bad guy, that's certainly the problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that editing and getting change to happen on policy and guideline pages is so slow. That is as it should be, but something does need to be done about the complexity of the existing set of pages. If anything, I would suggest that Radiant (and maybe jeff if he wants to) draws up an overall plan, and identifies key pages that need working on, and more discussion. Maybe we could even set up a way to have a permanent !vote disucssion page for policies and guidelines, so it is clearer at a glance how consensus is changing from one month to the next. People who read the page and talk page and agree to it, can 'sign up' to it, and those that have concerns can address them. If people later feel the page has changed, they can come back and recast their !vote. Kind of like an indefinite, open-ended RfC on the consensus status of the page, with subsections for specific changes. The talk page would be used for discussing changes to wording, and things like that. Keeping the !vote disucssions open indefinitely would avoid a small group coming along and changing things, but would make clear if consensus really is changing. Would anything like this work, or would it go too much against the spirit of 'voting is evil'? Carcharoth 12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we already have Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies - but is that used enough? Carcharoth 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That might not hurt, but you've reached the crux of the argument - consensus. I'm not opposed at all to the slow burn of the way policies/guidelines evolve, because it assures us that consensus is being reached. It's why I originally reverted the change, and continue to implore Radiant to actually discuss this on the talk page, which he's failed to do. If there's no consensus for such a change, we shouldn't be making it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We have RFC/Policy and we have the WP:VPP. The main problem appears to be that Jeff is working under a different definition of "consensus" than most of us; his definition appears to boil down to "if he disagrees with something, there can not be a consensus". Similarly, he has the habit of citing "consensus can change" if he wants to ignore precedent, and claiming "we need consensus for changes to the long-standing version" if he likes the precedent.
  • The WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC issue boils down to Jeff making a sweeping change to a page stable for over a month, and demanding consensus from the people who disagree with his change, because he claims there was no consensus for the stable version. >Radiant< 12:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC issue boils down to w.marsh making a sweeping change to a page stable for years, and not discussing it on the talk page. It's worth noting that, even though w.marsh disagreed with my reversion, he didn't revert back. Many have agreed that we need consensus for such a massive change, only one person is ignoring consensus in order to implement a preferred version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I just know what I'm getting from you, that's all. *shrug*. I know better than to expect any less than bullshit like that last statement. >Radiant< 13:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The difference is only one of us is being honest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sheesh, will you two listen to yourselves? This is not about anybody taking unilateral action, the changes have a lot of support and the old version has more than one supporter too. Why is it necessary to personalise the dispute? No, don't answer that, just don't do it, please. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with JzG; you guys are killing me here, and I like both of you. Is there any hope I or someone else can take you both into a small room and work this out? You're both making like circling sharks at this point... -- nae'blis 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff has left Wikipedia, according to his userpage. --Ideogram 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. "'Apparently, all I really needed to do was sleep things off a bit...I'll be back in full force on Thursday, 8 February" Other than that, I'd like to second Nae'blis. I like both Jeff and Radiant, and it's a real shame they're fighting. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest User:Jacob Peters IP sock -- Part Duex[edit]

I think it's 68.126.5.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The WHOIS is pointing to California, like other confirmed Jacob Peters IP socks. Moreover, this user has exactly the same pattern of pro-Soviet POV-pushing disruptive trolling, and the edit summaries clearly show that this is hardly a newbie. Recommend 48 hours of enforced wikibreak. I'm not sure this one is really worth the bother of RFCU. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:DUCK I've issued a 24 hour block. A longer block would probably be useless because this is a dynamic IP.--Isotope23 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thaank you for the 24 hour block on the Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) IP sock. This vandal is relentless with his pro-Stalin POV pushing garbage. Jacob Peters has been banned permanently, but continues to edit under IPs. Can't we do something about these IPs? An entire range of IPs was blocked in the Cplot incident, so maybe the same can be done here. Check JPs list of suspected puppets for a full range of the 68.126.xxx.xxx IPs. TheQuandry 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly getting very annoying, quite often because we need to go to checkuser for confirmation, though it is getting easier and easier to spot the puppets. It's just so tedious when every few days or so yet more Jacob Peters garbage turns up. If he keeps going I really think that more drastic action may be appropriate. Moreschi Deletion! 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with an IP block is that he is using a very popular DSL provider... basically we would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater here if we blocked the IPs. At this point I would say that prompt reporting to WP:AN/I is your best bet. I personally have no problem with a short block per WP:DUCK & WP:DENY of anyone exhibiting what is pretty clear Stalinist propaganda and editing from 68.126.xxx.xxx... Maybe there is a template around that could go on the talkpages of articles he is known to hit so other editors could easily recognize and report him.--Isotope23 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Grrr, but OK, fair enough. I'm just off to put the latest articles he hit on my watchlist :) Sigh. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Is semi-protection for all the articles he hits an option? I know this is also a drastic step, but it will at least keep his IP socks away from those articles for a while. C thirty-three 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have resurfaced today editing as Erosion3. He's continued the above IP's edit war on Korean War here, and displayed 2 common Jacob Peters characteristics here: citing the soviet encyclopedia and signing his name on a separate line. Can we have him blocked here without going through RFCU, this one seems really obvious. C thirty-three 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Obvious JP sock. The edit sumamries tell all. Please indef block based on WP:DUCK. TheQuandry 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalking by WeniWidiWiki[edit]

I'm being stalked by WeniWidiWiki, who keeps bringing up a now disproven case of sockpuppetry. I am feeling harassed by this. Here is the checkuser which cleared me of operating Frater Xyzzy as a sock and yet WWW keeps bringing it up on a regular basis: [5], [6], [7], [8].

Could someone please ask this user to stop stalking me? Jefferson Anderson 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want people to believe there is a connection between you and Frater Xyzzy, could you explain why in this AMA request you said "Note: Frater Xyzzy tells me that he has a registered WP email address and requests that an Advocate contact him by email. " Addhoc 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a connection, we know each other. But we are located in different cities and he has been unfairly blocked as a sock of me. He asked me to get him an Advocate and I am doing so, so that I don't have to play that role. He can't put in a request for hos own advocate because he can't edit. What is one supposed to do, leave a friend blocked unfairly? Jefferson Anderson 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. If he's got email set up then he could just email an advocate. The check user confirms that you are separate people. Thanks again, Addhoc 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't see how that could be true. A checkuser can provide evidence that two accounts are likely to be the same person, but absence of evidence via check user doesn't actually confirm that two accounts are seperate people. How could it? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Jpgordon's check on 4 Feb may not have gone far enough back. UninvitedCompany ran a check in January (posted at RFAR/Starwood here. JeffersonAnderson has admitted that he and Frater worked at the same employer, which uses a proxy/firewall for internet connections, and that he joined Wikipedia to help Frater in a dispute [9]. They both edited several of the same AfD's, so it is possible this is at least a case of meatpuppetry. Frater now claims to have moved to Seattle. There is more evidence, and I am 49% convinced that Frater and Anderson are related to further sockpuppetry by Hanuman Das and Ekajati as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. However, if Frater and Anderson are currently editing from different cities, it may be that at least that part of the story is true. Thatcher131 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I really need to make a template explaining to people what a negative Checkuser results shows. When it says "No IP evidence" it means exactly that: there the editors in question have not used the same or closely related IP within the period under examination. It means, "no, checkuser does not prove sockpuppetry". It does not in any way disprove sockpuppetry. Checkuser is a useful tool for proving sockpuppetry. Not the opposite. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Technical means are a supplement to the decision process, they're not conclusive. What you've got is an IP address, you have no indication of what is behind that address. I happen to know that the address that I'm on at the moment has some 300,000 possible people behind it, the argument that Jefferson and Frater have used in the past. Equally the IP gateway that I'm behind is located some 200 miles away from my present location and provides service to the entire UK. My home IP address is located about 10 miles from my current geographic location and I could edit from it within about 20 minutes of leaving work.
Equally it is possible to work through two geographically discrete IP addresses from the same physical location. In the space of about 10 metres I have choices of the address visible through this edit and several other systems, one of which would give me an address on a different continent and 8 times zones away.
It depends on how the Secure Managed Interfaces are configured as to how much information you can get from them about what's behind.
The point is, a technical check supports other evidence, which is why the SSP case emphasises behaviour and style.
ALR 10:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Addhoc 10:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I kind of wish you hadn't deleted your paragraph, because it now looks as if I was responding to jpgordon with something that's probably a glimpse of the blindingly obvious to someone with CU tools!ALR 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Byars Jr.[edit]

I left a firmly worded warning on his talkpage. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ballog (talk · contribs) is also reverting the article to his version [10] which is a WP:BLP disaster waiting to happen. One Night In Hackney 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Non- Verifiable Facts and Vandalism[edit]

See previous incident #Vandalism by IP User User:Sikh-history/195.92.40.49/82.36.147.99

Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps adding warning to ban me on my page for no good reason. He also keeps adding non-verifiable facts and a Point of View to Prohibitions in Sikhism article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sikh-history (talkcontribs) 07:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

The issue of non-verifiable facts is a content dispute and needs to either be resolved on the article's talk page, or failing that, can use one of the available means of dispute resolution.
The warning being put on your talk page is clearly inappropriate and I have asked him to desist doing this. —Doug Bell talk 07:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Is still vanadalising my page by adding warnings. Please do something about this. This is harassment.--Sikh-history 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a strongly worded warning to Sikh 1's talk page. If the harassment continues, you can request any admin to block. —Doug Bell talk 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as soon he was unblocked, various IP's started spamming the Prohibitions in Sikhism article resulting in the article getting locked. Unfortunately, it is difficult to be reasonable with this rather emotional fellow. See conversation on above page and also my page. Thanks --Sikh-history 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There is unlikely to be a connection between this user and the anon ips. Please concentrate on trying to discuss with him in good faith. --Ideogram 15:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Its hard but I'm trying friend :p --Sikh-history 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Article Prohibitions in Sikhism[edit]

Hi, I am having real problems with a Vandal or a group of Vandals who keep deleting, reverting and changing things on the article. The things they keep deleting are refrences and verifiable facts. Please can someone help. I do not know how to follow the three revert rule, as I am not that proficient with wikipedia. Please help.--Sikh-history 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to go to WP:RFPP. Don't bother reverting the page until you get it semi-protected. --Ideogram 14:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully protected the page from editing for 48 hours to allow some discussion to occur here.--Isotope23 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I see it has been fully protected. In anticipation of your next question, you will not be able to edit it until it has been unprotected, even though I know you feel the wrong version has been protected. What you are supposed to do now is try to engage the other parties in a discussion on the article talk page and reach an agreement on the contents of the page. However, my guess is the anon ip's will not discuss. If that proves to be the case, you can ask for the page to be semi-protected and at least the anon ip's will not be able to edit war with you. --Ideogram 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It's always the wrong version... Just an FYI, semi-protection is only to stop ongoing pure vandalism to an article from many IPs. It should never be used in an edit war between a registered editor and IPs because doing is basically just penalizing one side of an edit war. The idea of protection is to make both sides step back and discuss changes before making changes. On another note, I've started a discussion on this at Talk:Prohibitions in Sikhism if anyone cares to participate.--Isotope23 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for all your input.--Sikh-history 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Fallibroome High School and subsequent vandalism of my talk page, as a reaction to the reveral of the first vandalism by myself[edit]

Iamaacountname and anonymous user User:80.41.86.208 have engaged in a "more advanced" form of vandalism of the article for Fallibroome High School. In short. The anon user first vandalised the article, then Iamaacountname appeared to revert it, but at the same time as this, introduced a new incidence of vandalism to the account. This second vandalism could not have been done in good faith, since it involved uploading a new photo with which to replace the school shield, which was done by Iamaacountname just prior to the apparent reversal of vandalism. The photo appears to be solely constructed to be used in some vandalism attempts, and the non-anon user's only account activity is to vandalise Fallibroome High School and upload this photo.

I corrected the entire vandalism, and placed notices about warning them of their blatant vandalism on their respective talk pages. This has resulted in this anonymous user (User:80.41.86.208) replacing my talk page with one million digits of pi. The non-anon user has not had any retaliatory action taken against their pages by this anon user.

I wonder if (a) both the user and anon-address should be immediately blocked, and (b) whether the image should be immediately deleted. I did try to go through the correct process to ask for deletion of the image, but the reason did not appear, so i have included it on the image's talk page. I also wonder if my talk page can be protected? I had to protect my user page from very similar retaliatory action after I corrected previosu vandalism of this article page. I could not see how this kind of vandalism should be reported except by a message here, and my apologies if it is in the wrong place.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've hard-blocked the IP address for a week. Sneeky vandalism like this shows for-knowledge that the action was a problem. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not sure how this could obviously fit in with the requirements of AIV, and I'm not sure what you mean by your message starting (conflict). Was it in any way inapprorpiate to post the message here?  DDStretch  (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No not at all. What I mean by conflict, was that before I finished typing my comment, someone added a comment before I finished, edit conflict. Not directed at you at all, just means, I started my comment, before someone placed theirs and finished theirs before I finished mine. This is the place for incidents, especially if you are unsure that it goes somewhere else. You did the correct thing. Navou banter / review me 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the explanation. It all becomes more clear now!  DDStretch  (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

JACOB HANSON[edit]

User:JACOB HANSON has vandalized the egg page again. WLU 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals aren't reported here - if he vandalizes again, report it to WP:AIV. --Coredesat 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Identical vandalism from multiple unrelated IP addresses[edit]

Since 4 Feb 2007 there have been three identical anonymous edits to The Family Circus which clearly constitute vandalism. IP addresses in question are: 216.248.224.26 75.39.197.40 70.245.126.202

IPVandal always adds phrase "No one really know why they keep on making it if everyone agrees in the fact that it is not funny in any meaning of the word." to the end of the introduction.

Vandal also appears to be actively screwing with other pages, especially House of Leaves. Irene Ringworm 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV policy changed?[edit]

This is more of a question or a request for clarification than anything. Has the policy at AIV changed significantly in the last few months? I reported this obvious vandalism-only account Jwgray (talk · contribs). Three edits and all of them are pretty clearly some kid. The listing was deleted with edit summary "hasn't been warned sufficiently and hasn't edited in three hours". I've reported blatant vandalism-only accounts there in the past, but it seems like all of a sudden folks are refusing to block based on circumstances.

It seems silly that an obvious vandalism-only account can't be blocked simply because of "insufficient warnings". Can't admins make a judgement call and block accounts that are obviously out to casually vandalize the project and provide nothing helpful? I really don't think any of these edits [11] could be thought of any anyone as "mistakes" or in good faith, and I doubt that there are very many people out there who would bother to do this kind of thing without understanding that it's wrong. Any thoughts? TheQuandry 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it varies from person to person. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to block someone regardless of the warnings if the infraction is so atrocious (for example, I've blocked a couple of harassment accounts posting to someone's talk page without so much as dropping them a line, just a block-on-sight). EVula // talk // // 20:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


commercial mention policy question[edit]

O hail, mighty Administrators-

In lurking on Wikipedia, I came across an Article on a current TV show, in which is stated: "Downloadable episodes are available for purchase at the iTunes Store".

Given the popularity of iTunes, I wasn't bold enough to delete it peremptorily, without first checking with Your Majesties to see if such a commercial notation is indeed proscribed. Kindly advise JGHowes 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As a non-administrator (and ignoring the sarcasm), I think it should be gone as advertising for iTunes. Veinor (talk to me) 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the article in question? Navou banter / review me 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Context? If it is randomly placed in the lead for the article, it could be spam, but if it is in a section discussing its DVD releases and what have you, I think it would be fine. EVula // talk // // 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is Endurance (TV series) and the line appears mid-way through the article under "Other production notes" discussing the show's past networks, etc. (by the way, no offensive sarcasm was intended, just trying to lighten things up with a little humor given all the anger and angst on these pages!) JGHowes 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would say removal would be appropriate in this instance. It does not seem to add to the article. Navou banter / review me 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from AIV -- regarding User:Bill Clark[edit]

I think we should assume good faith here and put the blankings down to Bill Clark trying to remove the spam concerns from his edits RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I assume good faith, but I almost wonder if a preventative block isn't in order... it appears he is speedy tagging or removing content from articles he contributed to and while I don't question that he feels he is doing the right thing, it is creating alot of work for others. That said I also don't want to do something that might be perceived as a "kick in the ass on the way out the door"...--Isotope23 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with a preventative block as I thought he had already gone, maybe just a few hours though, just so its not as Isotope23 put it a "kick in the ass on the way out the door" RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I issued a 24 hr block and tried my best to explain it to Bill Clark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This is absolutely preventative and not punative so if anyone disagrees and/or has a conversation with him that makes this block moot I have no objection to shortening or lifting it (or this being boldly done by another admin). My whole goal here is to stop any content removal and or personal attacks from continuing that this point when the editor is very obviously upset.--Isotope23 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Per a conversation with the editor on his talk page, he is done blanking content and I've removed the block.--Isotope23 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A troll and possible sockpuppet - User:63.17.56.54[edit]

  • 63.17.56.54 (talk · contribs) is making personal attacks and adding/spamming questionable links. Please investigate. Thank you. Levine2112 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Friday[edit]

I feel Im being stalked by Friday. He turns up almost everywhere I go now. Can anything be done about this as I feel threatenede by his constant attention to my every move. I have asked him to stop it a few times [12] but he just carries on.

[13] [14] [15] [16] To which I replied with this trying to warn him off:[17] He then deleted one of my comments on a talk page. here:[18] More diffs to follow as I find them --Light current 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You give no actual evidence of stalking, just of two articles that apparently both of you have edited. Contribs logs are public for good reason, and even if he had looked through your contribs (which is not a given; you'd be amazed at the amount of stuff some people have on their watchlist) that isn't necessarily bad. For instance, in the Jester case, he appears to remove a non-standard header, in that most articles don't start with a "description" header; is that problematic? Is that an attempt to improveme of the encyclopedia, or an action made solely to annoy you? WP:FAITH suggests the former. >Radiant< 12:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hes following me alright. ill prove it. Since I put the hdg in, its obviosly to annoy me --Light current 12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that depends. It is apparent that his removal of the heading did annoy you. However, it is also apparent that we do not in general employ such "description" headers. So it would appear that the intent was to bring the page in line with our standards. >Radiant< 12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed. But why should he suddenly jump onto the Jester page like that? I did because someone accused me of acting like a court jester and I just wanted to get the right defn. I also tried to tidy the article whilst I was threr. Why did Friday then go to that page and revert my edit? And why has he suddenly become interested in Valve audio amplifiers?--Light current 12:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
He reverted your edit because it took out the lead of the article. I would have done the same. Trebor 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok but why did he follow me there if not just to stalk?--Light current 13:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Harassment:
Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)
The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.
This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.
Just following you isn't stalking. --Onorem 13:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
But he is harrasing me. Has been for months. Ive tried to ingnore him becuase if I say anything , he blocks me>I have had to give up my important word on Audio amplifier pages becuase he has followed me there and started to criticise my posts.--Light current 13:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That last diff you provided also shows an uncivil comment you made. While I don't think removing comments from talk is correct, I think you shouldn't be making uncivil comments in the first place. Jeffpw 13:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Admitted. But what has this to do with the current stalking problem?
He's hardly the only person who has blocked you. He most likely looked over your contribution log, saw a change that was contrary to style guidelines and reverted. That is not stalking, nor is it disruptive. Trebor 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
OK then what about his sudden appearnce on trhe Valve audio amplifier talk page?--Light current 13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Explain how his comments there are disruptive. They look pretty reasonable to me. The fact that he may have got there through your contribution log isn't relevant if he isn't doing anything unreasonable while there. Trebor 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hes starting to cause trouble by interefering in a long running discussion between me and another difficult editor Tubnutdave. Ive given up oin those pages now as its just to stressful to deal with 2 awkward customes. So he has effectively disrupted the progreess on all those articles. --Light current 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I can't see any evidence of interfering. If you want to give up on them, that's your choice. Trebor 13:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
So you dont give a shit about anyone else causing actual disruption when Im accused of it almos frigging daily??--Light current 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Show me how is he is being disruptive. Trebor 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Friday is attempting to resolve the problems between you and this Tubnutdave? If there is an underlying content dispute there, you could request a third opinion or comments at any time. >Radiant< 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes but youve got to ask yourself why has he suddenly taken an interest here when the situation was under control, and I had asked another Admin to advise me on proper action I should take on these pages.
I'm sorry but you can't ban editors you dislike from editing certain pages. Unless he's doing something wrong, then what do you want to be done? Trebor 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
People (like me) have been blocked for much less then Friday is doing. Im not asking for that. I would like Friday to be advised to stop folowing me around and harrasssing me . Thats all! --Light current 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not harrassment. Proto:: 14:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Why so bold a statement?--Light current 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Watching the contributions of a disruptive editor is not stalking or harrassment. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
watching is not. But commenting IS--Light current 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No it's not. If an editor is disruptive (which you often are) then it's perfectly legitimate. You could, of course, stop being disruptive and watch the problem solve itself... Guy (Help!) 15:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
How am I disruptive within the WP defn?--Light current 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, for one, you make ungrounded accusations of stalking and harassment. >Radiant< 15:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Circular argument!--Light current 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Only if you can show these accusations are legitimate. An editor editing a few of the same pages as you isn't stalking or harassment. Trebor 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. Proto:: 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Were all dicks. It takes one to know one!-Light current 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How old are you? Trebor 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If thats not an impertinent Q, Im as old as you want me to be!--Light current 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we get Light current back on the straight and narrow?[edit]

I'm actually at a loss as to what to do about Light current. He's obviously a very intelligent person, but his inability – feigned or genuine – to respond to any sort of criticism in a productive way is poisoning his ability to participate in Wikipedia.

Gentle suggestions, polite reminders, and detailed explanations of why his behaviour is problematic have all failed, repeatedly. His response to any such advice is almost always rudeness (rm less than useless post, rm noise) often with a dash of I-dare-you-to-block-me-so-I-can-cry-admin-abuse-again thrown in for good measure: "Gonna block me again?" "Why so impatient my furry friend?".

See also this thread on SCZenz's talk page, where (until SCZenz erased the insults and trolling) Light current was attempting to goad several admins into either another pointless argument or outright blocking by accusing us of 'fuzzy thinking and of course cowardice' for ignoring his taunts.

A word of caution; Light current takes a very active hand in the maintenance of User talk:Light current (check out that history tab) and it may be rather difficult to follow the conversations there. While he does not alter anyone's signed remarks, he does freely rearrange comments and delete remarks that he doesn't like. While it is probably permissible for him to do so, it may give the casual reader a somewhat skewed perspective of what conversation actually took place.

So, how do we get LC back on the straight and narrow? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We can't do anything. The ball is in LC's court. At some point, and probably soon, LC will run out of community patience and this will no longer be an issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Light Current twice deleted this thread, by the way. Thatcher131 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You mean ADMINS will run out of patience? I didnyt know that Admins represented the whole community; comprising as they do only about 0.1% of it!--Light current 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying there are other users who would think differently? I would love to hear from them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you want a non-admin view, I would say that judging by that block log it really is only a matter of time. Anyone with a block history like that needs to have a very serious rethink of their conduct here. Moreschi Deletion! 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes and who is the cuase of the long block log. Not me, but erroeous Admins who dont know the blocking policy!--Light current 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There's your problem right there: anyone who has attracted as much criticism and comment as you have and still believes that the problem is other people is headed for trouble. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You wouldnt be an A****n by any chance would you?--Light current 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it very unlikely that so many admins were wrong about you so many times, is it even a little possible that you may have earned a few of those blocks? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes about two. Where I was very offensive to some editors. All the others have been setups and well outside blocking policy.--Light current 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Since persuasion hasn't worked, the remaining option is coercion. Various forms of coercion are available, such as civility parole, revert parole and general probation. They could conceivably be applied by community (admin) consensus, but I'm sure Light Current would not respect that. So that leaves us with arbitration, which can apply those coercive remedies. Arbitration would also give Light Current a chance to contest the blocks he thinks were inappropriate. I'm not sure that the case wouldn't turn into a train wreck, but I don't see the (admin) community being able to apply any useful remedies, short of a permanent ban, which seems much too drastic at this point. Thatcher131 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Could we have some unbiased non admin comment here please?--Light current 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's one: Light Current, you are acting like a classic paranoid conspiracy theorist. It will be very difficult for you to get much real sympathy as long as you continue to act this way. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Clarification requested, are you suggesting that all admins are biased against you? - CHAIRBOY () 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Im sure not all are. Only the ones whove blocked me plus SCZ (who hasnt yet -I dont think so anyway)Light current 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, you said just a few lines up that two of the blocks were justified. So are the admins who justifiably blocked you biased against you?? Trebor 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The situation is clear-cut, Thatcher. Whatever we decide to do, including community sanctions, we should just do rather than using up ArbCom's time. -- SCZenz 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And what trumped up charge are you going to use this time?Light current 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that you have enough community support for an escalating series of blocks to enforce a civility parole or probation, LC still has the option of appealing to arbcom. Something tells me that he won't meekly accept the judgement of the "community" here, so it will end up there one way or the other. Thatcher131 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If Light current appeals to ArbCom, that is fine; they will take up the case if they think it's worth their time, or let the community's decision stand if it looks ok to them. I'd rather let the arbitrators judge what they should pursue than use them as a crutch for things we can handle ourselves. -- SCZenz 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that admin comments are biased, LC; that in itself is an assumption of bad faith. Ok, here's a non-admin observation. Your talk page has been on my watchlist since November 6, when you dumped an off-topic debate onto Talk:Saddam Hussein. I reverted it; you reinstated it. I went to your talk page to explain to you why I was deleting it. Your response was aggressively argumentative. I've been looking in on your talk page from time to time since then, and I'm at a loss to understand the situation. It literally does not seem to ever occur to you that you might be wrong and that someone else might have a valid point. What I see here is a textbook case of exhausting the community's patience. It might help you to voluntarily take yourself away from Wikipedia for a week or two to get some perspective. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You mean ;
Please read the RD rules. Discuusion should be moved to the approprate page. is aggressively argumentaive? Howzat?--Light current 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the whole thread, please, and don't think of this as a debate in which you are trying to score points. Think of it as an adult conversation in which the community is trying to show you how you are repeatedly going wrong. A few points to consider about that particular situation: What makes you think that everyone on Wikipedia knows what "RD" means? And what made you so utterly sure of your position that you continued to argue it after I removed the thread dump twice, then repeatedly explained to you that off-topic talk page postings could and should be deleted? You were so focused on your perspective (moving a thread from the reference desk) that you found it literally impossible to consider that the person you were talking to might have a valid point. It still does not seem to occur to you. Even now, you appear to be trying to score debating points, as opposed to considering what I'm telling you with an open mind. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Another non-admin opinion here: I agree with Jim Douglas above. From my observations (reading here and other boards, as well as watching the reference desk debates), it seems that LC obviously perceives a conflict with a number of admins sparked from the reference desk concerns, and when challenged on those conflicts immediately goes on the defensive. I personally find his responses to many of the comments that people make regarding his actions to be rather unnecessarily argumentative, even when people are trying to offer positive assistance, and would agree that he could do well to take some time and think about the situation before continuing in that fashion. Barring that, arbitration may be the next necessary step to clear this up. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
THe 'solution' is simple. People back off! I back off. We all live happily ever after!--Light current 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
OTOH maybe we need something that has been suggested before: an RfC. I wasnt keen on it before, but I think it may give a broader picture of feelings pro and anti. So if anyone wants to start one, be my guest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talkcontribs) 11:58, February 2, 2007
I would hope an RFC would be unnecessary, but you are able to open one on yourself if you so choose, Light current. In fact it would be a sign of good faith in the community's ability to police itself if you did so, since you seem to believe that the administrators are biased against you. I believe that you are intelligent enough to see that what you are doing is at times disruptive and rules lawyering without an RFC, but it's up to you (or some other user) to take that step if necessary. -- nae'blis 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My non admin opionion is that for some of the blocks I would not have blocked as soon. However, given the repeating cycles of bahviour the blocks were probably inevitable. No one action leads to these blocks but rather a persistent nipping at the heels. Such behaviour becomes less and less tolerable as time marches on. It is certainly disruptive as seen by the reams of discussion devoted to general behavior on the ref desk (admittedly not all due to LC). LC is always looking for loop holes in the rules. The problem is that in wikipedia the rules are interpreted but not necessarily literally. This seems to be a lesson that LC refuses to learn. Another lesson that seems to not sink in is that persisient niggling is a culmulative offense. The slate is not clean after each block but rather patterns of editing are acted on to prevent further disruption. In LC's case the patterns are so clear that he is no longer has the benefit of the doubt given to other editors. Yet, he seems to think he should be treated as a newbie for each new interaction despite his huge block log and masses of experience here it wikipedia (>30,000 edits). To say that LC does not adapt to the wikipedia environment would be an understatement. David D. (Talk) 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Open a frigging RfC on me. I demand it! Then ALL the shit can be brought into view! ¬Light current 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought you wanted to wait until your shoulder had healed? David D. (Talk) 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I am in pain yes having just fallen out of the chair onto my bad arm. But I think its important to persue the convo here. BTW Im impressed with your neutrality, lack of bias, and maturity so I would like to nominate you for Admin If you dont mind! We need more of your sort in admin positions!--Light current 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Community Ban for User:Light current?[edit]

Now I haven't had the pleasure with this gentleman yet (denied unblock once, I think), but after looking at that block log, and finding this wish for another user to die on the first glance at his contributions, my only question is: why are we still wasting time here and not ban him for good? (I've issued an one week block for that attack, incidentally; feel free to shorten or lengthen it if deemed necessary). Sandstein 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ban him for good. Arbcom is not needed for obvious cases like this. WAS 4.250 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Seconded (or third-ed). User's behavior seems to be an ongoing problem and a major time-sink, with no light (no pun intended) at the end of the tunnel. Turn the page. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Fourthed (or seconded again, if one prefers). No need to waste ArbCom time, and an RfC would just be treading water. If Light wants to help us build an encyclopedia, it would probably be better to do so with a fresh start and without all this behind them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I completely agree - he has exhausted the community's patience. CharonX/talk 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sixthed. —bbatsell ¿? 04:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LC's having a bit of a tantrum on his user talk page about a lot of this. probably needs a good community supported cool off, if not more. ThuranX 05:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page, to prevent him from issuing a third unblock request after two were denied and to stop him from getting into even more trouble for incivil edits. Feel free to undo if you believe the tantrum is over. Sandstein 07:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Per consensus here, I have changed the duration of the block to indefinitely. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As the target of his threat, I'd like to reiterate that I think this might be excessive. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Indefinite blocks for community pain are really not for established users who speak unpopular opinions, but rather for the trolls who play with the wiki. I'm no fan of this user, haven't had pleasant interractions, but going to infinite is excessive. Geogre 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging from my admittedly limited interaction with him, this is not a case of suffering for unpopular opinions (except if that counts as an opinion for you), but a case of incessant disruption. Given his history, he is unlikely to heed yet another warning, and so I fail to see what other measure will stop us from ever having to waste more time on his misconduct. Let him seek the attention he appears to need somewhere else. Sandstein 15:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm seriously torn here. There's no question that Light current is a major pain in the ass. And yet, he's got over 30,000 edits, and his mainspace edits appear to be valuable contributions to electrical engineering related topics. Here's the current summary for User:Light_current, run at Sat Feb 3 18:08:12 2007 GMT:
     Image talk:               4
     Image:                    51
     Mainspace                 11716
     Talk:                     7012
     Template:                 6
     User talk:                3415
     User:                     340
     Wikipedia talk:           2089
     Wikipedia:                5730
     avg edits per article     7.40
     earliest                  05:33, 1 August 2005
     number of unique articles 4105
     total                     30363
It appears that he's never actually been blocked for more than a week at a time (he's been blocked for as long as a month, then paroled after a few days). And he's never really been blocked at all, as he uses his talk page as a soap box through his blocks. He appears to have been a valuable contributor for a year before the civility issues started last August. It may be that he has personal issues that he needs to work through. I've had almost no contact with him, so I could be completely off-base here. But if the admins who have been dealing with his crap think there's any possibility of salvaging him as a useful contributor, then we should try a longer block, for at least a month or two, with his soap box locked down, with a clear understanding on his return that the community's patience has run out. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to support a longer cooling-off period, so that Light current can deal with whatever demons he has at the moment. There is no question that when LC is being productive, he is an asset to the encyclopedia. (Note, however, that the edit counts above may be somewhat misleading—LC doesn't seem to make effective use of the preview button or the minor edit tick box.)
After Light current's initial 3RR block last August, it looks from the block log like he got himself rather worked up and started making additional personal attacks, which led in turn to longer blocks. It appears that we have a similar situation here. Light current failed to respond to warnings, was blocked, and then decided to climb the Reichstag. In the August case, he eventually cooled off and went back to being a productive contributor. As short blocks haven't been working here, perhaps a month will allow him time to gain some perspective. I hate to write him off completely at this point.
Note that it will probably be best to leave his talk page protected during this period. As Jim Douglas has noted, Light current has a history of using his talk page to rant, soapbox, and work himself up while blocked. (Sometimes this behaviour has led to extensions of his blocks.) Looking at his edit history, the last couple of times he was blocked he was racking up about a hundred edits per day on his talk page before it was protected. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I second TenOfAllTrades's assessment. As someone who has been keeping a close eye on LC for a period of time now, I believe he needs a significant time away from WP to realise that this isn't a game. Moreover, I also think any block now, or in the future, should be accompanied with by talk page protection, as he uses that to build up an head of steam which makes the problem worse. I would support a month block and, on its expiry, it being made clear to LC that should his disruptive behaviour continue it will be indefinite next time. Rockpocket 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I support this course of action, although I think it is rather unlikely to work, because I see no reason not to try. Maybe a month or two off, with a clear statement that he's going to be indef blocked if he continues his previous pattern of behavior, will change, his mind. I don't want him gone if it's at all avoidable—and if he comes off his block and behaves poorly, then he'll be just as indef blocked as he is now. Perhaps we should also consider a community ban from pages that lead him into trouble, if that's possible—although I think it would be difficult, since the page that leads him into trouble the most is his own talk page. -- SCZenz 21:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I would support a longer cool-off period, but not an indefinite ban; that seems too much like retribution. Remember the starting header was "How do we get Light current back on the straight and narrow?" which I think is a far better aim than "how do we remove him as a problem?" Trebor 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this comment is fair to those supporting indef blocks; I'll write a more detailed note on your talk page. The gist is: our ultimate aim is to write a quality encyclopedia, and either of the two goals you quote may become necessary in order to achieve that end. -- SCZenz 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a real downside to trying the month instead of an indefinite block? If it goes negative after that, it'll be indef soon enough, and not many people here have contested the value of contributes made. Bitnine 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
And I've responded more fully on your talk page.I apologise for characterising the motives behind people's opinions of the length of bans; given my limited involvement, I will let others decide. Trebor 22:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SCZenz's comments on Trebor's talk. If all of you would like to spend your time babysitting looking after this editor instead of, well, writing a quality encyclopedia, it's not my business to tell you not to. In the case that we do not have consensus for a ban, which I still think is the sensible thing to do, I support SCZenz's proposal: a longer cool-off period, combined with the prospect of an immediate indefinite block in the case of any further disruption. Consider, though: It's quite apparent from his behaviour that Light current has not just poor social graces, but substantial personal issues (of whatever sort). Wikipedia is not therapy, and I'm not sure that his continued stay here would be of benefit to him (let alone to us, of course). Sandstein 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC) — Addendum: "Babysitting" was a poor choice of words, sorry. Sandstein 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) I agree with the above, that a longer cool off period, but not an indefinite block, is the best solution. Light current has been a productive contributor and could be one again. I think there's consensus for resetting the block timer to one month, no? One thing that would be helpful is telling, no, urging, him to do his absolute best to not interact with Hipocrite, Ten, Friday. What do people think of this? Picaroon 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with reducing the block to a month. When he returns, I would suggest that interaction with Hipocrite, Ten, Friday should be avoided completely. Addhoc 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Two of the users you listed are part of the team of administrators who've been dealing with his behavior; they can't very well avoid interacting with him unless there are replacements for them, and frankly I don't think they've done anything that would justify asking them to avoid him. And if they're not avoiding him, I don't see how exactly to tell them to avoid him. -- SCZenz 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that they should avoid each other, and this includes them not following LC around and correcting everything he does. If he makes mistakes, let others correct them. StuRat 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have several comments:

1) If somebody files a complaint at AN/I, the responses should either be to support the complaint or oppose it, but in no case should the user who issued the complaint be blocked as a result of having made the complaint. Such an action makes people feel they can no longer request assistance here. This is a disturbing pattern I've seen here. Remember, just because a user may have engaged in uncivil behaviour doesn't mean they lose the right to complain if they are, or feel they are, in turn, treated uncivilly. This should be a "safe place" to voice concerns, not a place where issuing a complaint gets you blocked. This is an important safety valve.

2) An indefinite ban should only be used on people who solely engage in vandalism. This is not LC, he has made thousands of useful contributions.

3) If LC's complaint about Friday doesn't fall within the technical definition of Wikistalking, perhaps the def should be a bit broader. If I, for example, followed Friday around and made trivial changes to each of his contributions (added a comma here, changed a word to a synonym there, etc.), this wouldn't qualify as Wikistalking either, but it would likely annoy Friday, so I wouldn't do it. Think of real world stalking. If a person follows you into every public place you go, wouldn't that make you nervous ?

4) To take an example, if Friday hadn't reverted LC's insertion of the "Description" header in the jester article, what would have happened ? Perhaps another user would have removed it, or perhaps they would have improved the situation. I do tend to agree with LC that the detailed description of the clothing of a jester wasn't appropriate for the intro, yet some intro did need to remain. Had Friday left LC's addition in place, we may have ended up with a better article, with a new intro that didn't go into that level of detail on the clothing, and the detailed description properly listed under the "Description" header LC added. Friday should try to see what LC was trying to accomplish and assist him (by writing a new intro that didn't get into clothing details, in this case), rather than just deleting LC's contributions.

So, to conclude, can't we all just be a bit more patient with people who disagree with us and try to cool things off rather than trying to escalate conflict ?

StuRat 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that if the end result when user A issues a good-faith complaint at AN/I about user B is that user A gets blocked, that's exceedingly unfortunate and gives the appearance of punishing whistleblowers, etc. Unfortunate as the pattern is, though, we can't just say that "no one who issues a complaint at AN/I may himself be blocked", because we would then set ourselves up for (a) endless abuse by trolls who would issue good-faith complaints and then turn into royal pains in the neck, and (b) people issuing non-good-faith complaints.
(I'm not saying that Light Current was being an annoying troll, or that his complaint against Friday was not in good faith. I don't know about either of those.)
However, a bit more needs to be said about the allegation of stalking. All of us care about this encyclopedia. If I (or anyone) notice a conspicuously bad edit, I/we are quite likely to check that editor's contribution log to see if any similarly bad edits have been made by that same editor elsewhere. If so, I/we are going to fix them. What else can we do? Tie our hands and avoid fixing them, let a pattern of bad edits continue, just to avoid being labeled a stalker? No, of course not. It's a wiki, anyone can edit anything at any time in order to make it better. How you got there doesn't matter.
(I'm not saying that Light Current was performing "conspicuously bad edits". But as several people have pointed out already, it's only stalking if done to harass or annoy. Making a simple improvement shouldn't be construed as harassment.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have elaborated in his talk page, but I wanted to note here that StuRat's interpretation of the build up towards this action is not accurate. LC's block was not in response to his complaint here. A number of admins have been discussion a solution to LC's disruption for a while now, one recent exchange where indef blocks were discussed (see User talk:SCZenz#Blocked Light current) started before LC's complaint was made. Rockpocket 04:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Though I have no opinion on whether LC should be banned or not, I have to object to your second point above. Per WP:BAN, users whom the community has deemed disruptive or those who have exhausted the community patience may be banned for such. I myself had mixed interactions with LC, some good, some bad, and so do not wish to pass judgment on his worthiness on Wikipedia. --210physicq (c) 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Physicq's comment on point 2; Wikipedia policy in regard to community bans is well-established, and for good reasons. I object to point 1 rather strongly: Light current was not, in fact, blocked for issuing his complaint, but it was a symptom of a broad overall pattern of problematic behavior and has been treated as such in these discussions. If you think his accusations toward User:Friday are the primary issue here, then you are barking up the wrong tree. -- SCZenz 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Come on, now. There has been no mention of LC here since a thread way back in the archives that started Jan 18th (again in response to a complaint about another user, in this case one I added). Then, immediately after LC made a complaint here, there is talk of an indefinite community ban on LC. It's even titled as a subsection of the original complaint to show that this ban is, in fact, related to his complaint. To say that this is all just a coincidence and LC would have been blocked at the same time had he not issued a complaint here simply isn't credible. Issuing a complaint should not be seen as even a partial cause for blocking the complainer, all that does is silence the discussion, which isn't healthy at all. And LC, in particular, hasn't been making large numbers of complaints here, in any case. StuRat 02:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What isn't credible is any notion that issuing a complaint here, or anything other than LC's own consistently over the top behavior [19], had anything to do with it. Any user is free to raise any complaint they'd like here, and if anyone is ever blocked for raising an issue here please let me know (I will personally unblock them). What they're not free to do is belligerently argue about it, repeatedly delete relevant commentary, and tell other editors to drop dead. Anyone who does so risks being blocked. Anyone with LC's history who does so risks being banned. He exhausted my patience quite a while ago. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Block has been changed to a month. Talk page will remain protected for LC's own safety during that time. pschemp | talk 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good reflection of the consensus here to me; although many prefer an indef block, it's best to err on the side of giving him one more chance. -- SCZenz 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's not a bad solution. I've now extended his talk page protection accordingly. Sandstein 00:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Light current shouldn't be community banned. Okay, so I've had no experience with this user, but based on his contributions to electrical-related topics have been useful, not disruptivr, maybe he should be given another chance. --sunstar nettalk 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
A while ago, I recall someone having suggested mentorship/adoption/whatever-it's-called for Light current. I think someone gave it a go. Did that lead anywhere? Might this be an option when he returns to editing? ---Sluzzelin 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I also do not consider a community ban to be an adequate resolution to the issue at this stage. The block seems ok; I may even reduce it to two weeks, as one month still seems a bit harsh to me. But I do think that perhaps the best solution to this may be for it to end up in ArbCom's court. I'm not sure how helpful an RfC would be, and there have been repeated attempts to bring closure to the RD debate, and all the issues that sprang up from it, by unaffiliated third parties. The lack of results from those discussions tells me that mediation will not work. I sure would hate to lose a qualified user over this, but there may be a need for gradual, enforcable restictions to be placed on him. Titoxd(?!?) 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    Please don't reduce the block duration to two weeks. I strongly believe that LC needs at least a month away from Wikipedia to clear his head and gain some perspective. Reducing the block to two weeks would not be in his best interest. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    Please don't do that, TitoxD. Consensus in this discussion is pretty clearly for a month. I'll leave a more detailed message on your talk page. -- SCZenz 10:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with StuRat. Indef is absurd, and a month is harsh. As for it being a reaction to his filing a complaint here, hey A then B. Amazing time correlation for it to be a mere coincidence. And he has made many valued contributions. Edison 05:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    Indef isn't "absurd"; it was a reasonable proposal, and it may still become necessary. In my opinion, though, it's premature to write off a contributor who has made valuable contributions in the past, and may still do so in the future. The block was not a reaction to LC's posting here; it was in response to a long history of civility problems. Blocking him for a month is a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, and I hope it will give him the time he needs to gain some perspective. It's not punitive in any sense; it's a measured response to a history of disruptive behaviour. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    Of course it's not just a coincidence, Edison. Light current was having substantial civility problems, and he decided to post here to counter what he feels is harassment (namely, administrators intervening with regard to his behavior); he behaved rather uncivilly in the process of the discussion itself, which brought his behavior to the attention of various users, who looked at his contributions and proposed that an indef ban might be appropriate. A month is harsh for any particular action he's taken, but not at all when taken cumulatively. Unless you've gone through the literally thousands of edits, since August, that some of us have been dealing with, and believe that Light current does not have a substantial and continuing civility problem, it would be good of you to assume good faith and not make barely-veiled allegations of administrative misconduct. (If you have evidence of administrative misconduct, please file a request for comment and include diffs.) -- SCZenz 10:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    To be clear, Light currrent was making a concerted effort to raise the hackles of several other editors – I was one – through a series of attacks and insults. (A non-exhaustive list appears at the beginning of the section #How do we get Light current back on the straight and narrow? above.) Having seen that particular pattern of behaviour before, we were ignoring it, in the hope that Light current would cool off and go back to constructive editing. We were trying not to indulge his penchant for wikilawyering and wilful ignorance of the problems with his behaviour. When presented with criticism, Light current's response is often very hasty and often rude. This happens even with neutral third parties who attempt to give him good advice. This incivility tends to get worse if one gets sucked into the discussion; we hoped to turn off the taps and encourage him to calm down. I know that I considered posting about the problem on this page, and I imagine that some others did the same. Nevertheless, it didn't strike me as likely to help Light current calm down—so I refrained.
    Instead of finding more constructive pursuits, Light current decided to bring his message here. He decided to cast the dispute as solely a problem with him and Friday. He decided to argue with the advice of several other editors, and he decided to refuse to let the matter drop. At that point it seemed reasonable to broaden the discussion to properly include Light current's own conduct. Yes, I'm sure that Friday was watching Light current's edits; no, I don't think it was stalking. It was an administrator keeping an eye on an editor who had been engaging in very rude behaviour, and who in the past had deliberately damaged articles (while angry) to make a point (see the history of You have two cows). No editor should be particularly surprised to find that posting on the Administrators' Noticeboard might prompt an admin or two to look at their behaviour—particularly bad conduct that has happened in the preceding twenty-four hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ten, I just don't think that's proper behavior. If we are going to do that, there should be a warning: "any non-Admin who issues a complaint here will have their contributions reviewed with a fine-toothed comb and will be blocked if any justification can be found". StuRat 21:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
But I think you're hyperbolizing again. The warning would be, "If you're engaged in contentious battles with numerous other editors, and if you bring a complaint about one of them to AN/I, and if you continue your contentious rhetoric during the AN/I discussion, it's possible you'll find the administrators at AN/I determining that you're at least partially at fault." (This is of course similar and analogous to a warning which I believe is explicitly stated for RfC.)
But I have to disagree with one thing Ten said, too. It is not clear that Light Current was "making a concerted effort to raise the hackles of several other editors". We can't know his motives for sure, and even if we somehow could know, AGF and/or Hanlon's razor suggests that we keep mum about that aspect, and merely observe that he "is raising the hackles of several other editors". —Steve Summit (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's proposal[edit]

I'd like to chime in. I'm not an admin, so I don't know if I'm "speaking" out of turn, but because LC is (between the sniping) a generally positive contributor on quite a prolific level, I'd like to suggest a shorter block if LC agrees to the following:

  1. not debating issues regarding his behaviour to date (ie letting it lie - and it would help, good behaviour permitting, and be fair if everyone else did the same)
  2. accepting a parole period with full knowledge that any flagrant bad behaviour will bring an extremely lengthy or indefinite block
  3. accepting mentoring from an admin not previously involved in this conflict for the duration of the parole period
  4. not posting to any Ref Desk at all, (or talk page thereof!) for the duration of the parole period

I would hope that such restrictions will help LC focus his attention on productive editing to the mutual benefit of all. I would hope that those who have been in conflict with him would avoid edits that may provoke him. Please do consider this proposal. --Dweller 11:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're not speaking out of turn; this page is used by everyone to discuss issues requiring administrative action. Proposals on ways forward are definitely appreciated, since we're kind of out of good ideas.
I support all those conditions once he's unblocked, but I do not support a reduction of the block time, or at least not a substantial reduction. The reason is that this block is not punitive; it is rather a chance to give Light current a chance to cool down and reflect on his participation in Wikipedia, and it is my opinion that his chances of successfully turning over a new leaf are much higher if he takes a substantial cool down period. -- SCZenz 11:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the challenge. (I'm speaking generally, not trying to disagree with any of the above.) The hypothesis is that admins have not been ganging up on Light Current and that the block is not punitive. The problem, of course, is that when a user has become convinced that admins are ganging up on him, it's next to impossible for that user not to believe that blocks are punitive. It's also next to impossible for that user to ever realize that the admins were not ganging up on him in the first place. Therefore, as we've seen all too many times, these things usually go from bad to worse, with Arbcom cases and bans at their end. I wish this outcome weren't so inevitable; I wish there were some alternate path along which the disillusioned editor could realize and accept the more positive reality of the situation. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is the language we use. There may not be any "ganging up", and the blocks may not be punitive, but the whole tone of the debate is that the disillusioned editor is wrong, that his behavior has been unacceptable, that he needs to change whether he wants to or not. There's a subsection above titled "How do we get Light current back on the straight and narrow?" which is an example of this. In the previous paragraph I wrote of the disillusioned editor needing to "accept the reality of the situation", which is another example of this. (I tried to soften it by adding the words "more positive", but it's still too harsh.)
Someone who firmly believes that he is in the right and his detractors are in the wrong, and who for whatever reason entertains the thought "and they're ganging up on me" before ever considering "but I might be wrong", can very easily fall into a trap in which every new voice that's trying to help him, no matter how gently and compassionately, is heard to be yet another gang member joining the chorus of "you're wrong and you need to change". The disillusioned editor does need to change, and in many cases the change isn't even a big or difficult one, but the editor needs to make the change because he wants to, not because he's being told he has to. And it's not easy, in that situation, to get to the point where you want to make the change. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the problem. Since he is wrong, his behavior has been unacceptable, and he does need to change, I am not sure how to solve it. Based on my experience, pretending these things are not true would only serve to embolden him. -- SCZenz 14:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't have to pretend they're not true, but we may have to be more diplomatic in the way we present them. In particular, if our view of the ideal solution is that we could ever get to a point where we can all get along (as opposed to, say, a point where those of us who can't are banned), it's clear that Light current is never going to be able to get along with SCZenz as long as SCZenz says things like "he is wrong" or "he does need to change". (Not trying to give you a hard time here or anything, just observing a fact.) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand the limitations of Light current's ability to get along with other users (especially those offering harsh but civil criticism), but I think there's a limit to how much we can treat him with kid gloves; whether we expect he'll react badly or not, he is still responsible for his reactions. You are right, of course, that we should be as diplomatic as possible, but I am at a loss for how to be very diplomatic at this point. I would love to have your suggestions to how to handle our current situation:
The situation, in brief, is that Light current has a pattern of uncivil and agressive behavior toward other users; he has exhausted the patience of many community members, and the consensus is to block him from the site for a month and then give him one more chance. If upon his return he demonstrates that he is either unable or unwilling to understand the problems with his previous behavior, and modify it appropriately, he will very likely be indefinitely blocked in short order. Now, how do you propose to present this situation accurately but more diplomatically? -- SCZenz 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, shoot, you would have to ask that. If I knew how to, I wouldn't be playing pretend tinhorn diplomat here on Wikipedia, I'd be a real diplomat, and I would have solved the crises in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Darfur, and South Central L.A. by now, and I'd have two or three Nobel Peace Prizes on my mantlepiece. --Steve Summit (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

LC is intelligent and has admitted to being occasionally been out of line. The admins have also made admitted to occasional mistakes. But I believe that the real key here is to draw a line and move on. There's no point in a to and fro debate on what's gone on. The steps I've suggested above (now flatteringly named after me, lol) are intended to restore a status of useful contribution without conflict. It's also about perceptions of reality on both sides, as much as objective truth. To summarise:

  • The admins need to feel that LC won't be disruptive
  • LC needs to feel that he is not being stalked

Debating endlessly the rights and wrongs of behavior by all parties to date won't solve either of those situations. --Dweller 14:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughtfulness regarding the situation is appreciated, as is the effort you've put into your analysis. I'd like to offer a couple of observations that might affect your suggestions above, however. First, Light current has a definite tendency to not only assume bad faith, but even when given opportunities essentially identical to what you describe, he keeps sniping at the people he disagrees with. It's not always in the form of posting to their user pages, but he'll make snide little "asides" when talking to other people, he'll post rants on his usertalk, and in the end result is that he's actively poisoning the community. I don't think he intends to do this, but for whatever reason, he seems unable to stop. Look at the edits he makes to his user_talk whenever he's blocked. He begins "churning", for lack of a better word. The pace of his vitriolic edits escalates to a fever pitch and never abates. He'll rules-lawyer things well past resolution when he doesn't like the answer, makes progressively worse attacks on the people he feels have 'wronged' him, and more than one person has ended up protecting his page to, as has been noted above, protect him from himself and prevent further disruption of the project. Before meeting him, I didn't realize it was possible to disrupt the project from a single user talk page, but Light current has enlightened me.
Based on my experience with this user, I predict that the following would happen if your proposal was adopted directly:
  1. He would start out by thanking everyone and promising to edit good. And he would, for about a day. Maybe 10-20 articles about electrical engineering would see improvement.
  2. He'd begin to assert within a day or so that the decision of the abusive administrators had been overturned, using his shortened block as example.
  3. He'd start injecting snide comments into user_talk pages about how he was "banned" from RefDesk, and imply that the man was keeping him down. At this point, he'd be working himself up about the subject.
  4. After 5-6 days, he'd start posting to user talk pages or AN/I messages to the effect of "Hey, look at how good I'm doing, can I come back to RefDesk now?".
  5. If folks said "No", he'd escalate the pitch of his corrosive attacks on the people he feels have 'done him wrong'. He'd start making references to how he's going to RfC them, but won't follow through. Any time someone calls him on this downward spiral, he'll aggressively rules-lawyer them. "Tell me specifically what part of that sentence was in violation of the rules" is a sentiment anyone who interacts with Light current encounters, and it sometimes seems that no matter how many times you answer, he'll ask for the same information again the next time.
I worked with Light current last year to try and get him back onto the path so he wouldn't fall off the cliff. There was a one week block involved. but I kept up the assumption of good faith, I actively worked with him via e-mail to try and keep his spirit up, I did everything I could to make it clear that it was not punitive, and explained the community reasoning behind it. I treated him with respect and kindness, but I stuck to the plan. At the end of the block, his page was unlocked, he was unblocked, and he did great for a while. I think the elements of success are clearly defined in the current plan that the blocking admin is following. At this point, a reduction in the block length will reinforce the feeling that he was 'wronged' and the blocking admin was 'chastised' and will result in a poisonous mood when he returns. But if community consensus remains behind the admin making the difficult decision (which I fully endorse, an editor with such a rich block log really can't assert that he or she 'doesn't get it' at this point), then it has a better chance of being successful when it concludes (defined as Light current returning as a productive editor who has a real understanding of the community's disapproval of his recent actions who can grow as an editor and improve the health of the project, not hurt it). I know Cardinal Richelieu said that, given a letter written by an honest man he could find something in it with which to hang him, and I'm sure I've said something above that will spark controversy, but I'm writing from the perspective of someone who has experience with the user and would like to try and help him get on track again. I've asserted to Light current before that many other users doing the same things he has might have been indef blocked and forgotten ages ago, but it's important that he understand that we really _do_ want him here as a productive, healthy editor because we value his contributions.
Readers digest version of the above: Let the current block duration stand. Don't shorten it, it will hurt Light current's chances of coming back healthy because it will reinforce his belief that he was unjustly blocked in the first place, and this is based on past interactions with him. I like him and don't want him kicked off the project, but he's on a train to perdition without thoughtful admintervention. I support the current blocking admin because I think his plan is the best for bringing Light current back from the precipice. - CHAIRBOY () 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Chairboy, I just don't understand how it's possible to disrupt Wikipedia from a user talk page. What's to prevent everyone from just ignoring whatever he writes there ? "It takes two to tango", after all. StuRat 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Why should he be allowed to use his userpage to call TenOfAllTrades a nazi? (See this edit summary.) That's talk abuse and a severe personal attack rolled into one, and whether you want to call it "disruption" or "just plain outrageous," there's no way I would ask any editor to ignore it. -- SCZenz 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is how. When the idea of ignoring LC's talk-page lawyering in response to warnings was floated, LC himself suggested that "If you cant provide expalnations, you shouldnt be accusing me in the first place. Lack of explanation shows fuzzy thinking and of course cowardice" [20]. In other words, he refuses to accept the validity of requests for him to change his behaviour unless you fully explain your position. This appears reasonable, unless one is familiar with LC's unique brand of lawyering on his talkpage. Every explanation leads to another attempt to point out an imagined flaw (usually involving his interpretation of some policy). This has sucked God knows how many hours of my time, not to mention Friday, ToaT and SCZenz. When this happens ad infinitum, it becomes disruptive. Rockpocket
At some point, you just have to say "No, you are wrong. Bye." —Centrxtalk • 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. And that is exactly what has happened with the lengthy block. Rockpocket 05:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You guys should be able to ignore it if he calls you a Nazi on his talk page. Since it's obvious you aren't actually a member of the German Nazi party, that makes it a rather mild insult. StuRat 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I consider it an egregious insult, and obviously others do too; I have no idea what makes you imagine it isn't. Any user who calls another user a Nazi on Wikipedia can expect to be blocked, especially if the have a continuing pattern of misbehavior, unless they apologize clearly and promptly. -- SCZenz 12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So any insult which isn't actually true is only a mild insult? I can call people c**ts and because they are clearly human beings it only becomes a mild insult? --pgk 12:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not saying anyone has or hasn't done the latter, I haven't looked into this debate just a passing comment on a post I saw. Insults are most normally just calling someone something you think they will find offensive, and I would suggest in most cases that will entail the insult being untruthful. --pgk 12:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If somebody actually could be a NAZI, say if they were born in 1920 in Germany, then it would be a far more serious insult. BTW, where did LC actually say this ? I can't find it. StuRat 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I linked it already above, but here it is again: see the summary of this edit. -- SCZenz 12:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

One of my intentions, as I posted to SCZenz was to show LC that there's no admin plot to "get" him, but if there's prior form for that pattern of behaviour, your words are persuasive. Thank you for the detailed reply. It does seem as if there's a strong consensus for one month. I want a positive LC back on the Project. This really saddens me, but if there's no other way... --Dweller 18:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • (No admin, but have been interacting with LC for a couple of months). I think Dweller's proposal is worth considering (all four bullet points, including the comments in parentheses) regardless of whether the duration of LC's block stands or is reduced. ---Sluzzelin 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Chairboy's summary of the situation. I support a one month community ban, enforced by a block and talk page protection, aimed at giving Light current time to realise that the community (not just a group of admins) are serious about not tolerating this kind of behaviour. Carcharoth 23:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I will be brief (for me ... grin!)... I too agree with Chairboy's summary. I've interacted with LC a bit in the past as well. I do think he's funny, sometimes, and a contributor who wants to contribute positively, but that he has issues he needs to deal with. A month is the right duration this time. (Dweller's restrictions are certianly worth considering after he comes off that month, though) A month... not to be punitive, but because I really think he needs that much time away from the project to contemplate how he can consistently contribute productively and successfully. Please do not reduce it, the consensus for a month seems clear to me. And keep his talk page protected as well so he doesn't spin himself up per previous behaviour. This is an editor that the community has invested a lot of time in trying to save, but it's time for a last chance, and if that fails, time to cut our losses and move on, not throw more good time and effort in after bad. ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't often chime in here, but since I tried to help LC above, I will: I support the one month block and would object to shortening it. I was on the fence about an indefinite block before seeing his contribution patterns, and think there is a way this editor can come back to the fold of reasonableness. I would like to see him find a mentor/someone to bounce things off of when he starts to work himself up (I tried to perform the same function for Cool Cat last year, and I think it helped, some). I think Dweller's suggestion is worth considering, with the knowledge that if he starts acting up again, considerable weight has already been expressed for an indefinite block. -- nae'blis 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I like dwellers proposal but there is too much history here. I agree with chairboy above. To StuRat, any editor that sucks time from other editors on wikipedia is a huge disruption. This nitpicking over rules and regulations at the expense of common sense has to stop. David D. (Talk) 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Is this the gist of the Light current situation:

He has been blocked for incivility and disrupting the reference desk. He has violated WP:USER to attack another user.

I agree that the 1 month block is the right thing to do. When he comes back off it, should he have to undergo some sort of parole/agreement etc. or even a mediation session?? --sunstar nettalk 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

MinaretDk (talk · contribs)[edit]

The user above has requested that their recent block be reviewed a bit further, and his talk page has been fully protected so that he is unable to request that he be unblocked under the conditions that he only edit to a RFC against another user he intended to make for a week. I have no opinion on the matter myself, but the block for a week and the subsequent protection of his talk page just seemed to be something that should perhaps be reviewed by a larger group of administrators, so I'm bringing this here. Cowman109Talk 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is clearly aiming for a community ban, just judging from the talk page alone. Looking even slightly deeper, I see more reasons to confirm the block and some justification (not taken) to extend it. I think a week as a defensive block to allow the user to calm down seems fine. IMHO. REDVEЯS 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nationalist attacking User:Jerrypp772000 again[edit]

His new attack/action of assuming bad faith directed toward Jerrypp772000 apparently has been brought to a new level, as it even now contains vulgar language. He refuses to accept any advice from numerous users, myself included, who had conflict with him about controversial editing. He was warned before and was reported once in here (but no actions were taken at all). Also, I'm positive that he had the experience of being blocked for personal attacks, and it is only getting worse. Vic226 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing user RfC no? I would recommend bringing this up there.--Isotope23 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack by User:Patchouli[edit]

I just found that User:Patchouli had made a strong personal attack during an AfD to the editors of that article implying they are spies of the Intelligent services. (This is an strong attack in Persian, but I don't know Its status in English Language).--Pejman47 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, see his/her contributions ( [[21],...]he was "super active" in recent months pushing his POV regarding Shia Islam in Tens of Articles without getting noticed, I seems that putting things back needs several users without any real life. --Pejman47 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Link to the AfD, please. JuJube 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
sorry, I forgot [22]/. --"This article indicates otherwise. As a result, I conclude it was concocted by the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) in Qom."Pejman47 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Also please see these too: [23] "I thought you were a cleric in the Iranian government." and this [24] "They were added by User:Farhoudk who gainsays being a mullah. Discuss with User:Farhoudk who has made a useful contribution"--Pejman47 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
His edits were also caused the article of Ali Khamenei to be locked. As I said He was "super active" for months, without getting noticed. see his contributions. --Pejman47 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

71Demon, personal attacks[edit]

71Demon (talk · contribs) was blocked a while back for personal attacks, abusive sockpuppetry, and image violations. These blocks were subsequently reviewed on unblock-en-l and were not lifted. He persisted in referring to these blocks as "spite blocks", language he was informed was inappropriate (see [25], he was informed of this repeatedly and the language was removed repeatedly). After returning from the block, 71Demon archived his page and then changed the contents of the archive to once again include "spite block" in these three edits. I left a warning on the user's discussion page here and was informed here by 71Demon once again that I blocked him for spite, etc. etc. This user has been told over and over again, both on Wikipedia and on unblock-en-l, that these personal attacks are unacceptable. I believe it would be inappropriate for me to block the user again and request that another admin look into this matter. --Yamla 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Freddy Krueger[edit]

It would be much appreciated if a few more eyes are on this account- the user was blocked but returned as User:Freddy Krueger Version Good, and claims to have renounced vandalism, but he says he knows he will be permablocked if he vandalizes again. I took a chance and unblocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User Ballog[edit]

Ballog is already mentioned here regarding Afd conduct, and I did mention this briefly there but I think a new section is in order.

He's repeatedly reverting to his version of Billy Byars Jr. which multiple editors have said is a violation of WP:BLP. Because Dhartung !voted to delete his article he's nominated Clint Hartung for deletion, stating "There were over 16,0000 people who have played Major Lague Baseball. Having the same last name as an editor does not meet the Wiki guidelines for notablity". This is clearly in bad faith.

He's also sent me an email after I left a BLP note on his page stating "All information for Billy Byars article has been sourced and referenced. Per Wiki guidlines please do nto unfounded accusattions without citing specific violations. Please be tolerant of others or you rick being banned and/or blocked."

Thanks. One Night In Hackney 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... well looking at the previous version it appears to have huge tracts of ancillary information that is trivial to the subject as well as an "essay"-esque writing style... not to mention only part of it appears to be sourced and there is a legit WP:BLP concern here. I'm watching and if this continues to be subject to a revert war I will protect it.--Isotope23 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This guy keeps spouting "per Wiki guidelines" without saying which ones he's talking about, and then referring to ones who do as "Wikigeeks". I don't predict any useful contributions from this guy in the future. JuJube 20:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on the situation.--Isotope23 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
He called "accusing" him of being belligerent (he obviously is) a personal attack and repeated his same "review Wiki guidelines" drivel. I don't think he's going to change. JuJube 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I left a last warning about the WP:BLP violations. Jkelly 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And he's still doing it. What's especially funny is that he accuses other editors of misrepresenting him and then writes a whole section doing exactly that! JuJube 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The account hasn't edited the article since the warning. Jkelly 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears I am am being stalked. I have repeatedly asked JuJube to refrain from personal attaks and to keep to discussing the article. I always use 'please" and "thank you" but injust the past 5 minutes JuJube has left the following posts:

The only person risking getting blocked here is you. There are already two reports about you on. JuJube

That would be helpful, instead of simply reverting without discussion, being belligerent and overall risking getting blocked. Stop. JuJube

He's not going to do that, because only "wikigeeks" cite policies. JuJube

And this has anything to do with the article how? JuJube

More nitpicking. But that's hardly a surprise. JuJube

Yes. Now take your own advice, and stop doing it! JuJube

This type of behaivor is intolerant and unproductive. Please have it stopped. Ballog 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog


Isotope23 I do agree with your decision on the baseball player Clint Hartung. I would never have believed that just by appearing in the major leagues meats the notability requirements. I'll probably suggest that be changed. Ballog 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog


These were left in the next 5 minutes:

Wrong again. When you state that you yourself have done "Two years of research", that is the definition of original research. Stating otherwise is more of the disruption you are quickly becoming known for. JuJube

Nitpicking. This is just wikilawyering in an attempt to make other editors look bad. JuJube

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. JuJube

  • Since Ballog's only relevant edits are to the "Billy Byars Jr." article and its AfD, a stalking accusation seems a bit frivolous. JuJube 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Could you provide diffs to assist administrators in evaluating your case? Thanks. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415
This is not about diffs, at least as how I understand the definition of diffs. This is about user JuJube leaving me numerous personal attack messages on my User Page and Article Discussion Page in a period of about 10 minutes. I have asked JuJube to talk about the article but I just receive more and more personal attacks and the threat of being blocked.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, Ballog 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog


There's already another section about this with plenty of details. One Night In Hackney 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in the article, Ballog, I am interested in you ceasing your personal attacks of those who are voting to have it deleted. JuJube 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It's also interesting how you characterize anything remotely critical of your actions (such as my rebuttals of your comments against other editors, which you've listed above out of context) as "personal attacks", but your scathing attacks on the competency of editors such as Dhartung are just fine and dandy in your book. Double standards anybody? JuJube 23:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415
Need I say more? I'll let the evidence speak for itself and hope that the type of behaivor demonstrated above can be stopped. Ballog 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Ballog, just a question - what is a personal attack? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415
To answer your question I will paraphrase a great Supreme Court Justice who, when asked "what is the definition of pornography?" answered, "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it!" Well, I may not be able to define a personal attack but I know it when I see it. And I believe most people do too.
Ballog 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Um, yeah. WP:NPA. As you are so fond of saying, "read Wiki guidelines". JuJube 00:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
{replying to Ballog after edit conflict} Wikipedia:No personal attacks is where I would go to learn about what counts as a personal attack. I do not believe that any of JuJube's comments could be considered personal attacks based on this policy. Heimstern Läufer 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You both (JuJube & Ballog) need to back off a bit here. You both have been incivil to each other and I have no idea if you are trying to goad each other into crossing the line here, but just cool it.--Isotope23 00:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll stop. I just frankly got a little pissed at the AfD where this guy spent entire paragraphs mocking RJASE1 and Dhartung. JuJube 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23
I think it's best if people remember the following Wiki guidelines:
Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.
Keeping this is mind, people will concentrate on an article's content and not the author. In this way, we can all improve Wikiworld. Ballog 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Okay, so you've violated policies too. Please stop this, all of you who are acting disruptively. Your behaviour is not acceptable. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Mystic Angel andUser:Daddy1234[edit]

Creating nonsense articles containing email addresses and real life addresses. I can't tell if they're really the people they're claiming to be, or if they're trying to create problems for other people with the names on the articles, but at any rate, they're claiming to be 8th graders, which is problematic for revealing personal information about minors. Corvus cornix 00:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:209.180.119.10[edit]

Just reporting this anon. IP for possible vandalism and reprisals. He edited the owned article "just so" to prove that he "pwned" the article. I reverted it and issued a warning. A few hours later, he made another subtle change to the article (from "leet" to the less-readable "l33t" (that is, less-readable for those not in the know)) and then "pwned" my user page. I issued another warning for the vandalism on my user page, and also gave WP:DISRUPT. Note: I'm not yet fully aware of the reasons behind this, but the talk page of this anon IP address is semiprotected. From what I can gather so far, he appears to have been doing this as a matter of habit, because of the edits he has done to other pages before. --- Tito Pao 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer and Cyrus Farivar[edit]

AmiDaniel closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (4th nomination) with a delete, but User:Phil Sandifer ignored it and restored the article, i redeleted it but he restored it again citing that Jimbo wanted the article to be kept in August 2005, afd has changed alot since then. I dont want to wheelwar further. Any thoughts? Jaranda wat's sup 01:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete and salt. As a note, you aren't wheel warring but instead upholding consensus; you should be proud of it. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cyrus Farivar. Dragons flight 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change.. So can articles. Jimbo's 2005 statement wouldn't particularly be of much essence now. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
And how a delete came of this makes no sense. I can't endorse Phil not going to DRV with this, but what reason would he have to trust it. We've gone completely insane. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Converted to a standard deletion review. Let's centralized discussion on whether it should be deleted or undeleted, instead of having it there, here, WP:AN, and the article's talk page... As to the other issues, let's keep them off deletion review. GRBerry 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nationalist is getting out of hand.[edit]

User:Nationalist is getting way to out of hand. He has been banned 4 times, [26].

Basically he has a political view point which he is pushing into wikipedia articles. The Chinese naming conventions clearly state to use "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and "Taiwan (Republic of China)". But this user is continuously (after being banned still) changing every possible thing he can find to suit his political view. The naming conventions say not to use Taiwan Province, but he still insists of placing it there.

He is becoming very one-viewed and is continually removing users comments asking him for input on his user talk page, simply removing it. [27] [28] [29]

He is also continually moving pages (over redirects sometimes as well), without asking for a view. [30] [31]

He has also been identified as a sockpuppet user[32], and is continually removing the tag from his user page [33] [34], or trying to obscure it. [35] [36]

I am asking for some kind of Admin intervention ASAP. I'm not the only one facing problems with him, other users like, User:Jerrypp772000, User:Vic226, User:Jiang, and User:Yankees76 have all had similar conflicts with him.--Borgarde (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen Nationalist's actions, but I've never been involved. I've blocked him for a month.—Ryūlóng () 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'clast getting out of hand harrassed[edit]

Some POV pushing has now gotten out of hand.[37] POV disputes are one thing, but when it leads to gross misuse of abusive language during an attempt to delete external links that express opposing POV, then we're dealing with POV suppression, leaving an article unbalanced and controlled by those who want it to express only one POV. NPOV is about presenting all significant POV, not suppressing one to favor another.

The foul and abusive language that is quoted is from an osteopath who takes the same position about the article as I'clast, IOW opposition to a good article they don't like. The article itself is perfectly fine, well-referenced, and presents another POV than those who use such language. We shouldn't reward them.

I suggest you check out his edit summaries as well [38] during all these attacks on articles from the great Quackwatch website.[39][40][41][42][43] A bit of simple math might be in place here: On what side of the fence has someone placed themselves when they are anti anti-quackery? (See "double negative" for the answer....;-) -- Fyslee (First law) 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think User:Fyslee may be misunderstadning the "foul language" I'clast inserted into the talk page. I'clast is simply quoting from the link which he deleted and thus providing an example of why this is a poor external link for the Osteopathy article. Levine2112 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I do mention it above, but I'll explain it more here. The quote is from a response to the article, not the article itself, although it is in a box on the same page. (At Quackwatch they usually collect related material on the same page, including selected reader responses.) It is symptomatic of the anti-Quackwatch POV suppression that's going on here, that it was this quote that was chosen and used as an excuse for deleting the link to a good article. It is an echo of the original foul attack made by the irate osteopath! It's certainly not a Wikipedia-relevant policy argument. Whatever the case, it shows that the real motivation for the deletion is POV suppression of opposing POV, a practice that is in conflict with NPOV policy. Editors should ensure and enable all POV to be represented. They must not suppress them. -- Fyslee (First law) 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
But then I'clast was pointing out the opinion of someone who disagreed with the opinion of author of the linked article. So whose opinion are you accusing him of trying to surpress? Levine2112 02:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It's an obvious attempt to suppress the opinion of the QW article itself, and thereby (whether he agrees with the rhetoric or not) supporting the anti-QW sentiments of the attacker. The QW article represents a POV that is pretty much lacking in the sales-brochure-of-an article we have here at Wikipedia. Since articles here should present all significant POV, this external link provides some balance. -- Fyslee (First law) 09:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. A scurrilous author adds forum page material (or worse) to """his""" blogpage that also contains obscenities from unverified sources. After five rebuffs on this point (originally from Levine), I politely expurgated (no obscenities directly written in my quote) a penetrating example from the unsuitable page in case other editors failed to notice. Then Fyslee, an avid longtime supporter of said author and his attack sites, files an AN/I on me for abuse and language?!? Then Fyslee questions my recent edits, which I assiduously summarized and explained, summarized below. This AN/I sounds pretty desparate and probably contravenes NPA and AGF.

It is up to the controversial page author, who is very Wiki aware, who totally controls his page's content, with WP already observed as a major link farm for said author, to attempt to deliver non prejudicial content. Even if he can justify his personal pov as "mainstream" (an ill defined, measured and reported, free floating concept). In principle, the author's website control makes *his* QW page combined with unverifiable commentaries even less acceptable than a forum page.

Re Fyslee's representations about me and my edits: "...osteopath who takes the same position about the article as I'clast..." entirely speculative, wrong and also unverifiable as to the "forum" writers. There are conditions that I would accept a Barrett article; this one fails. "The article itself is perfectly fine, well-referenced, and presents another POV than those who use such language." fine? - mixed format obscenities that poratray an unverifiable author, and perhaps his whole profession, as ignorant & crazed?? with known misrepresented science cases?? Well-referenced? +- opinion. And oh yes, definitely POV. Hammering me? [48][49][50][51][52] - these are fluff. For the record, I consider myself anti antiscientific about pseuodoskeptics and I move pretty carefully on QW related edits.

Q: If the author's views are so mainstream why are there not better sources for reference? I think that preference must be accorded for the best not the loudest.

Edit Summary, last ~72hrs

Osteopathy I added my 2 cents on a poisonous, POV "reference" with unverifiable material worse than a forum
Stanisław Burzyński I deleted[44] a thoroughly debunked QW reference[45] and let one really marginal QW ref stand in a prejudicial article that neglected to mention the man's MD, PhD, hiring at Baylor College of Medicine just off the boat, and subsequent asst professorship, ended when he decided to retain ownership on patents from expertise he generated long before Baylor Med[46].
Gamma Linolineic Acid I removed a raw POV attack on a deceased, and conventionally recognized, medical innovator and medical editor, by a journal that experienced profound criticism for its biased editorial coverage after his death, the responsible editor leaving after a decent pause.
Emotional Freedom Techniques - I demanded notable sources, supporting MastCell, after earlier chopping out whole sections of alternative proponent POV[47][48][49]
Colloidal silver I matched quotes to text and replaced the POV source with the authoritative, govt source[50].
Talk:Quackery supportive explanation about dubious QW source.

So maybe it was my thorium thermal breeder reactor edit that causes Fyslee concern that I am going supercritical.--I'clast 08:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User 69.141.5.99[edit]

User 69.141.5.99 has vandalized Ashlee Simpson again, despite a final warning a couple hours prior. I apologize, but I do not know how to determine if this is a multi-user IP, and I couldn't find anything on how to do so. I'll ask my adopter for future, but I thought I'd better get this reported.--H-ko (Talk) 05:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If he vandals again in the next day or so, report him at WP:AIV --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Boris Stomakhin article and inciting of ethinic hatred[edit]

cross-post; moved to WP:AN

Levine2112[edit]

  • Levine2112 (talk · contribs) has removed reliable references. Please investigate. Has made poor arguements and false statements about me. 63.17.56.54 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I encourage the admins to investigate this fully. Thank you. Levine2112 20:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply to this and the above thread... if this is in regards to the Life University article, then the forum link should not be in the article per WP:EL. If there are additional issues here that are not article content issues, please reply here with a diff showing the behavior in question.--Isotope23 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure. It starts here and gets progressively worse and more abusive.
Can we curb and/or put an end to this behavior? Thanks. I appreciate your time, Isotope23! Levine2112 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're mixing issues here. That IP user is right part of the time and wrong part of the time, which makes it a tie = you're both wrong. This is a POV pushing contest from both parties. That user seems to be a newbie who doesn't understand some policies here. -- Fyslee (First law) 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. That user seems to be a newbie. Pay attention to the editing skills. Levine2112 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Saying an argument is "poor", while not a particularly helpful argument, isn't really something I would concern myself over. Calling someone a troll and telling them to get a life are a bit more problematic and the IP has been warned about this. The rest is content dispute and perhaps an RfC or RfM would be helpful. Please see WP:DR.--Isotope23 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! Levine2112 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that is wise too.