Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive306

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

Noticeboard archives


Userpage deletion review[edit]

After careful consideration, I've deleted the user page of Deeceevoice because it shows unprovoked racism and offensive content that is in violation of the arbcom case about her. As with all controversial deletions, I list this ANI post regarding the review of the decision. For the non-admins, the userpage holds POV such as "This has resulted in both misinformation and disinformation; appalling subject matter deficits; and various biases vis-à-vis subject matter treating people of color, the Third World and, most notably, African peoples." "...edit-warring editor, User: Stbalbach, openly and blatantly invited others to engage in tag-team edit warring, a favorite tactic on Wikipedia to censor the writings of other editors who don't toe the party line of a numerically superior editorial faction." "Wikipedia is a f***ing runaway freight train headed straight to hell. It's downright and despicably dangerous." "In short, Wikipedia is all too often an unreliable source riddled with systemic bias." If an administrator has a problem with the deletion, I urge you to explain the problem, or in worst scenario, undelete. Thanks. --DarkFalls talk 10:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial? This is a pretty straight-forward case. I would have nuked it on sight. Good job. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion was uncalled for. It boils down to deleting her userpage because she criticized Wikipedia? Are we really that Iron Curtain around here? Complaints of systemic bias are very serious and should not be hushed up like this. The page should be undeleted immediately. Really, this just boggles my mind . . . . — Brian (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll let you judge this for yourself Brian. "The same dynamic was at work on an article about Black people, where essentially a team of white (certainly non-black) contributors has determined that only they are allowed to define who black people are. Contributions by black editors have been reverted (deleted) summarily and repeatedly -- wholesale -- including corrections of grammar, fact and capitalization. And one of these very same offending editors had the gall to visit my user page to tell me to stop editing, because my edits were "not helping."" She is blatantly stating that other editors are racist. --DarkFalls talk 10:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
So are you going to follow up her accusation with the evidence that she's wrong? ---- WebHamster 10:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere in your quote do I see any "blatant" accusations of "racism". And what if her report there is true? Isn't this something she has a right to be angry about? Again, silencing someone in their userspace because you disagree with their opinion is not something I want to see administrators doing. — Brian (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
She speaks her mind. The last time I looked at her user page, it was angry. I agreed with some of it, I disagreed with some of it, I thought it was harsh about Wikipedia. I didn't think it was offensive. I shan't bother to look at the page now, as you considerately supply what you seem to claim is a particularly offensive nugget. I think it's about articles such as this one, and my impression is that it's a reasonable interpretation of the facts, phrased with sufficient politeness. ¶ If you're so upset by this user page, take it to MfD. (It wouldn't be the first time.) -- Hoary 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Which is ironically racist in itself. She is specifically making references to "white males" editing this place (soapboxing). Then there is rude and obnoxious commentary on User:Stbalbach which is certainly soapboxing. I am not commenting on the truthfulness of DCV's comments on the particular user, but choosing "not to believe everything I see in print", since I have not looked into that matter. Those comments are against the very foundations Wikipedia is based on. We cannot condone a hostile atmosphere for users to work on Wikipedia, and that includes contributors of every ethnicity, race, colour, religion. It is not the criticism of Wikipedia that is objectionable, but her whole-sale characterisation of "white people" as essentially racist is provocative. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion. Provocative proposition or not, white people are indeed generally racist (as are black people) to some degree; try this, and/or read the second section of the third chapter of Gladwell's book Blink. You're likely to find that, no matter what color you happen to be, you're racist (most people find that they are, and I'm among them). Whether or not it's a provocative insight, it's a salutary and depressing one. -- Hoary 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) "a team of white (certainly non-black) contributors has determined that only they are allowed to define who black people are." I read that as racism. She is guessing the race of the user, dependent on the edits he/she makes. Also when she accuses other users racist, it assumes no good faith at all and is borderline on personal attack. No matter how deserving the users may be, putting a comment on her userpage calling other people racists is not on. I am not familiar with this issue on Black people, but am sure that the comments will be hurtful to whom it was addressed to. Also, userpages are not to be used as soapboxes. --DarkFalls talk 11:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)r
It was one big soapbox for a number of different things, so good work in deleting it. The text had no purpose on wikipedia. Even the top was just a big advert for charities. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with you there. Her commentary is entirely divisive and inflammatory. According to her, there are only two categories of users: blacks and non-blacks which is creating an uncomfortable environment for other Wikipedians. "We are not Republicans or Democrats on Wikipedia, we are just Wikipedians" — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I can hardly comment on the inappropriateness of the banner on the top stating, "Justice for the Jena Six![1][2]" If you have a quick look at what the article Jena Six is about, it is massively POV coupled with the links towards activism and donations. --DarkFalls talk 11:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, a long soapbox rant, including a long email by a banned user, which is a violation of WP:BAN. This version was correctly deleted, user can recreate a userpage without these problems anytime. Fram 11:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't? I'm disappointed. I was looking forward to reading about how a demand for justice is a no-no in our troubled times. I'd have thought that everybody deserves justice, but then I'm old fashioned I suppose. -- Hoary 11:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You can read it on a weblog. For now, please read what Wikipedia is not. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
And you can read WP:CSB. Oh, and where's the policy page that says that dissenting opinions on Wikipedia can be summarily squelched? — Brian (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
How exactly was that page assisting us in "countering systematic bias"? It was a provocative piece of commentary and nothing more than that. The only solution which seemed discernible from it to protect Wikipedia from systematic bias was to get rid of the racists (which quintessentially includes all the whites and some of the non-blacks). — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sir Nick is absolutely right. Nor are we Christians, Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists or any other religion. No, we are Wikipedians. Great first step, now let's see this expanded to the countless other user pages that serve no other purpose than to divide when we are suppossed to collaborate. EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 11:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't you just edit the page instead of deleting it? I propose to restore the page and replace it with "In short, Wikipedia is all too often an unreliable source riddled with systemic bias.", a clearly completely inoffensive statement. Kusma (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that part of the userpage that's the problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That part of the userpage is not a problem. Criticising Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable. Kusma (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
*cough* Did you happen to read most of the page and what was the locus of the commentary? That systematic bias exist because white people are editing Wikipedia. You don't need to restore the whole page just to add these lines, I can say, you can go ahead and add those lines on her page, if you want. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not very interested in editing other people's userspace, especially if those people have been productive editors in the past. Kusma (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I certainly do not condone actions to encourage productivity of one user at the cost of the productivity of other users. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Kusma, I have no problems with that. The racism comments, however, have to go. --DarkFalls talk 11:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You could have just removed those and left the rest of the page alone. See also the MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deeceevoice closed just a week ago. Kusma (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Closed earlier than it should have. I don't necessarily agree with those opining on the MfD discussion, assuming that the page was similar to what it was, just before it got deleted. Restoring the page, but removing the offensive commentary is OK with me. Who's gonna volunteer? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The links can go as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Same here... Removal will be enough. --DarkFalls talk 11:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) Given the debate here and that the only votes opinions expressed at the (short) MfD were 'keep' by 2 admins, it is clear this discussion belongs at MfD. R. Baley 12:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD is not a vote, and the page can certainly go for deletion review, but definitely not MfD because that means those comments stay there for an additional number of 5 more days. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Removal of the purportedly offensive content should be sufficient. ~ Riana 12:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Restored with all the soapboxing rubbish removed. I don't see why that wasn't done in the first place. Neil  12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly the reason why I did not want this to be restored in the first place. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This is what happens if you restore the content. Some guy reverts, and we're in a worse position than at the beginning. I'm not going to revert war this, but that revert doesn't reflect consensus in anyway whatsoever. --DarkFalls talk 12:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No, because the next person that thinks reverting to include such content on Wikipedia is a good idea will get blocked. Neil  12:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
(personal attack by User:F Mita removed)

Comment Simply from the amount of debate arising from the deletion regarding the interpretation of some of the language on the userpage I should think it obvious that the content was disruptive. There is nothing that doesn't allow the user to re-edit it in a fashion that both illustrates their concerns and does not contain inflammatory phrases and terms. LessHeard vanU

The deletion was in breach of Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and of Wikipedia:Civility. If you've a problem, raise it with the user first. If you disagree with their personal opinions, discuss them and don't censor them. It's a very odd idea that setting out perceived problems of racism at Wikipedia should be banned because you think that even discussing it is racist. Having read the comments, in my opinion they're within the latitude allowed on a user page. I'm not going to edit war on her page, but even removing bits then inviting discussion is a breach of civility and in my opinion these bits should be restored and the procedure set out at Wikipedia:User page#Removal of inappropriate content until there has been followed, allowing time for a proper community discussion. .. dave souza, talk 12:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC) grmr edit dave souza, talk 12:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Dave, if you're going to quote Wikipedia:User pages, perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content. No polemics. Neil 

The community owns the pages not the user. True, latitude is offered to users when it comes to their user space, but they have to use them sensitively, while furthering the goals of the project and not to post agendas against other user's colour and ethnicity. This is not the first time this issue has been brought up. DCV has been sanctioned by the ArbCom before for the same very reason. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm defending Deeceevoice, since I believe I have fought with and strongly disagreed with her before, and am quite possibly one of the editors she would remove comments from unread with a snarky edit comment if I commented on her talk page... but I also believe strongly in the use of user space by an editor to explain where he/she is coming from, even if some of that may offend the thin-skinned. I think Wikipedia these days is showing an extreme intolerance of criticism that is unbecoming of an information resource; the big BADSITES flap is a perfect example, but not the only one. This warning, treating me as if I was vandalizing her page rather than reverting what I saw as vandalism (something I'll do even on behalf of my enemies just as much as my friends) seems highly uncalled for. *Dan T.* 12:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think removing offensive content and soapboxing tirades from Wikipedia is "vandalism"? Wikipedia is not an information resource. It is an encyclopaedia. If something does not help us build a better encyclopaedia, it probably should not be here. If it actively hurts the cause of building a better encyclopaedia, it definitely should not be here. A 10kb rant about how Wikipedia is biased against black people does not help Wikipedia. Wikipedia should tolerate no criticism, of itself or of anywhere else, other than relevant and referenced criticism within its articles. WP:RPA says "remove person attacks" - explain to me how the removed content on Deeceevoice's user page was anything but a series of personal attacks. Neil  12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you being serious, Neil? Look at my user page. Everything you see under the heading "Early American popular culture" (and quite a few articles under "Miscellaneous") — everything — is there as a direct result of Deeceevoice's criticism. I wrote the earliest form of the minstrel show article, and she criticized it, soundly, and in her characteristic fashion. Rather than hide my tail between my legs and complain that she was being "divisive" and "incivil" (or deleting her comments as such), I took them seriously and, you know what? I used them to make the encyclopedia better. I am really troubled by this attitude that no one can criticize Wikipedia. I am really, really troubled by this. Are we really that thin-skinned? Are we really that afraid of a revolution by the proletariat? This whole discussion is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. — Brian (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You do know that you restored a very long post of a banned user in "reverting the vandalism"? Fram 12:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, please check what you're talking about. It is not the criticism against Wikipedia that was perceived as offensive by a large number of editors (even before this incident), but the blanket accusation that "whites" are editing this encyclopedia, hence Wikipedia is biased. Things can be said and done in a better way. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
May I also explain that I deleted what I thought were comments of racism. I have nothing against criticism of Wikipedia. She can say whatever she likes about "where she is coming from", but only if it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia or be so much in excess that it is more of a soapbox... The userspace in which you reverted to violates both. --DarkFalls talk 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not particularly worried about what I see on User pages. I have been somewhat surprised over the months to see people edit out content on other people's user pages. Things like a counter showing the length of time since the US invasion of Iraq were deemed inappropriate, but other user pages containing commercial advertisements are allowed to stand.
However, I have found deeceevoice to be a particularly disruptive and uncooperative editor. When I was editing with her, I did not know the full range of WP administrative tools and remedies for dealing with difficult editors like herself, or I would have called for one or more actions to be used against her. The problem is not her user page with some bitter complaints. It is how she drives away good editors and good content.
On the black people page, she would not agree to any other definition of what a black person was, from anyone else. This included people of color from Africa, or India. She had her own personal idea and agenda. Of the dozens of definitions considered, and justified with citations, she maintained that only her definition was correct. She rejected peer-reviewed scientific references in favor of pseudoscience and her own personal assertions. If you disagreed with her, you were branded as racist. She even refused to accept that there was disagreement among the definitions. She was angry and pushy and insulting and disruptive, and probably used sock puppets and meat puppets to get her way.--Filll 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposing taking appropriate action against her regarding things she does elsewhere in the project, but I'm in favor of at least letting her have her own user page as "rant space" if that's what she wants. *Dan T.* 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I use some of these as rant spaces. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony of a bunch of admins telling an editor they are a racist for pointing out that others are racist. I guess this would have left us to pre-civil rights movement days. The white people who wanted to maintain racial inequity could have just called the blacks racists for calling the whites racist. Does anyone care to investigate the situation they described, or is everyone just upset their race has been slandered, since no white people are racists. They also did not call all white people racists, they called certain ones. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but who called Deeceevoice (or her userpage) racist? It is an excessive rant (violating not a soapbox), it contains pesonal attacks, and it contains a long post by a banned user (not really a very good idea either). These are the reasons I have seen for deleting the page (or removing most of it). I don't care about the race or colour of any of the people involved, I mainly support the rights of blue people anyway. Fram 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
People here in this very section are stating they made racist remarks by pointing out what might be racists on Wikipedia. Just to note it seems if I am reading correctly, they never said such a thing, eluded, but did not state. I also like smurfs. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • El C has just reverted Neil's edits to the page in question. This now looks a bit like wheel warring... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I protected the page. That means that those who edit warred over it, even if they are admins, do not get to continue the revert war. Thx. El_C 14:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You should not have protected the page in the first place - there was no edit war. Protection is not a whacking stick to be used to get your own way in a content dispute. El_C, I would strongly urge you to reconsider. Neil  14:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if that was the case, you should not have reverted a protected page; you should not have unprotected. It looked like a revert war (and I still am not sure it wasn't), so I protected. You still used your admin tools to get your way. That's fine, I want nothing to do with this anymore, or with you. El_C 14:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

She has been subject to racist attacks since she joined the project (does anyone remember User:Wareware?) After 3 years of this crap, isn't it getting kinda old? Guettarda 15:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Guettarda. She has had to endure racist attacks for a very long time and this new circus appears orchestrated with the sole aim of humiliating her further. The offensive statement, I suppose, was her opinion that "Wikipedia is skewed toward a white, male, under-50 demographic""?! Man, that's rough and hurtful for all those who feel unfairly targeted (which would probably be about 70-75 percent of the people in this thread here). No wonder her user space needs to be erased from the project, especially when she said that other hurtful thing, namely the this demographic has "various biases vis-à-vis subject matter treating people of color, the Third World and, most notably, African peoples". Will I too be censored if I let you all know that I agree with her estimate about the systematic bias and that the actions against her user page appears to prove her point? Pia 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is that the userpage appears to be having the desired effect, judging by the jousting that's going on up above and elsewhere. Can't we all come to our senses and find something better to do than talking about a userpage ? Nick 20:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Like talking about talking about a user page? Neil  23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
To those who found the page to be polemical: you saw it as being so because it touched a raw nerve and you were offended. However, the beauty of truly free speech is that many will disagree and some will be offended. Oh well, that's life. DeeCee is entitled to her opinion, and having it on her user page is her choice. While I may not agree in totality with her opinion, I'll defend her right to have it. Her other activities and her behaviour on WP are completely separate issues, and should not have been raised here.
Additionally, as I raised somewhere and somewhen else, "polemical" is a subjective term. Where is the boundary drawn? When does something move from being a statement of principle to a polemic screed. When it upsets Bob? When it upsets Terri? When it upsets Mark? I've seen user pages containing statements with which I strongly disagreed, but I'll be damned if I want them banned, bowdlerised, censored or suppressed. If you don't like DeeCee's user page, stay away from it. (just pretend it's a TV and you have a remote to change the channel so you don't have to watch something that upsets, deranges, or unsettles you). •Jim62sch• 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how much of this could have been avoided by talking to her first? She might have been willing to remove it herself if asked. Some of the material that was objected to has been there for 10 months. A couple of days more wouldn't have hurt. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Given this comment "Gee, Animum. Thanks for giving me permission to edit my own freaking user page. The issue you need to consider is what gives you the right to do so? Get a life. Hands off my user page." I highly doubt the user will change anything on the userpage when asked. --DarkFalls talk 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the rules appear to allow you to delete userpage content in situations like this, please use some common-sense discretion. I used to have a section on my user page that I openly titled "Soapbox" [3]. I'm sure many people saw it, since it was there for awhile and I've been involved in some controversial debates since I added it. But no one who saw it deleted it. After I felt that I had made my point I removed it myself, having blown off some steam, I guess. Anyway, our userpages allow us to vent and express ourselves to some degree. Again, although the rules may or may not allow such expression, please don't be so thin-skinned in these situations. If you don't like what you read, let it go for a few days so you can consider what you're going to do or not do about it unemotionally. Just my two cents on the matter. Cla68 04:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the page. While I certainly do not agree with everything I read, I don't think anything there warrants deletion and/or protection. Sorry, I'm all for cilvility. But we must allow people to express their opinions in a reasonably robust manner. At least for me, I don't want to live in a rosegarden of agreeable opinions where a committee votes once a year on the proper use of polite language for dissentig voices. Restore the page and stop this unproductive quibbling. --Stephan Schulz 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gross misuse of blocking[edit]

Obviously there was something suspicious with the account with the blatant vandalism [4] and a questionable username. He can create a new account if he wishes right now. Leave it be. — Moe ε 19:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Moe, quit trying to censor the discussion on this thread. It is unacceptable to put an "archive page" before this is resolved, with the final (obviously against AGF) words of "obviously there was something suspicious", then list a diff that is taken completely out of context. It was clearly experimentation. Notice how that diff you pointed out was in the same paragraph as "flight rape". Technically, the edits were sourced and correct.

I looked at the editors page, and noticed this edit. This is good faith if I've ever seen it. I request that the blocking admin and page protecting admin personally welcome and apologize for the misunderstanding. Additionally, I request that their username be unblocked so they can contribute according to the intent they listed on their page.

This is common sense. The name is not especially belittling to anyone, and there was no need to be so quick to pull the trigger with blocking this. If anyone here wants to start a discussion for consensus regarding if the username should be blocked, per Wikipedia username blocking policy, and the consensus decided it should be blocked (although I find that highly unlikely), then it will be blocked. In the mean time, it should not be blocked as it is not a blatant case of an attack username. 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was reviewing the deletion log and noticed this unfortunate victim of over zealous adminship. Obviously the rules of being nice and assume good faith toward newbies don't apply to all adimins? This user wasn't even warned. He made a couple of edits in the sandbox, then edited some articles with clear experimentation (which he self-reverted by the way) and was blocked because of his username and vandalism. Not 1 warning! No offers of help. They didn't even know why they were getting blocked. I can't find anything in the username policy that suggests this name was a blatantly inappropriate one, and he should have been asked politely to change his username.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to register on Wikipedia. Someone needs to make the blocking admin understand that new users are not expendable. 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I notified DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) and C.Fred (talk · contribs) on their talk pages. I share 68.'s concerns about these sorts of blocks, and request that the user's talk page be unprotected and that they be unblocked. I personally volunteer to walk Wikitarded (talk · contribs) though their first edits and get them oriented around the place. Also, I will assist them with changing their username, if consensus shows it to be necessary; personally, I don't think it is. ➪HiDrNick! 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

An inappropriate username (clearly a play on the word retarded) and a vandalism only account [5], [6]. Seems a perfectly valid block to me. If you want to contribute, I recommend a less inflammatory username and constructive edits. WjBscribe 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Username blocks don't require warnings. The block was timestamped at 22:08; the user's "why am I blocked" message came in at 22:11. The only thing missing was an explanation of the block--which, rightfully, should have been made in that 2-3 minute interval. I started to ask whether the block should be redone as a softblock to allow creation of a new account; when I saw vandalism in the edit history, I withdrew that question of the blocking admin.
I have no objection to this user creating a new, better named account and immediately editing on their merry way. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocking a legitimate newbie without a warning is a case of biting the newbies. I've often heard the argument that they can just bounce back with a new username, no harm done, but I don't buy it. News flash: Newbies don't like being blocked. It makes them feel unwelcome. Instead of coming back with a new username, they tend to leave and tell their friends how intolerant Wikipedia is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to grant a new, better-named account and a hand-holding. The edits were... not useful, but I'm also willing to grant that they weren't necessarily vandalism. DS 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your accusation that this is vandalism. This is clearly experimentation. Read what article it was put into and where; it is an article about the Irish Hunger Strike. Also, the article about the duck sexual behavior fact...referred to in the very same article as "rape flight". I see no obvious reason to suspect this is vandalism. What I do see is a lazy group of admins who would rather just block other then attempt communication with a newly registered user. Additionally, a perfectly valid block is one that conforms to the blocking policy, which states that a user should be warned before they are blocked. This user had no interaction from any Wikipedian both editor nor admin alike and was simply blocked on the spot. Furthermore, his username, according to the policy is not a clear cut case of inappropriateness. It clearly states that, "boarderline usernames need to be discussed, and if consensus is reached that a change is needed, the user should be asked to change".
That editor probably will never come back. This was clearly handled very poorly.
Additionally, the user admitted his username was a play on words. From the way it sound to me it was connotation that he was "new" and reflecting his views toward himself. 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, we're going to have a hard time seeing if he does come back or not is someone doesn't make with the unblocking and unprotecting already. Obviously it was handled poorly to begin with, but let's fix it now if we can, and then worry about how to prevent this kind of thing in the future. ➪HiDrNick! 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk page is unprotected. It was my call on the protection, so I've reconsidered my own action. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the username is in one of the "big five" categories of unacceptable usernames, as it's offensive: "Usernames that refer to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way." —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"a perfectly valid block is one that conforms to the blocking policy, which states that a user should be warned before they are blocked." - While it is recommended (though not standard procedure for obvious username violations), it states: "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking." And it also states that: "some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked: ... accounts with inappropriate usernames" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Z-man (talkcontribs)


I'm distressed to see so many administrators saying that this kind of block is appropriate. If it fit the letter of the policy is irrelevant, it clearly does not go along with the spirit of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Obviously usernames like "JimboSucksCocks6969" should be blocked on sight, but what good are you really doing Wikipedia in the long run to drop in banhammer on borderline cases making test edits without so much as a polite word on the talk page? Let's everyone try to be more cautious and welcoming in the future. ➪HiDrNick! 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The block was fine, the username policy is clear on this. More communication may have helped. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
No it was not. I don't think that "Wikitarded" is a "username that refers to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way." At worst, it's self-sarcastic, and it doesn't display any sign of attention to derogate others. And the recent incident with "shoot first" attitude led to WP:USERNAME policy change, which now states that "In borderline cases, it should not be necessary to immediately block the username but rather to attempt to discuss the problem with the user."
In sum, I don't think we lost a valuable contributor: Wikitarted was experimenting and playing, and the result was borderline vandalism, but apparently in good faith. But I'm not happy with the "shoot first" approach. Duja 08:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Those blocking should stop and think first. And they should be prepared to unblock and apologise in the spirit of the policy, instead of tenaciously defending the letter of the policy. Even better, they should discuss before blocking. Carcharoth 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the block itself, but I'm puzzled as to why the talk page was protected. -Chunky Rice 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm puzzled about the page protection and the block. I notice admins love to take random sentences of pure policy (out of context I might add) to justify poor judgment. I don't understand why one can't simply apologize -- both blocking and page protecting admins were in the wrong on this. Additionally, I would like to make a page for consensus on the username Wikitarded. I personally do not feel it is appropriate to classify this as a "ban on sight username" as it is clearly not an "attach username", as defined by the username policy (by the way, that was a perfect example of using a policy sentence in context; which is the essence of Wikipedia). I don't even think it's a bad username (I've seen worse on here get by without a word). Look at the connotations of Wikitarded. This entire username symbolizes the users feelings of inadequacy towards not only his understanding of wiki's, but even emphasizes how dismal his experience is with the word "tarded". It's not directed to others in anyway. It's not "yourretarded", or "retardkiller", or "OMGuRetard", or anything like those name. Perhaps you should look at more than the general definition of the word "retarded" and "medical". This thinking is fundamentally flawed. One must take into account the cultural significance regarding the use of the word. The word "retarded" is used more often by demonstrated something that has been impeded or slow moving, (hence, slow mind), or a casual term used to describe a stupid action, "dude, ahhh man, that was retarded". My point is, I believe if this over zealous admins have a problem with "Wikitarded", they'd also have a problem with "Wikiblind (medical condition--blind), Wikideaf (medical condition--deaf), Wikimute (medical condition--mute), Wikicrazy (medical condition--psychosis), Wikiinsomniac (medical condition--insomnia), Wikisniper (act of violence--attack anme), Netsniper (act of violence--attack name), etc. Notice how ridiculous it seems now? Wikitarded, wow, big deal. I'm willing to bet if we had a vote on this username in regards to being personally offensive toward any one person, the majority of editors would answer they are not personally offended. If more admins and editors alike would just use some common sense and avoid these personal vendettas to administer the supreme rule of Wikipeida policy to it's very definition, and not get their panties in a wad about really insignificant things, WP:ANI would be a much, much shorter page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
<sarcasm>You were uncivil by linking to a page with an offensive name. Please retract that or you will be blocked. No, rather, I'll block you straight away.</sarcasm> Duja 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I request that wikitarded's username be unblocked so they may contribute to this ANI discussion, and contribute to the encyclopedia as they intended to here. I do not want one of the people involved in this discussion to make the final decision. Their needs to be something of a consensus regarding if the name should be blocked. Until that discussion is over, the name should be unblocked ASAP.
I intend to request a WP:RFCN if this can not be resolved with this ANI discussion (I'm hoping it can). 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You are also welcome to request a name change. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is all rather strange in my opinion. I happen to be someone that very much favours discussing an inappropriate username with the user before blocking in all but the most inappropriate of cases and I see many username blocks being carried out that I myself would not have blocked without first discussing it. However, this is not one of them. I can safely say that I find this name sufficiently blatantly offensive that I myself would have blocked it straight away. Now from everything I've seen, I think the user did create the name in good faith. However, certainly in some places, where I live being a case in point, "tard" is an extremely offensive insult. As such I would not like to see such a name in edit histories because I really do think it could cause offense to a significant number of people (albeit perhaps a minority). Perhaps where the user in question lives this is not the case, but that really is irrelevant. If it is very offensive to a significant number of people, it really should be blocked. So, whilst I do not support the current trend towards block first, ask later, I very much endorse this specific block. Will (aka Wimt) 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Based on the edit history, I don't believe that this is a good-faith account, and I agree that the username is inappropriate. Moe Epsilon is correct: if the user wants a fresh start, they should edit from a new account -- Samir 03:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Haizum and Blackwater USA[edit]

User:Haizum has blown a gasket overnight over what he feels is POV in the Blackwater USA entry, which is currently featured on the front page, and keeps adding a POV tag and making uncivil remarks on the talk page. Can someone look into this? --Pleasantville 09:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See also his edit summaries for Blackwater USA arms smuggling. --Pleasantville 09:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I welcome it. My POV tags were clearly explained - I even made a point of noting that they were explained on the talk page. The evidence will show that Pleasantville deliberately ignored my supported concerns with unsupported reversions. Again, I welcome it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You objected to factual, verified information about the company and its executives as being "irrelevant." That was all your argument -- "it's not relevant." The facts in question were: 1. CEO interned at the WH during Bush 41. 2. VP Black volunteers for the Mitt Romney campaign. I asked you repeatedly to substantiate your opinion, by quoting WP policy for example, which you never did. Instead you insulted me, calling me "misogynistic" for some reason that escapes me (the discussion hasn't involved talking about woman even once). Basically, not once have you contributed anything but personal opinions about sources or other editors' bias. Niczar 07:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC) This was in the main Blackwater USA article, not the weap smuggling article. Niczar 08:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your initial volley on Blackwater USA arms smuggling may be misthought, though... there is only going to be largely "negative" news related to this, as it's not exactly a happy topic for Blackwater or their supporters, given the subject matter and Congressional investigation, and Congressional investigation of confirmed cover-up attempts. It's rather unfortunate, but there isn't any positive news to offset the allegations besides Blackwater calling them "baseless". On others, I'm curious how statements from Blackwater employees aren't credible? I'm sure Pleasantville will agree with me that we just want these articles to be as fully detailed and sourced as possible

I'm happy to work with you, as I hope you are with us. I saw you have been blocked [ eleven times in your career for aggressive editing, so I want to help keep things calm. Let's work together. • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"I'm happy to work with you, but let's look at your block history. You don't agree with me? Let's look at your block history. You won't go along with the other editors? Let's look at your block history." Hardly civil if I say so myself. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing by User:Haizum[edit]

Would an admin mind reviewing this? I don't know how this person is being helpful unfortunately and he seems to be attacking the editors.

"I reject your response. The references are coming overwhelmingly from left-leaning media sources (generally accepted as being so), and that is the fault of the editors of this article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"[7]

But we only have those sources to work with, which he won't accept. Then,

"...coming from the one that's been launching misogynistic insults and this entire time. Why don't you tell me how I'm being "emotional" again? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"[8]


"A similar Blackwater USA article could have been written entirely from conservative sources, but it wasn't, and it never will be. The community simply will not allow it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"[9]

I'm not sure how to approach this given his block history and hurling insults. Its not a content dispute, really, since he's not adding or removing any, just railing against the fact that all RS around Blackwater USA tend to be negative and how no one will allow a conservative article to be built. Or something. I'm not sure. Please help. He has been on ANI before. • Lawrence Cohen 22:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

About his block log for nearly every block except the most recent he was later unblocked. Besides this is a content dispute anyways. 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The unblocks were to extend blocks? I see blocks for "abusive emails", "user repeateadly assumed bad faith and was uncivil on several talk pages", "particularly venomous email I received", "abusive emails", "Massive incivility and edit warring on Laura Ingraham", "personal attacks", and "repeat offender" with blocks of 5 to 8 days. How is this a content dispute? He is just railing against editors. • Lawrence Cohen 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's debate the content of my block log. It's soooo relevant. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've commented in the hopes of calming it down. Not optimistic, though. --Haemo 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an attempt to silence my concerns. An article as been written with primarily left-wing sources. I make note of it, and because Lawrence Cohen can't defend it, an ANI is launched. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What do I have to defend? There is praise on the talk page for the balance and detail of the article, and all the sources are major notable news organizations or Government reports. As mentioned on the Talk page, feel free to add any "conservative" sources if you're concerned, or I will be happy to add them for you if you find them. Were you able to find any?
My concern that led to my adding to this report (which was begun by another editor, not me) was that your criticisms were hostile ad hominem attacks on other editors, no matter how we tried to deal with your concerns. You have done nothing on the articles besides accuse "liberal media" (paraphrase) of attacking Blackwater, enabled by Wikipedia editors. • Lawrence Cohen 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and trying to eternally damn me because of a block history is the biggest ad hominem of all. Maybe I should create an ANI report. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out that this is not the first time you have done this, and had been blocked before for emails harassing admins (unproductive attacks on editors, as this was devolving into). You were willing to be cooperative and civil on the arms smuggling page, but then afterwards just starting swinging wildly at all of us. • Lawrence Cohen 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I just want to detach from this editor on ANI here, and ask that if he has something to contribute to the articles in question, to do so, but to stop with attacks and rhetoric. It's not helping anything and making what was a completely civil group of editors completely wound up for no reason beyond damning the "liberals". If not, I ask that he leave the articles alone as it's not helping anything. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I would like accusations of ad hominem attacks to be backed up with evidence. Simply saying that I'm attacking an editor doesn't make it so. Franking, launching a fruitless ANI (this being the 2nd one surrounding this article) filled with comments taken out of context, false accusations, is the only ad hominem I currently see.........Oh, I suppose I'm acting in bad faith now? I must accept these accusations as true, otherwise in claiming they are false, I'm acting in bad faith? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I realize that the more I comment on this false ANI, the more I screw myself by "being combative" That's fine. At least I'll have my dignity. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My feeling about the Haizum situation is that this is a matter for admins to deal with — or not. I have nothing further to say to him. I have already said to him what I have to say about his behavior. --Pleasantville 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I am done as well, this is for admins. He's still (check Blackwater USA talk) just railing still. I have asked him to actually edit the article. • Lawrence Cohen 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

...and you've been launching common misogynistic insults from the start. I don't know how to be any more clear. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC) This is pure comedy. Probably the first time an international definition is not being used in a Wikipedia article, simply because the subjective definition makes the company look more eeeevil. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC) You just claimed I attacked you when I didn't. Stop harassing me. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC) So repeating the phrase "ad hominem attacks" is supposed to turn my concerns into ad hominem attacks? Oops, did I just ad hominem attack you? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)' Please do something. Niczar 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I've given this user a final warning about his behavior. His conduct on this page, and the page in question is clearly crossing a line. --Haemo 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Pleasantville 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and Personal Attack by Iwazaki[edit]

I am reporting a user who goes by Iwazaki. This individual seems to be a little distressed and has made a couple of remarks against me here. I do not know exactly what he meant by when he said, "...has opted for cheap political ranting and thus putting him self in a deep trouble". I am taking this as a threat made against me. In another statement he states that I "lie". Not only has he used threatening language and a personal attack against me here, this user has caused problems for me in the past. This is not the first time he has conducted himself in this manner. In the past Iwazaki has posted a couple of rude messages on my talk page. On 14 March 2007 he has made a derogatory statement saying, "we don't accept Tamil-something sites as reliable sources..I don't mind having them in the articles dedicated to terrorists or Suicide bombers" here. Also in that statement, he has commented to me that, "you are showing your emotions way tooooooo much these days." I have never corresponded with him in the past which made me feel that he was stalking me on Wikipedia. I then posted a reply about his comments here and he replied back with personal attacks on me here. This is my first time reporting him and I humbly request for this matter to be looked into. Thank you. Wiki Raja 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious what Iwazaki meant by your political comments on a MFD discussion. Remember this is Wikipedia, and expressing your political opinions is discouraged. A few of your comments at one MFD, which have nothing to do with Wikipedia policies are
  • This userbox is a negative apporach in regards to promoting peace to any conflict.
  • The very wording of the template itself is hypocritical to its purpose of supporting peace which only promotes violence
  • It also shows a negative attitude towards a political dispute
  • I thought of joining his project, but then decided not to due to one of the members donning this template on his page.
  • In Sri Lanka this stance of disarmament is politically motivated.
  • For example, back in the 1990s former President Chandrika Kumaratunga held a campaign called "War for Peace". This in turn has cost thousands of lives and destruction mainly in the Northeast part of the island where it is primarily dominated by Tamils.
  • It is true that there is division in the world. It is also true that there are wars in the world.
  • As you say, "People who hold this UB think that LTTE should disarmament (neutralise) to have a peace in Sri Lanka." Let us dissect this term disarmament. Disarmament would mean an all out bloody war, with of course, aerial bombardment of Tamil dominated areas in the Northeast, which would mean mass civilian casualties.
  • One can argue all he or she wants, but when it comes down to it, there are no Tamils in the Sri Lankan military or police force
Note his comment was
the nominator, instead of giving valid arguments , has opted for cheap political ranting and thus putting him self in a deep trouble.
Unless you didn't understand, that wasn't a treat, Iwazaki was pointing out that instead of going by Wikipedia policies, you were letting your political opinions get in the way, which is why all the neutral editors who have voted in the MFD voted to keep the userbox. And instead of misleading users at AN/I, you should have made clear the comment "Tamil-something" wasn't a reference to an ethnic group but to racist websites such as,, etc. etc.
Also the above comments from March which you have pointed out were in response to you serially undoing his edits[10][11][12] on the Burning of Jaffna library article, and not "stalking" as you falsely claim. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 09:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, this ANI is about Iwazaki’s incivility and personal attack made against me and not about the template. The MfD page for further discussion on the template discussed is here. Reposting my message to look like a long laundry list of previous conversations does not really prove anything in regards to this ANI other than it was a response to Lahiru_k’s statement here. As far as what you call "Serious undoing" of his edits on Burning of Jaffna library, those were just a few reverts of his POV tag from that page since there were legitimate article sources taken from books, journals, and sites. This is not the first time Iwazaki has been reported, and just a couple of weeks ago, he was blocked here for similar violations. The only thing obvious in this subject matter is that Iwazaki has pushed the boundaries of civility. End of discussion. Wiki Raja 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowlf thanklf for really good comments here. But did you notice that the person who claims about civility has started this thread by personally attacking me by calling me a distressed person !!! little distressed !!! isnt this a pure,pathetic attack on any person regardless whether he is a wikipedian or not ??? I would really like to see what administrators think about this person who even his complains make pathetic personal attacks on others.
  • Let me briefly touch the issue,as one of the editors have already given a in depth details of it.The user wiki raja(who once got blocked from wikipedia for malicious sock puppeting,and vote rigging) has a habit of making political statements whenever he makes comments.I will provide evidences if necessary .Even at his last post, he made not only made serious attacks on my government but also twisted may facts to gain or add weight to his cheap political remarks. HE falsely claims there are no tamils in forces, when even the head of our police was once a TAMIL(one before the previous one). Tamils are represented in other forces and there are no laws prohibiting any one from joining the forces of SL. Even without knowing any facts he is happily giving false information here and there is no stopping to his political campaign here in wikipeidia as it is evident from all his contributions here. They are mostly(if not all) POV pushing and bashing of others!!! And for what happened in the past, the first attacks were made by him and if necessary I can easily provide them.

He had attacked wikipeia by reverting articles in which he had no contributions (thus helping others to evade 3R) and personally attacking others, even in his personal attack complains !!! Hope administrators will take a very good look at this. And as an answer for his comments regarding my previous block, I was blosk for pointing out some ones violation of WP:COI, and even if get blocked again I am not afraid to point it out again as that person has seriously breached wikipedian policies and destroying valabe wiki time with his involvement in SL related articles. Thanks youIwazaki 会話。討論 02:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Only an Arbcomm will eventually solve this serial personal attacks, just follow the wiki process all the way to arbcomTaprobanus 01:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
please go ahead . I would love to make my comments there.Iwazaki 会話。討論 02:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, this ANI is not about the discussion that has been going on for the template on MfD. This ANI is about your personal attack and incivility against me. I am through discussing this matter. Let us proceed to Arbcom. Wiki Raja 02:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This is pretty sad. An ANI was filed on Iwazaki and people bring issues of content into this. Note that personal attacks are not allowed even if you are right on an issue (though I am not implying that someone is right or wrong). Watchdogb 02:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Operation Spooner's user page[edit]

Most of Operation Spooner's user page is absolutely fine in discussing his political influences. In the middle is a section with the title "Shady and ridiculous methods I've observed that individuals, or groups of individuals, use to prevent other editors from changing article content", and a subheading "Ownership strategies I have observed" which goes into detail in criticising other un-named users. Mr.Z-man made a previous attempt to discuss the issue with Operation Spooner, but was given the response "You don't understand Wikipedia policy" [13]. I don't think MfD is in order but should the section be blanked and kept blank? Sam Blacketer 09:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems acceptable to me. It's Wikipedia orientated. He/she's not naming any specific editors. It's done in a reasonably neutral manner. I'm not sure what the problem is. It's not against the rules to criticise Wikipedia or to demonstrate what's wrong with it. Deleteing the content of that page could be seen as censorship ---- WebHamster 09:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly a reasonable point of view, but user page policy does say "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" is not allowed, and does not specify that the editors so attacked must be named. It might create a serious loophole if unacceptable material becomes acceptable by disguising its target or covering the targets with an imprecise "they". It's never going to be very difficult to work out the identities of the users criticised; simply by looking at the contributions of the user making the criticism it will be obvious with whom they are in dispute. Sam Blacketer 09:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, editors themselves aren't being attacked, it's the methods being used that are being attacked. There are no references to any particular editors and their methods, or even articles used, just the methods themselves. My own interpretation is that although it may perhaps be a grey area it's a grey area within the rules. It's one of those dichotomies wherein it could be construed in equal measure to be a comment on the methods or a how-to on the methods, but given the onus on us to assume good faith we really should consider it to be the former. ---- WebHamster 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If I might chime in here, I am one of the editors Spooner is addressing in his ""Ownership strategies I have observed"" section. A quick look at his user history shows that each time one of his edits is reverted, he updates the section with new info - of course, naming no one by name. Most of this section was created while the user was editing within the Ronald Reagan article; by editing, I mean that OpertionSpooner was adding the same edit over and over, for over a week (once or twice a day). Setting aside the fact that no fewer than three admins counseled him about not only the disruptive nature of these edits (in the face of a pretty solid consensus) and his user page diatribe, he didn't stop updating his user page (though the repetitive edits did indeed drop to a trickel).
His response was as Sam described it. This is just one of those folk that think that this whole Wikipedia thing is - and I quote - "a farce", and that seeking stability in an article is pointless and useless. I am not sure if he's pushing the anarchist agenda he features ont he rest of his user page and this is one grand little experiment in fostering anarchy, or if he's just not getting the idea of editing within a community to make something stable. I just know that I (and others) have been the unnamed subjects of his PA section, and that's uncool, and non-conducive to a professional working environment; if someone can insult you, thumb their nose at the admins who suggest removing it, what prevents others from doing the same thing? Eventually, you end up with anarchy. And not the good type of anarchy that you can mosh to. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because you choose to out yourself is no reason to make it look like he's doing so. The fact remains he hasn't outed anyone, the fact there's a breadcrumb trail is not his fault and shouldn't be used against him. Likewise WP shouldn't be seen to be censoring critics of itself (or censoring anything really). If something you've done is on his list you always have the option of not doing it again, after all if you don't like seeing something you've done appear in print, then the simple answer is... don't do it. But as I've said, from what I've seen he's not breaking any rules. He may be leaning up against some of them, but that's not a breach... and I seem to recall someone saying once "break all rules". Especially if WP is made better because of it. If some editors are using tactics (and I'm making no accusations here) that really shouldn't be used and someone highlighting them stops it then that can only be a good thing surely? ---- WebHamster 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that's just silly, Hamster. Do I really have to list the diffs, taken from his own user edit history, to indicate when he updates the list? Without putting too fine a point on it, your suggestion that I stop whatever it is that he's railing against makes me wonder if you actually looked at the user's edit history. You mean, stop "using tactics" like editing for NPOV? maintaining consensus? DR? Those things? Of course I could stop doing those things, but then I'd be of little use to the Project. See, I don't see myself doing anything other than what any responsible, reasonable editor would be doing. Perhaps I should suggest at this point that considering Operation Spooner to be a poor little lost anarchist waif just might be the wrong mindset to adopt for this particular discussion?
That aside, how about that whole NPA thing, or SOAPBOX thing? I would suggest that you consider if those same allegations listed on Spooner's Talk page were directed at yourself, you might take a slightly different mindset. There is nothing as deleterious to a free and interactive editing environment than an individual who feels that the rest of the Project is wrong and that they are right; who will take any rebuke of their point of view as an attack on them, and post said perceived attack as a caveat for others. Yes, IAR is a good rule, but usually that applies to edits and articles, right? Certainly, that doesn't apply to those basic rules which govern how we have decided to interact with each other in Wikipedia? I am not suggesting that we flog, tar and feather the user; one has suggested clearing the offending section with a caveat to not repeat it elsewhere - what's wrong with this? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate, I did say that I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I haven't even said that what he's saying is correct. I have no idea, and very little interest TBH. What I am saying is that he hasn't named anyone, not even you, so he isn't attacking any particular editor, not even you. He hasn't said it's you, you did, and you have absolutely no proof that he is actually referring to you, only supposition and conjecture. He has no control over the breadcrumb trail, neither have you nor I so he can't be blamed for what it does or doesn't show. What I'm saying is that there is nothing in the rules that says he has to be truthful on his own userpage. There is nothing in the rules that says he can't comment on WP negatively. As he hasn't specifically named anyone then he can't be deemed to be attacking any editor specifically. Just because you think he's referring to you is immaterial. Assume good faith and assume he's speaking in general terms. As for me being in your situation, well one of the userboxes in the "outlook" section of my userpage will sum that up in a phrase I'm not going to use here. As for "anarchy", well all I can say is one person's rant doesn't come close to being an anarchic state. As they say in my part of the world, "today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip paper". In 200 days, let alone 200 years no-one will give a shit, their just the words of one more anonymous wiki-editor. Look at this topic for example, it's not exactly garnered an awful lot of interest has it? ---- WebHamster 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to chime in here to clear up some miconceptions that Arcayne is perpetrating. I am not attacking Wikipedia at all on my user page. I like Wikipedia and I like the rules. The rules and policies are what I especially like about it. What I am rallying against on my user page is the methods used by those who violate the rules and make them up as they go along, and use threats and other unethical methods, to prevent other users from editing Wikipedia when they don't like their edits. Wikipedia rules are what protect editors from being bullied, overpowered, and banished by would-be monopolizers of articles. I like the policy framework very much. I'm very impressed with the policies that have evolved here on Wikipedia. They act as a constitution that protects the right of the individual to edit, and make sure that no individual or group can own an article. If these polcies did not exist, I would have been blocked a long time ago just for making edits someone doesn't like. No one is supposed to own Wikipedia articles. As long as the editor follows policy he's safe from being censored by thugs and mobs. On another point, contrary to Arcayne's claim which he's obviously and pathetically trying to use to create bias against me, I'm not an anarchist (not that there's anythign wrong with being an anarchist). Finally, I'd be very suspicious of anyone who wants to censor my user page, which is simply an exposure of the methods used on Wikipedia to own articles. Why don't they want these strategies to be revealed? Operation Spooner 04:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing other users' statements on one's own user page[edit]

Moved here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Pedro Gonnet 09:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:GHcool has a list of "Accusations vs. Reality" on his/her userpage which is more of a collection of quotes without context and rebuttals thereof. Most of the quotes are chosen to make the respective editor look anti-Semitic or just plain stupid. Is this really what userpages are for? Pedro Gonnet 15:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This would not be the first time somebody challenged by user page. The first time it happened, User:SlimVirgin and User:Jpgordon exhonerated me of the accusations of misconduct citing that I quote my subjects fairly and accurately and even provide a link to where the quotation came from so that others can check the context themselves and judge accordingly. They also said that it does not violate WP:NPA because I keep my criticisms to what was being said as opposed to criticising the person who said it. --GHcool 17:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but the current page does indeed criticize the person who said it. I urge honest Wikipedians not to take anything that Pco says seriously on any matter pertaining to the Jewish people. cannot be construed in any other way. (It might well be correct, but that's irrelevant.) Stick to the content and avoid the ad hominem; trust the reader to come to their own conclusion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm another victim of this behaviour - which drives a cart and horses through accept good faith. But I've never bother challenging it, I assumed GHcool had some special permission to behave in these unpleasant ways, and that if I attempted to behave in any similar fashion I'd be immediately blocked for disruptive use of UserPage, personal attacks and probably several other things. It's especially bizzare that he should be the one doing this, because I'm pretty sure I could present a lot of what he writes as being extreme, displaying disruptive logic, writing tendentiously, edit-warring against consensus, along with flouting BLP and probably breaches of a whole pile of other policies. Several of these patterns of behaviour are clearly visible at this talk page, where he seems determined he'll hold up editing to consensus. GHcool's behaviour and outrageous attacks on an excellent scholar (and the small amount of uncontentious material from him we'd like to use in the article) seems calculated to protect another source used extensively - a race-hater with a strong association to violence amounting to terrorism. PRtalk 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how assuming good faith and criticizing somebody's statements are necessarily contradictory. People do it all the time all over Wikipedia. --GHcool 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Victim"? You? Oh that's funny. It's enough to see your "contribution" history to see how "NPOV" and "Civil" you are. And by the way, if you thing that "concensus" and "good faith" are when the other user gives up on all he belives and does what you want, then you are wrong. M.V.E.i. 13:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the headline to remove the word "slander", which can be taken as a legal accusation against other users. You don't need to go there to have this matter heard. I don't know the answer to the underlying report but it seems uncomfortably close to personal attacks to use your talk page to call out users for criticism who have not voluntarily chosen to enter a discussion there. Wikidemo 08:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I notice GHcool purports to reveal the identity of another user in this section of his userpage. Is that user's identity well known? A breach of privacy policy and an attack on another editor is certainly not acceptable user page material. Sam Blacketer 09:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This is discussed at length on GHcool's talk page here. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool wikipedia is not the place for soapboxing, and that is essentially what a large part of your userpage includes. I am asking you now to please remove the relevant sections. ViridaeTalk 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

or would that be irrelevant sections. No I jest, but on a serious note... I'm sure some of these sections, if they do not offer any insight to the articles, or the tone/style of the article, and it is point of view mostly, it might be a good idea to tremove them. Mercury 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If they look anrisemitic to you thats your personal POV. He haven't made up what they said. They really said it, and he really responsed, thats all. It's his complete right to copy parts of conversations and place them on his talk page. M.V.E.i. 13:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The quotes aren't the problem, it's GHCool's own writing;

  • "Norman G. Finkelstein, the notoriuous anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist pseudo-scholar...."
  • "In short, because of the fact that Jacob Peter has a very limited knowledge of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict...." etc etc. Whether true or not, much of the page violates Wikipedia is not for opinion pieces, which is a policy, not a guideline. I suggest strongly that GHCool removes it, before it is removed for him. ELIMINATORJR 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SOAP is really intended for articles more than userpages. I think GHcool has made a reasonable use of their space here - they are discussing a topic as it relates to Wikipedia, they are doing so in a civil manner, and they are giving references for their talking points. If anyone takes issue with what GHcool says, they can look at the edit histories of the articles and decide for themselves. The POV on GHcool's userpage is slanted, but that's readily apparent and in fact admitted up-front. Factual accuracy is not a requirement for a userpage, and so long as things are kept civil and related to Wikipedia, I really have no problem with the userpage existing. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "They" are not discussion anything. As far as I know, these users were not informed that they were being quoted on his userpage. And branding people as ignorant or anti-Semitic is, in my opinion, far from civil. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually read that second quote from above? That isn't civil in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, per WP:USER, amongst the things that you may not have on your webpage is "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws". ELIMINATORJR 16:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall ever calling any Wikipedia users anti-Semitic. --GHcool 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Recalling is irrelevant. No-one claimed you called a Wikipedia user anti-Semitic. The problem was with railing against people as being anti-Semitic, and also with railing against anti-Semites and Wikipedia editors in the same breath. You might not have equated the two, but some might not appreciate even the association. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pedro Gonnet: Sorry for the confusion - I was using "they" as the gender-neutral pronoun, not the plural pronoun, simply because I do not know GHcool's gender. It was to avoid the awkwardness of saing ".. s/he is discussing a topic as it relates..", ".. s/he is doing so in a civil manner..", etc. Although your point is still valid, I'm not sure it's necessary that everyone be made aware if they are mentioned on someone else's UP. Better to simply make sure any such mention is civil and in keeping with maintaining productivity, which brings me to..
EliminatorJR: I had read what you wrote of the second quote above, which is not un-civil; the rest of it (after finding it on GHcool's UP) is, I agree, not what should be on a UP. Regarding your 'furthermore', my objection was to referencing WP:SOCK; WP:USER is much more applicable here. The "reporting of perceived flaws" is, as you say, not something that is welcome on a UP. However there is a fine line to be walked in interpreting this statement - we want to readily exclude people who write "User:Peruvianllama is a fucktard, smells like ass, and has sex with trees" as flaws of other users, but readily allow people who say "User:Peruvianllama always favours the llama's side of the argument over the alpaca's, and he insists on spelling it as 'encyclopaedia'!". Calling someone an anti-Zionist is no more uncivil than calling them a Zionist. However saying someone is incapable of making moral decisions or of rational thought, is just an insult dressed up in pretty words and rhetoric. So I think it would be fair to ask GHcool to remove those unproductive statements immediately, or if not done in a timely manner, to remove them ourselves. As a whole however, the UP seems more aimed at describing a pattern of behaviour on Wikipedia as a whole, and not as personal critiques of everyone who edits on topics related to Israel. Some critiques exist, but once those are removed, would this UP be acceptable? --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh certainly, I don't think there's much wrong with the general idea of the page (if not the tone of it), it's just that the reasonable commentary is mixed in with some slightly dubious content. ELIMINATORJR 19:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I never attacked a fellow user on my user page by alleging that he or she is "incapable of making moral decisions or of rational thought." I believe that everybody from Gandhi to Hitler, from Einstein to a Darwin Award winner, and everybody in between is capable of making moral decisions and excercising rational thought. --GHcool 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to hear you think so, GHcool; I think it helps if everyone is willing to be civil about things. A good first step, in light of your comment, would be to remove from your user page the statement where you say that a fellow Wikipedia user has a " ability to argue logically and convincingly, and... does not seem capable of making basic moral distinctions..." In fact I think it would be a very good show of faith if, over the next twenty-four hours or so, you looked very critically at all of the remarks you have made on your userpage which reference other Wikipedians, and removed any of those that could be construed as critical or attacking to the subject. Perhaps we can revisit the issue in another day once you have had a chance to make the edits, and if there are still contentious comments then we can deal with them then. Thoughts, anyone? --PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, PeruvianLlama. I ammended my page appropriately. --GHcool 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

INVOLVEMENT NEEDED: Content war in the Alexander Lukashenko article[edit]

In the Alexander Lukashenko article there's a criticism section which included only negative criticism on hom. For the sake of NPOV, i added a paragraph, with references, what his supporters think of him. Nevertheless, there's a user named User:Bakersville who keeps on removing what i added and adding information against the man. If the information is sourced, i dont mind it to stay, but i dont like him deleting my information. I started a discussion on the talk page (where, as you could see, i offered a compromise, but it was ignored), yet the user was supported by the user User:Barend who gave against me two lame claims: 1. Thereferences being in Russian (1. Whats the problem to ask a Russian administrator to check it?? 2. One of the references was in English. 3. If the references give the material thy fit. I wxplaimed it in the discussion). 2. Me supporting Lukashenko and calling him the only real democrat on the talk page (And? But i haven't wrote that in the article. All i gave in the article was referenced, nutral and objective). Please, stop this political idiotism. Wikipedia haven't sworn loyalty to any political ideology, so the article has to be NPOV and show both sides on the coin. M.V.E.i. 12:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And he just cant stop! Not talking about the fact he already broke the 3RR. M.V.E.i. 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to deal with this right now, but a look at the article and its history shows a need for protection and 3RR blocks (plural) if another admin can lend a hand. Note to MVEi, blogs are seldom acceptable as sources, much less foreign-language blogs in the English wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked both for 24 hours. I am not sure that protection is needed at this stage. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that protection is not need at the article, since I am keeping a close eye and hand to the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to know someone's watching. Articles in this general topic area do seem problematic. Raymond Arritt 23:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There hasn't been an edit war here for ages and other Belarusian articles are fine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requests of Tbouricius and User:Ask10questions[edit]

Input is needed here on a series of blocks placed on a series of editors for disruptive or single-purpose editing on Instant-runoff voting. Tariqabjotu has blocked several editors involved with this article, including Tbouricius and Ask10questions, both of whom have made unblock requests. (Ask10questions's unblock request has been denied by Sandstein while Tbouricius's request is pending.) There is extensive discussion of the blocks at on, including Tariqabjotu's detailed explanation of the blocks and input from several other users. It appears at least one of these editors (Tbouricius) is a real-world published author on instant run-off voting and that this situation may, in part, involve an external dispute on the merits of this voting system and alleged COI issues. While the editor behavior on the article was far from optimal, I am concerned by the indefinite blocks, at least some of which were not preceded by any warnings. Tariqabjotu has indicated that he stands by the blocks and does not anticipate reviewing the matter further but that any concerns could be raised here at ANI. I would appreciate input from other admins on these requests. Newyorkbrad 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a possible COI in a few edits could result in an indefinite block. I would personally have explained the situation to the editor, and advised him to keep him a neutral point of view in editing. This user is eager to edit and might have some future conflict with it, but I don't find that to be grounds for blocking. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I've only started going therough the various talk page discussions, but since the blocking editor seems to feel that User:Abd was defending the article from puppeteering, if that same user (Abd) suggests that one or two of the editors were unjustly blocked, then perhaps unblocking should be at least considered? - jc37 15:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've researched this a bit too. There was heavy socking going on, from acct4 or whoever the main account is, but Tbouricius and Ask10questions weren't part of that. I'd be inclined to unblock also. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I was watching this as it unfolded and was also concerned that the block might be precipitate but NYB beat me to the unblock review. I would support unblocking these users. They can always be reblocked if their editing raises further cause for concern. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Nish, it's quite obvious that you did not look at the full scope of the situation. A case for unblocking might be able to be made, but your suggestion that the blocks were over "a possible COI in a few edits" shows you did not look into the reasoning behind them. I was not even aware of a possible conflict of interest until after I had blocked the users and they (and others involving in the conflict) made them public. -- tariqabjotu 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, I agree that unblocking is the right move. Being a single-purpose account (or having a conflict of interest, for that matter) is not grounds for banning, and (barring evidence of sockpuppetry with these accounts) I don't see evidence of disruptive editing on the level that would justify an indefinite block.--ragesoss 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the consensus here, including but not limited to the observations by Jpgordon who is a checkuser, I have unblocked both accounts. Further comments on the respective talkpages. Newyorkbrad 20:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a good faith unblock, but as someone who deals with a lot of COI situations there certainly are editors who quickly demonstrate and confirm that they have no intention of conforming to site standards. Some of them even taunted me via e-mail about their intentions to violate WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. When an user's only purpose is to violate WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT and the editor ignores warnings or responds defiantly, I say nuke 'em. Editors and sysops who disagree are invited to help clear the backlog at WP:COIN. DurovaCharge! 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me make this clear. This was not a conflict of interest block. This was not about blocking people because they only edit one article. At all. I can't tell who is under the impression that one of these is the case, but I can already picture the dazed and confused looks on a few editors' faces at the fact that these blocks were ever put in place. I can also see Newyorkbrad's unblocking rationales included the misleading phrase, "choosing to edit in only one topic area is not grounds for a block, much less an indefinite block without warning". I don't have time to call in the FBI to launch full and convoluted investigations into blocks (I have wasted enough time with a certain article over the past few months), which is why I encouraged those unsatisfied with my response to the matter to bring this to WP:ANI (as, of course, we see occurred). However, I'm not fond of suggestions that I would put in place an indiscriminate block. If you believe the block was unwarranted or that new information has surfaced that would make the block invalid, fine; just say so. But I would prefer that events are accurately depicted and not reduced to that's a bad block. I don't want a gold medal here, but I sense that other editors also didn't care much for looking into the details of the IRV article and seeing why I might have put the block in the first place, even if it may have been wrong (and who would really want to spend time doing that?). So, isolated, these editors simply look like the victims of a bad block and a poor decision.
Indeed, isolated, these editors would have raised few eyebrows. However, there is a persistent bizarre pattern with this IRV article, and I have no idea why this topic has become so intriguing to people who almost never edit Wikipedia. Take a look at the article's history. BenB4 (talk · contribs) was blocked (by Moreschi), Acct4 (talk · contribs) was blocked (by me), and P-j-t-a (talk · contribs) was blocked (by me) for sockpuppetry. In addition, we have the two users discussed here whose edits are almost entirely to this article. The same can be said for Ivnryn (talk · contribs), Ark14 (talk · contribs), and Blayt (talk · contribs), all users whom were never blocked. Then we also have a couple IP users whose edits have only been to this article (namely a couple IPs that begin with "72.75"). There are also several other editors who, although they have not just been editing this article, have fewer than thirty or so edits total. The blocks came as a result of the series of bizarre happenings that almost certainly include sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. The two editors noted in the header may have been the recipient of collateral damage, which is unfortunate, but they are not by any means victims of a block made by someone who does not know what he is doing. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User Self-Identifying as Child[edit]

Hopefully in the right place. User User:Mitchmeerkat (second log in User:mitchlover11 identifies herself as being a minor on her user page, along with including the name of her school, a lot of her family member's names, pet names, and her personal email address. Collectonian 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

user page should be deleted per NOT#Myspace, since thats clearly what she and her friends are doing, then warn them. Is it me or does she have a Lot of dead pets?--Jac16888 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)(non-admin)
The user page doesn't need to be deleted. She's just posting information about herself, which is what everyone does. Only most people do it more generally, using userboxes. The page shouldn't be deleted just because she's using text instead. There is an excess of personal info though, especially for a minor, and the user should be advised about the inherent dangers. I've posted my own suggestion on her talk page, but an admin notice might carry more weight.
Equazcionargue/improves16:54, 10/5/2007
PS. She sure does have a lot of dead pets, for someone who hasn't been alive all that long yet.
Equazcionargue/improves17:01, 10/5/2007
Yes, but looking at her page, shes encouraging other people to do the same and add it to the bottom, as someone already has. the whole page looks just like a text version of a myspace page--Jac16888 17:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
She does indeed...though less than her friend (who claims every animal he's ever known as a pet) User:Cruise_meerkat. He self identifies as being 12, but doesn't really have any major identifying info beyond his state on his page. Though his also does the Myspace type thing. Collectonian 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Holy Crap!! Between them they must have more than 50-60 deceased or missing pets.--Jac16888 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked. We do not allow multiple users to share a single login (scroll down to the BFFL Mango Kat part). SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is valid (and even prudent) to delete both of those userpages, per WP:CHILD. This is a serious issue, to have the full names of family members, some of whom are also underage, especially when combined with the location they live in, is not a safe thing to do. I've run into this issue before, and it was handled with respect and delicacy, as should any contact with known-underage editors. ArielGold 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I got rid of the age and school info, and any last names. I would urge everyone to consider editing the page to remove the unwanted content, and explaining the situation, rather than deleting. She's just a kid and probably doesn't realize about the policies prohibiting what she's doing. Try asking her to fix it first, give her a chance to correct it or to allow us to correct it, before you go deleting her page entirely.
About the pet thing, I think she lives on a farm or something, that might explain all those pets.
Equazcionargue/improves19:22, 10/5/2007
I just realized, the delete suggestion might be so that the history no longer exists. That actually might be a good reason.
Equazcionargue/improves19:28, 10/5/2007
Yes, that's exactly why deletion was done in the past, and then restored to a version without the personal information. I think that would be a prudent thing to do. ArielGold 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I forget, was there an "age" field when registering? Anyway, perhaps it would be a good idea for there to be a "for Minor's" or "for children" section in the introduction pages, just with some basic (non-patronising) information as has been discussed here and in WP:Child--Jac16888 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
All three user pages have now been deleted. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just deleting the userpage(s) when you beat me to it... so I'll simply second your action.--Isotope23 talk 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
To Jac16888: I think that's a good idea. If we don't have any age limit, we have to assume that children will participate, and it behooves us to provide them with the appropriate guidance (encouraging guidance, as you say, rather than patronizing). I don't know exactly where that should go. I think we can also include a very short reminder, perhaps on the edit screen for user pages, warning everyone, especially minors, to limit the amount of personal information they post, including examples such as schools currently attending, exact age, family names, etc.
Equazcionargue/improves20:56, 10/5/2007
I figured it could go in the whole "welcome to wikipedia, how to" set of articles, as a new section.--Jac16888 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added a question at the contributors FAQ regarding this. I plan to also make additions to WP:CHILD and WP:User page with advice/instructions specifically aimed at children.
Equazcionargue/improves04:35, 10/6/2007

Unblock request[edit]

I ask that any available administrator please unblock user Wikitarded (talk · contribs) (unblock) so that they may participate in a discussion about the suitability of their username currently ongoing at WP:RFCN. Please note that this is the same user discussed above at WP:ANI#Gross misuse of blocking. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The username is not permissable because its a poke at a mental disorder, or appears to be so. I won't unblock, however, registration of a new username in order to discuss I don't think would be objected. Mercury 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a valid block to me. It is not something every admin would block, but well within policy and admin discretion. This is a better place to discuss and unblock request than RFCN. The user can create a new name to discuss here if he/she wants. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
After a thorough examination of policy, I find the correct course of action within a WP:RFCN discussion (and yes, this has gone to RFCN), is to wait until the discussion is over to block. Therefore, I propose the following:
  1. Temporarily unblock so the editor can join the discussion.
  2. Ask the user to not edit any article in mainspace, and only to contribute in discussion revolving his username (or he will be reblocked)

This is perfectly fair. Why not allow him to contribute under his current name as the policy states itself!?. To disallow him to contribute to his own discussion via a temporary, restricted, unblock would be a injustice to the spirit of Wikipedia. I'll even add him to my watch list to ensure he doesn't edit anywhere else. 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Moot. By now he's either long gone, registered with a different user name, or whining at us as an anon. —Cryptic 18:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should take a look at his user talk page before coming to that conclusion? 18:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also declined to unblock. It appears to me that there was a valid block, then the user took advantage of a review using the unblock template (as is his right) which upheld the block. At this point, I believe it inappropriate to unblock without a heck of a good reason. The user can justify his username on his talk page, which I have no doubt that someone would be happy to c/p to the RFCN discussion for him. However, I also believe that RFCN is the wrong venue, as has been discussed above. - Philippe | Talk 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack cleanup requested[edit]

I'm tired of deleting personal attacks from this fellow, and his latest has so much stuff tangled together that I can't delete segments without affecting the meaning. Can someone clean this (diff) up? (SEWilco 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Removed personal attack and gave editor a strong warning--Jac16888 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)(non-admin)

Sockpuppet sleeper accounts[edit]

Recently, I dealt with an AIV report which involved a user called User:Ghost account 2. Now, it was readily apparent that he's a sockpuppet of User:Ghost account 1, who was indefinitely blocked a while ago by another admin for disruption and edit-warring on Mexican-American war. However, I just noticed today that there was another sock, User:Ghost account 8 who appeared; he states:

So I've been forced to become a POV guerilla warrior who stands up for fact and fights the decrees of those who have no life but to guard their PC point of view.


Needless to say, this alarmed me, so I checked listuser for other possible sleep accounts. Well, I found no fewer than thirty like-named accounts, which I believe to be sleepers. Now, should we just block the whole lot, or what? It's a lot of blocking, so I don't want to prematurely create a lot of work for us if my assessment here is wrong, so I thought I'd request a second opinion. --Haemo 18:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Block the whole lot of them. SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Swatjester & I hope you don't have carpal tunnel Haemo...--Isotope23 talk 19:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks some number of those are not related. Might be best to stick to just those of the form "Ghost account x". —dgiestc 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I've done; I've indef blocked all users of the form "Ghost account x", where x runs from 1 to 31. --Haemo 19:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Today I indef blocked Tlthe5th (talk · contribs) after multiple warnings for, in part, spamming his personal website in several articles or otherwise citing his website for claims made, repeatedly undoing edits without discussion or explanation in multiple articles, making a threat and personal attack at a talk page, and (most importantly) for a campaign of vandalism from both his main account and from IP (talk · contribs). Both accounts undid a large number of my edits to various articles without regard to their merit, presumably in response to warnings given for other policy violations. Tlthe5th clearly has a disruptive agenda driven by an extreme POV and his own desire to self-promote. See his website, as linked from his user page. After taking a gander as the website, I think you will agree that no further explanation is needed.

Today, however, Tlthe5th posted this ominous threat on his talk page. I wanted to notify the admin community in case anything happened. And yes, my password strength is good. Anyone have some advice? · jersyko talk 19:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I protected his talk page and removed the spam for his website on his userpage as he does not appear to want to constructively contribute. Mr.Z-man 20:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it, is his website anti-semitic? Its hard to tell. Anyway, looking at it he has posted a clear message telling people to undo your edits, although i can't see there is much you can do, except making taking a few days wiki-break, so they have nothing to undo, or keeping a close eye on your contributions list and not getting involved in any big discussions. Good luck--Jac16888 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not anti-semitic, but it's quite anti-Catholic (I'm not Jewish or Catholic, for what it's worth). I'll take it easy for a few days and see what happens, though nothing appears to have happened so far . . . · jersyko talk 01:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I find that a lot of threats like that are from people with a lot of bark, and very little bite. What would someone gain by spending hours every day tracking down and undoing all of your edits? Without a direct payoff (and none apparently exists here), that would get old pretty quick. For the near future, as others have said, just keeping an eye on your contributions page for a few days thereafter should be sufficient, and if you do run into problems, don't hesitate to ask other admins or senior editors for their take on the situation. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 02:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User: aka User:[edit]

This user has built up a long record of disruptive editing — see User talk: and User talk: I would like to request a temporary block and an independent review. Thanks — DavidMack 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that none of that user's posts would qualify as vandalism. They all appear to be good faith edits that were sourced and on-topic. The user provided edit summaries to explain most of his edits, and has participated in the talk page. There are extremists on this page who will immediately remove anything that says anything remotely negative about AA, and who have overused the word "vandalism" to justify such reverts. I'm sure there are such extremists on the anti-AA side as well. To me this user's edits all appear to be honest, good-faith edits by someone who provided edit summaries, cited sources, and participated in the article's talk page. These edits have ruffled some feathers but to me blocking a good-faith user amounts to a personal attack. Even if blocking the user were appropriate, however, it would be an exercise in futility. As this is an unregistered user he is known only by his IP address, and that address will change the next time he goes off line. I oppose this block. JeffStickney 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Can't see anything particularly wrong with their edits (which are at Alcoholics Anonymous by the way)beyond their edit warring, which they aren't doing with each other, the vandalism warnings these ips received stopped way back in march. This seems to simply be a content dispute--Jac16888 22:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)(non-admin)

Aillema needs to be blocked because vandalism to WP[edit]

Resolved: And good times were had by all. EVula // talk // // 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Aillema and sock Hdt83 deleted a vote in an RFA. This type of voter intimidation has no place in wikipedia. My comments were actually very mild. I did not mention that overreliance on technology has resulted in people getting killed in my industry. Overreliance on technology should be approached with caution. Bill Ayer 20:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maxim needs to be warned not to blank out this section. That is vandalism. What's so controversial about this ANI to warrant personal attacks?Bill Ayer 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Aillema deserves a good spanking. – Aillema 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The user has already been blocked indefinitely by ^demon (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh what a shame. Well, we had fun while it lasted. – Aillema 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't go just yet! EdokterTalk 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Slander of living person on bio[edit]

Talk:Chris_Crocker_(Internet_celebrity)#I_think_it.27s_calmed_down_enough_to_delete_this_hulking_piece_of_junk See comment by -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comment and left the user a warning. WP:BLP prohibts comments of that nature from talk pages. Someguy1221 20:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Does the policy include talk pages, or just articles?--Ea453 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from WP:BLP: "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages." Someguy1221 00:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User needs to blocked[edit]

Resolved: User blocked

All he is doing is ruining the articles for his own enjoyment like George W. Bush slept with menMarioman12 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for one month by AuburnPilot. Future reports can go to WP:ANI WP:AIV for a generally quicker response. Someguy1221 20:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean WP:AIV. He's already at ANI. :) - TexasAndroid 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Riobravo4‎ vs User:Thistime19‎[edit]

Requesting review of my blocks in this matter, particularly of Riobravo4‎. These two editors got into a major revert-war on The Used, with over 20 reverts each in less than an hour. Both were accusing the other's reverts of being vandalism. Both were reported on AIV by a third party, and I stepped in to look at the situation. The versions that both were reverting back and forth to had no obvious (to me) vandalism involved. Mostly MOS type style differences. (And in an unblock decline to Thistime19‎, another admin has since told Thistime19‎ that the admin believes Riobravo4‎ actually has MOS policy on his side.) Seeing no obvious vandalism going on for either side, I did not see that either side had the high-road in the situation, and thus neither's reverts were exempt from 3RR. I blocked both for 24 hours. I still think that, even if one of the editors has MOS on his side, it does not excuse 20RR in less than an hour. But after admin Nishkid64's comments to Thistime19‎, I felt that I should seek additional opinions on the blocks in general. If anyone feels that my block of Riobravo4‎ in particular is improper or excessive, feel free to unblock him. - TexasAndroid 20:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was following along & was 30 seconds behind you on the page protection. Your work was perfectly appropriate. Both were involved in a stupid edit war and violated 3RR several times over. — Scientizzle 21:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse, that was a lame U.S./USA edit war, no matter who was right. EdokterTalk 22:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


User:Radical-dreamer is attempting to censor a quote of Liam Neeson's in the Schindler's List article. His edit summary here was; "It's not a matter of censorship. It's just 'messing' is more appropriate than 'fucking'. How old are you anyway? Because it seems to me you need to grow up." This appears to be in violation of WP:CIVIL, and would also be an addition of false information. In addition, he has blanked his user talk page twice in an effort to erase the warnings, and has often done so on his talk page. Alientraveller 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not even sourced. If you do show me a source then I agree that the quote should remain that way. Otherwise it seems to me as plain vandalism. Radical-Dreamer 20:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It is sourced, so please stop censoring the quote. Alientraveller 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The movie is actually an acceptable source for what was said in the movie. Someguy1221 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(e/c)That does not look like it from the movie, but the page cited: states "I think he enjoyed fookin' with the Nazis." -(so it should be changed to that, but not "messing." Mr.Z-man 21:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) A source is provided, but the source doesn't match the quote. I have changed the quote to match the source. If there is dispute whether the quote should be included, that is a content issue that should be worked out at the article talk page and not an admin issue. But as long as the quote is there, it needs to actually be a quote per the source. -- JLaTondre 21:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
My apologies to Radical-dreamer, and I will forgive his moment of incivility. Consider this topic void. Alientraveller 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hindukush Kafir people: flagrant POV and reliable source problems / consensus not respected[edit]

Greetings. There is an article I came across, Hindukush Kafir people, that violates many poilicies, including WP:NPOV, WP:Reliable sources and policy regarding biased/discriminatory/racist content (i.e. NPOV#Bias). The word, "Kafir," is a pejorative, possibly racist Arabic word meaning "ingrate." The problem is that this article is not about a pejorative word for a group of people. It's an article that's actually about the people themselves. The article also uses an outdate source (from over 100 years ago) that use obsolete scientific theories that are possibly scientific racism from the ye-old days of imperialism. Some people on the talk page have even said that the content is copied from its by-far, most-used source, Sir George Scott Robertson's book titled, "The Kafirs of Hindukush," from 1895. The funny thing is that this heavily relied upon source is so old it's in the public domain!

I'm not invested in the article but was appalled by its POV and had to do something. The talk page for the article has many people arguing with one lone user, Sze_cavalry01, over certain, particularly biased sections (and, in some cases, over the whole article itself). Just about everyone on the talk page (except for Sze_cavalry01, of course) has argued against the inclusion of this content, and many have been bold by simply deleting it when necessary. However, Sze_cavalry01 refuses to accept the consensus and continues to revert the article per his POV and unreliable sources. This has gone on for months. He also uses IP: to make changes, but I don't know if this is for deceptive purposes or not. Here is a link to the latest version of the article to which Sze_cavalry01 / IP: keeps reverting: Sze_cavalry01 (a.k.a. IP: Latest Version of Article. Also, here is a link to the most flagrantly biased/POV'd section in that old version: Sze_cavalry01 (a.k.a. IP: "Kafir Characteristics" Section. Brace yourself! The POV and bias in this section is quite strong. It's so bad, I simply delete the whole section when I see it. I figure that, due to its POV, it might as well be completely re-written.

A number of users (myself included) have tried to reason with Sze_cavalry01, but he just won't accept the consensus. This will be evident from the discussions on the talk page. This is truly last resort; I sense that Sze_cavalry01 will violate policy on this page indefinitely if not prevented by administrative action. To anyone who can help in this matter, many thanks in advance for your assistance! And, of course, feel free ask me any questions you may have. Cheers! ₪ask123 {t} 21:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I have discussed this people in a Hindu Indian related Yahoo email group, and this people do exist, and their land was called Kafiristan. Kafir is Arabic for "unbeliever", not "ingrate". Anthony Appleyard 05:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Content dispute

POV pushing despite was warned about Wikipedia:Verifiability at 1 and 2. Pls, see discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talkcontribs) 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we got us a good ole fashioned content dispute here. Please use WP:RFC for settlig disputes, as you have already been told to do on the wikiquette board. Thank you--Jac16888 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
But couple other users from wikiquette board have commented that alredy. Well maybe RFC is good idea anyway. Thanks! Necator 22:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Violations of the External links policies[edit]

Resolved: Bring this to the attention of WP:SSP

This tag has been applied to quickly per the note below.

There is now a need for admins to look into an ongoing situation regarding external links. Scrooby (talk · contribs) has been adding links to his personal webpage for roughly one year. Most of these have been to the films of Stanley Kubrick. When I discovered them I removed them based on WP:EL as editors are not allowed to add external links to their own webpages. It should be noted that Scrooby has admitted to being JS Bernstein several times. Naturally, he disagreed with this. But a perusal of his edits at wikipedia [15] showed that the only edits that he had ever made (with the exception of edits to discussion pages) were to add these external links. His protestations over this situation lead to several personal attacks including entries here [16] and here[17].

He claims to have not been the editor who added the original link to the Eyes Wide Shut page. It was added by an anon IP, but, he did alter the address when he changed his webpage. There is little question that his other edits have been to add new links to his webpage as he finished new items on it. This is an attempt to funnel wikipedia readers to his articles.

Yesterday a new user User:Ouillah made thier first edits at wikipedia which consisted of adding back one of the links previously removed and continuing the personal attacks here [18]. Note that some of the same wording as Scrooby's was used in these new attacks. It was easy to suspect sock/meat puppetry and a check of the IP's used by both of these editors showed them to be in the same range of IP addresses and both originate from London, England. This the same location of the JS Bernstein webpage in question. This new editor has made no further edits since yesterday.

Scrooby next went to User:ClockworkSoul‎ in the hopes that he might back him up in his protestations of ill treatment. This user did not respond.

The next place that Scrooby went was to the Wikiquette alerts. I think that this was a proper spot for him to go to get some answers to his questions and two other editors began responding to him here [19]. User:Cheeser1 put the link in question back in. I took it back out but then left it in as a further discussion was begun on the talk page for Eyes Wide Shut. Suggestions were made that he take his case to WP:THIRD. He declined to take this option.

Today, even though the discussion is still open on both the Wikiquette and EWS discussion page Scrooby left a message saying that he considered the case closed and he began reentering the links to his webpage on articles other than EWS. As the situation has not been resolved I have removed the ones on all but the EWS page.

I have noted in several spots that it is not the content of the JS Bernstein webpage that I am judging. It is the violation of the EL policy that I am applying.

I will admit that the lack of contributions to wikipedia other than to add links to his website and the personal attacks have made it difficult to WP:AGF in this situation. I will also point out that I have made mistakes. Perhaps I am incorrectly applying the EL policy. Also, I reacted to the personal attacks and left a message on Scrooby's talk page here [20] addressing these attacks. I will be happy to hear from any admin who has suggestions as to how I could have handled this better. Also, if a consensus is reached that these links are okay I will not protest.

To sum up I feel that there are three things that need to be addressed with this editor. External links, Sock/meatpuppetry and personal attacks. My thanks to both Sarcasticidealist and Cheeser1 for the time that they have already taken and my thanks ahead of time for any assistance that any admin(s) can give now. MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that an administrator's attention is required here. MarnetteD is alleging abusive use of socks, so I have advised him to bring the issue to WP:SSP. Since he hasn't done that, I've suggested that he should focus not on whether the link was added by Scrooby, but on whether the link adds value to the article. Instead, he's come here. I leave it in the capable hands of whoever responds. Sarcasticidealist 22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You will pardon me but I do not think that this is totally resolved. The sockpuppetry case has been filed but the Violation of the external link policy and the personal atack situation has not. MarnetteD | Talk 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely that User:Scrooby and User:Ouillah have been guilty of personal attacks against User:MarnetteD. Both have been warned, and neither has engaged in personal attacks since the warning - I would suggest that further action on that front is unecessary unless either user re-offends, but I'm not an admin.
As to the violation of WP:EL, the violation to which User:MarnetteD is referring (as I understand it) is the rule against linking to yourself. User:Scrooby denies that he did so, saying that somebody else added this link. It is possible that he is lying, and that the IP that added the link is actually a sock of User:Scrooby, in which case User:MarnetteD would be entirely correct that a violation of WP:EL has occurred. However, we can't know that until the question of sockpuppetry is resolved, which is what's happening over at WP:SSP right now. Sarcasticidealist 00:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)



I don't have much time right now, so I'm just going to note here. Can someone have a look at User:AS 001? Thanks, Mercury 22:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like this person is --- (name redacted for privacy), a person that works for --- (company redacted for privacy). He made a minor edit about himself, then about a famous person who died in an incident related to his industry, then about a flight related to this deceased person. Afterwards, there was an RFA. Since it's afterwards, we know the account was not a SPA created for the RFA.

At the RFA, he made some observations which some did not agree with. Some blocking occurred. An administrator then said it was ok for user:Bill Ayer to recreate a new user name. AS 001 seems to be that name. That user freely admits on his userpage that an administrator allowed creation of AS 001.

So far, AS 001 is behaving. So I think there is no problem. If so, no easter eggs for this person. Mrs.EasterBunny 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, As 001 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a previously blocked person who admitted to not being the person whose name they were using. Corvus cornix 23:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, it looks like User:Mercury has unblocked him. Even though he is a sockpuppet of an admitted blocked User. Corvus cornix 23:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Twas a difficult block that needed some more thought and time then I had at the moment. Mercury 02:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

More ClaimJumperPete[edit]

His latest twist is for the socks to add the blurb in hidden text (e.g.). Unless you happen to spot these in RC, they're a pain to find.iridescent (talk to me!) 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was noticing that... we always find them in the end though. :) Jmlk17 03:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Service ribbons[edit]

Someone has... er... "improved" Image:Editor - bronze ribbon - 1 pip.jpg, which (as it's used at Service awards) is one of the most frequently used images on the whole 'pedia. I wouldn't know how to revert an image if my life depended on it, can someone who actually understands these things take a look?iridescent (talk to me!) 00:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? I see only two versions, both from July 2006, and no deleted versions. Are you sure that's the image you mean? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone's fixed it - was redirecting to a porn picture, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out how they were doing it; there's nothing in the edit history of either the template or the image itself.iridescent (talk to me!) 02:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

This article has been moved, vandalised and an offensive picture put on it. I can't move everything back. Any chance of an admin looking at it? Thanks, Regan123 00:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the history, but I'm guessing Beenagent (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 00:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep was him. All sorted now. Thanks to the admins who did this one. One user on a rampage it seems. Regan123 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yet another Grawp sock...iridescent (talk to me!) 00:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I think some of his page moves qualify for oversight or at least deletion. I think his page move of John Paul II especially. Well most of his page moves actually, Madonna as well. Woodym555 01:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This is my personal favourite so far. Whatever anyone says about ED, noone ever accused them of not being creative.iridescent (talk to me!) 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
So that's why all those bizarre titles in my watchlist. Anyway, I have salted some of the redirects re-created, but we should salt all of them in case.--JForget 01:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. Been popping up more and more lately. Jmlk17 03:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, just a question. Should someone delete all his edits from the templates (I really don't think that image is the sort of thing that one should find in the histories)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User Nikkul's "straw poll" at the outset of an RfC[edit]

user:Nikkul has been undermining Official Wikipedia Policy, by both continuing to list a consensus that he claims already exists and by continuing to allow people to vote in his "poll" rather than offer comments in the RfC. The RfC, Request for Comment: Featured Picture in the Culture Section of a Featured Country Article, was first posted on 30 September and user:Nikkul's comments (including the enumeration of a "consensus" he claimed already existed) were posted in this post on October 2, when only two other editors had commented in the RfC. The same day, some new editors, thinking that a vote was being taken, cast new votes as well. Wikipedia Official Policy Wikipedia is not a democracy does allow for straw polls to "test consensus," but that presupposes that a critical mass of people have already weighed in. It certainly doesn't sanction the setting up of a poll on the second day of an RfC when only two other people have commented. user:Nikkul now claims that he is not conducting a poll, but merely enumerating a past consensus that he claims already existed before the RfC began. But the fact is that his list at the very least is confusing people about what is expected of them in the RfC, and is resulting in their offering a vote rather than a comment. user:Nikkul has been reminded of this a number of times, but he seems blithely to be ignoring all pleas. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard nominated for deletion[edit]

I've nominated Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination). If the page is deleted, community ban discussions can take place here again, where they are subject to wider participation and oversight (lack of diversity in participation and lack of oversight of discussions are two of the main issues I've identified). Picaroon (t) 03:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after the nomination someone removed the link to this noticeboard from the template of noticeboard options. This is not only premature, it skews the discussion by unduly reducing the number of people who are aware of it. Please restore. (Note also I'm neutral on the proposal itself this time). This is inappropriate with regard to any ongoing noticeboard MFD and I object on principle. DurovaCharge! 05:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I've replaced the link. (Note: I've !voted to merge back here.) FCYTravis 06:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. :) DurovaCharge! 06:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon ed shouts random threats and personal attacks[edit]

I just thought I should report this.[21] Reginmund 05:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked - This does not warrant a warning. Mr.Z-man 05:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Concur with block. Ah, if only they were all so nicely unambiguous. :) --Elonka 05:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)



User talk: is personally attacking me and an admin on his talkpage. I tried to get the page semi'd, but it was declined because the admin there said he didn't see how it violated WP:NPA. User in question called User:Haemo a "damned fool" and labelled me as a page owner. USer is also abusing the unblock template by claiming they didn't touch the page in question (First person shooter), when they have a long rap sheet of adding spam links. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 10:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked and offensive comments removed from their talk page. --Benchat 12:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
USer is also abusing the unblock template by claiming they didn't touch the page in question (First person shooter), when they have a long rap sheet of adding spam links. To be completely fair, that might not have been the same person. IP addresses change hands regularly, and suddenly discovering you're blocked for something you didn't do is not necessarily conducive to civility. —Random832 13:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I read the page - he did NOT claim he didn't touch the page, he claimed he didn't add anything new (i.e. only reverted removals of stuff that was not originally inserted by him). This isn't spamming, it's a content dispute, he should only have been blocked for 3RR (if he did, in fact, violate 3RR, and in which case that should have been spelled out.) —Random832 13:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"I didn't add anything to the page (First person shooter)." That is dishonest as they did add about 20 spam links tot the page. They also were blocked for 3RR, that notice was removed somehow. The fact that they mentioned me and the declining admin by name, and the way the initial unblock request [22] was worded, makes me think it was the same person. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
He claims he didn't add them. There is a legitimate argument (one I do not personally agree with, but that is reasonable enough that I can believe he sincerely holds that opinion) to be made that reinsertion is not the same thing as addition. That may not have been clear from his claim, but it was certainly clear from my explanation. There is a difference between "He added these links, that were never on the page before" and "He reinserted these links that had been on the page forever before being removed a weekmonth ago", and, regardless of how worthless the links are, he perceived your claims an accusation of the former, and correctly defended himself against that accusation. I'm willing to AGF and suppose you either didn't realize he meant that (though the way you rephrased "didn't add anything" to "didn't touch the page" seems like you were trying to mislead) or didn't realize the links HAD been there in the past, added by other editors. Are you willing to AGF and accept that by "did not add them" he means he was not the one who first put them in the article? —Random832 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. By looking at the diffs, I found out that the links were there before. I will AGF. The only thing I really wanted here was the removing of the personal attacks, the unblock request was sort of a second thought. Have a good night. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
However, I will argue that the approach he is taking has several issues wrong with it. As noted, some of his language can be taken as personal attacks, but minor to that: there's a conflict of interest issue (which I'm inquiring over at the COI noticeboard) as this user claims (and I have no reason to doubt) he owns the top link in question, and seems to be fighting to keep that link on the page, despite the high likelihood of the link not meeting WP:EL requirements on copyvio (as the site in question contains abandonware and content of other questionable sources). Yes, he was reported for a 3RR violation, there was a discussion that begged for his comments after the block expired (sometime mid-last week) which only until today as he said anything towards it, and is back readding the same link, stating that as it was on the page for an indefinite period of time prior to July this year, it should stay due to past consensus, even if it fails now. And now he's putting effectively an ad up on the talk page to bring people to his site (the site does not seem, however, to have any revenue sources from its own ads, so I don't know what exactly is up with that). This "ad" points to a wiki he's starting on his site which has, presently, copied the text of First-person shooter verbatim (with the full set of links) as a starting point. Not that there's anything directly wrong with that, but it is a motive question that even with AGF it's hard to tell where he may be going with it. --MASEM 17:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy issue[edit]

If a user reveals on the Wikipedia where they work, and if that user is using their work IP address to continue to vandalise the Wikipedia, is it a violation of our privacy policy to report the abuse to that network administrator? Specifically here, I'm thinking of a blocked vandal who continues to set up abusive sockpuppet accounts to get around the block. I want to note for the record that I am only talking about disclosing information revealed by the user themselves and revealed on Wikipedia, not any other site, and only to stop the continued vandalism. Blocking the IP addresses in question will not work; it was tried and it lead to collateral damage. A soft block does not work because this vandal uses outside addresses to set up additional sockpuppet accounts. For the record, I do not know for sure if the disclosed IP address was actually where this person works but it does appear likely. There's no doubt that they are using this corporation's IP address, however. --Yamla 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Best not to handle something like this on your own, given possible legal implications. Raymond Arritt 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say, no it is not a violation of the privacy policy to contact the network admin. An alternative would be to drop a long term hard block on the IP with the instruction that editors who are blocked should contact their own IT department for assistance. Let them come to us and then let them know what has been happening. Thatcher131 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've taken Thatcher131's advice and dropped a hard block on the address range in question. Thanks for the suggestion. --Yamla 17:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note the following from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Responsibility_of_organizations" Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to