Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive333

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

Noticeboard archives



User:Taylor21 appears to have tried to try and change his username by moving his userpage to User:SeanTaylor21. As SeanTaylor21 isn't a registered name, can an admin please revert that move and explain username changing to this user? — Save_Us_229 12:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Notified, but not moved back. Will (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Considering the recent death of Sean Taylor, is this an appropriate User name? (Note that Sean Taylor wore number 21). Corvus cornixtalk 21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The page was moved two months ago; it's just a horrible horrible coincidence this was found out about on the day of the player's death. Will (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC) and Umran Javed[edit]

Resolved (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is consistently vandalising Umran Javed to remove details of his conviction for soliciting to murder (relating to London protest marches against the Danish cartoons portraying Mohammed). The IP is registered to Cable and Wireless and appears to be at least semi-static, but trying to rport this sort of vandalism at WP:AIAV tends to being told that too much tim ehas elapsed between warnings on an IP. Please could an admin take a look at this and then either block the IP or semi-protect the article. David Underdown (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


This user has already been brought once here [1] because of PA remarks against me on his userpage. He had then opposed the admin's deletion of questionable text from his page, reintroducing the text, until he was threatened with more severe action by the admin who handled that.

Nevertheless, he has reintroduced the remarks under a different form: "My page was vandalised by User:Moldorubo related to User:Dc76." I have asked him nicely to remove them. However, he does not want to respond to this, despite the fact that he has been online for many-many hours in the last 4 days, since I asked him.

Could you, please, see that the remarks are removed. I have stated clearly to the user that I have no relation to Moldorubo, and I dislike being suggested that I am related with a banned user. I asked that all references to me be removed from his page.:Dc76\talk 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • You may delete my post if I am not allowed to post here. All I wanted to say, User Moldorubo used exact same edits, exact same language, exact same places, exactly at the time when user Dc 76 was off line, right after the heating with editing on Balti article, and right after Dc 76 publicly declared "I will not edit for the next hours". When I have publicly mentioned all thse details on one of the talk pages, User Dc 76 reappeared and pretended to have an imaginary dialog with User Moldorubo on Balti talk page with personal references (which may as well fall under personal attack policy) in my regard (which were at a certain point deleted from the talk page, but I brought them back). Should you (the neutral person who will review this) need more references, exact diffs, etc. please let me know on my talk page by a short notice request and I will spend the necessary time and find them all. In the meanwhile you can find all of them on my talk page and on Balti (as referred to Moldavian city) talk page. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the user apparently plays with I.P. addresses (we had just as Polish IP users editing the same edits as Dc 76 or Moldorubo, as well as Tanzaian IP users doing exact same dits at exact same places while Dc 76 was "officially offline", who surprisingy know so much about Moldova in general and even about Balti (city in Moldova) in particular, being either in Poland or in Africa, interesting coincidence. Thank you in advance.Moldopodo (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Article missing but can't find deletion review[edit]

About a week ago I found that the William (Bill) Nuti biography listing was missing from Wikipedia. The bio used to be found here:

I'm certain the article was still on Wikipedia as of early October. On November 16 I tried my link to the article and was taken to a Wikipedia page with this message: Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

I've reviewed the deletion archive logs for November, October and September but have found no evidence of a deletion review for the William Nuti article.

I believe this bio has been on Wikipedia for at least a year and meets Wikipedia notability standards. Mr. Nuti is chairman and chief executive of NCR Corporation, a Fortune 500 technology company. Mr. Nuti has been quoted in dozens of news articles on the subject of the self-service revolution.

I'd greatly appreciate if Mr. Nuti's biography can be restored to Wikipedia. If a deletion review did take place, I'd appreciate if an administrator can direct me to it so I can see the reasons for deletion.

Thanks for any help with this appeal!

Gsanders77 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This from the deletion log indicates the times of deletion and brief reason. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See the deletion log for the article itself (it's linked on the page you mentioned): deletion log of William Nuti. It seems that the page has been deleted twice, the first time due to the main deletion process, which was then known as VfD and is now known as Articles for deletion, the second time speedily deleted as 'bio spam'. Here is the original VfD discussion, although as it was in 2005 it's somewhat out of date by now; you might want to talk to User:Danny (you can contact him on User talk:Danny) about the second deletion, as he's the admin that did it. --ais523 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(2x ec) The first deletion debate was 31 months ago and is located here. The second version of the article got killed by Danny unilaterally. Hope this helps! east.718 at 16:42, November 27, 2007

The article in question is written in tone inadmissible for wikipedia. It reads as a blatant promotion. I suggest you to forget about it and rewrite it while avoiding "peacock terms" (such as "leading provider", "impressive track record of achievement") and thoroughly footnoting the claims about achievements. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines to be met about the notability of a person in question. `'Míkka>t 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are the external links used in the article:

To avoid needless conflicts, I suggest you to write the new article here: User:Gsanders77/William Nuti: draft and let me know (by writing in user talk:mikkalai). I will review and point to possible problems. `'Míkka>t 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR block review[edit]

I recently blocked User:Avfnx for 3RR violation and edit warring on Dominican Republic when the user was reported to WP:AN/3RR by User:CubanoDios. Can I ask some experienced admins to take a look at this discussion which I found and ask for opinions on whether User:CubanoDios should also be blocked. According to the contributions and the discussion, this seems to be a content dispute which has been going on for a while now and I would like opinions on the best course of action. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Greatartists210 and other accounts -- Regis Silva‎ issues[edit]



Please read these two short posts: Talk page explanation of page creation and User talk page warnings to date.

The bio article is at AFD, the hotel article isn't at the moment. Notability is unsure for both. The creator (obviously the subject) is a new editor and it's unclear right now if he is wilfully ignoring notices and policy or just hasn't yet got the idea in a big way. The relevance of the hotel is he painted a room in it, and created the hotel article partly to self-promote. He has also done other constructive edits.

The ANI concern is a watch on this editor and the repeated addition of promotional links and text, and removal of tags (COI, AFD, etc). The former seems to have slowed with my requests, suggesting a willingness to learn, but the main problems and multiple account use are of concern. Since I've edited, I'd like someone else to manage any administrative action that may be necessary. Try not to WP:BITE initially.

Given the above, these two articles and the users contribs could do with an eyeball or two. They may need further action if this persists. The 2nd account needs shutting down, too, with attention drawn to the fact we don't allow multiple accounts to co-edit on the same articles/s this way. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war in process[edit]


There was an ongoing discussion of several days about restructuring the article on Transcendental Meditation. One editor made a suggestion and a second and third editors commented and agreed in part with the initial suggestion. There was no disagreement from the initial editor, and no disagreement from anyone else, so it seemed like we had a tentative consensus. Further, it was agreed that the restructuring would take place after problems in one of the sections were addressed. A new editor showed up, ignored the discussion, and began making major changes to the structure of the article. I reverted and pointed out that there was an ongoing discussion of the structure and a consensus to which no one had objected. The editor reverted. I reverted again, explaining in more detail about the ongoing discussion and also in more detail about why I didn't think the new version was effective. He reverted again. And now i've reverted a third time, something I've only done on one other occasion in my time in Wikipedia. I feel like this editor is acting outside of process. I have directed the editor to the guideline on consensus. He's just reverted again. Maybe I misunderstand the process. TimidGuy (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What you've just described is an edit war. I've protected the page for seven days to allow everyone to dicuss future changes to the page and to come to a consensus about the format. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism from[edit]


Less two weeks out of a one-month block, Special:Contributions/ has been reengaging in vandalism. I reverted two vandal edits today amongst others; a couple with racial/ethnic remarks. The user has stacked multiple level 4 warns since last block and no valid edits are in recent history. My last reverts were more than one hour after the vandal edits, and I hadn't time then to make an immediate report, meaning WP:AIV is likely to decline any report as not now ("now" is not well-defined, but can run <= 30 minutes there depending on admin), so I'm posting the report here if further action is deemed appropriate. Michael Devore (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Three month anonblocked. This IP seems never to have made a non-vandal edit Tonywalton  | Talk 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account[edit]


User talk:Npnigr8477 acts as a vandalism-only account; I believe it should be blocked permanently as such. —ScouterSig 04:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to go to WP:AIV. You'll get a faster response there. -Goodshoped 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Forget the warning set, we don't need people like that around here. east.718 at 04:13, November 28, 2007
Thanks for the advice—and the block. —ScouterSig 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Cliché Online, racist comments[edit]

Hello, I would like to request User:Cliché Online be blocked to stop him making racist comments like he has repeatedly done on Talk:2007 civil unrest in France. I don't know what the specific policy is on this, but in France at least inciting racial hatred is illegal, please do not let wikipedia be a breading ground for this kind of thing even if it is legal in the US. This page is linked to from the main page, in the news section, so it doesn't give a very good image of wikipedia when people see they are all africans. the dead were two muslisms, a blackboy and an arab as read in L'Express. the same as in 2005: same scums, same riots, as in the Watts riots. he obviously has an agenda to disparage Islam and immigrants. He is also spreading more libel calling people scum, even though they are yet to be proven guilty of anything, and is generally trying to stir up racial hatred. Here is another one of his comments: here's another one, just for your viewing pleasure. this is an official media Rue 89. what there are black people there too?! that's impossible! which blacks you said? african blacks, the others you mentioned are french from centuries, catholics and have nothing to do with these scums. He is also spreading false information about the 2 children who died calling them scum (see above) and Muslim (even though nothing shows this, sources only indicate they are children of immigrants). Requesting block per will to disrupt the project for a personal agenda, and violation of WP:BLP. Do you realise how bad it makes wikipedia look when the first item in the news section contains false allegations based on apparent ethnic background, such as Arabic = Muslim, and the talk page is filled with racial hatred posts? This is not just a case of someone being racist he is deliberately trying to incite hatred. Jackaranga (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note. --Haemo (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine - resolution[edit]

I am concerned that I cannot determine if there is consensus for my suggestion above (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dweller.27s_proposal) and don't think that this is something to be bold about. Please indicate below if you support or object to my resolution and/or my mentoring of Porcupine. Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's proposal[edit]

  • I think it's a good idea. -- lucasbfr talk 10:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Porcupine should do the 4 steps you mention, but I do not support an unblock.RlevseTalk 10:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I could support this iff it includes a proviso that Porcupine/Rambutan/Circuit Judge's original 1-month block will be reinstated and restarted from zero at the first sign of any breach of WP:CIV or WP:NPA, and Porcupine agrees to accept any admin's call on that without question or further discussion. Honestly, he was unblocked for less than a day before drawing his current block; how many second chances do we give him? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Dweller, if you're willing to act as mentor, then fine, but based on his previous account and this one, I really don't hold out much hope for Porcupine - he must be on his fifth or sixth "last chance" by now. Neil  13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said above, I'm willing to accept an unblock with mentoring, despite total disbelief that it will work. I'd prefer that the current block run longer than the last one, i.e. more than a week. By the time there is a clear consensus, we'll probably be beyond that :). I would not object to adding TenOfAllTrades' provision also. GRBerry 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with this proposal. TSO1D (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dweller as mentor[edit]

  • Since you both are ok with it, I think it's also a good idea. -- lucasbfr talk 10:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • support this once his one month block is over.RlevseTalk 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Try it, at worst the behavior repeats and we will have a clear consensus when time to lower the banhammer comes. GRBerry 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, and reduce the block to three weeks, so Porcupine has the chance to (hopefully) calmly investigate edit wars, AN/I resolutions, AfD discussions and all the other places where dispute is (again, hopefully), resolved without sarcasm, incivility and basic nasty snappiness, then edit productively. As I said in an email to Porcupine: "WP:AGF is a very important thing, IMV, until it's blindingly obvious that GF can no longer be A" - I'm content to give Porcupine a chance to prove that his GF can be A. If he screws up this one last time, that's the lot. And hopefully other editors involved here will contribute to mentoring as well as Dweller. (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Sigh. Now logged in. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

Having reviewed the above, there seems reasonable consensus for the proposal and certain consensus for the latter. Given the consensus for my mentoring, I am more prepared to boldly go where perhaps I shouldn't. I will unblock Porcupine and watch his actions. A repeat of bad behaviour will, as I have previously stated, see me back here requesting a community ban. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Curlin and Non-NPOV edits[edit]

Curlin is an article that I personally think can get to good or featured article status (there's enough recent info to reference everything), but I don't know what to do as many of these edits are being done by registered users.

There are incorrect edits, peacocky edits, edits removing referenced content, edits changing the wording of referenced content to give them content contrary to what the reference presents and crystal ball edits that keep happening...and I'm really close to violating 3RR to keep them off. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I soft-protected the article for 24h. Please explain your reverts in the article talk page with as few [[alphabet soup] as possible and post the notices at the user talk pages, as well as in edit summaries. YOu must always do so when the erit war erupts: since you are a more experienced wikipedian, it is your obligation to initiate a discussion, especially when dealing with newcomers. `'Míkka>t 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page of both the article and of the registered editor (who I believe has been the most recent IP editor). --SmashvilleBONK! 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
User responded by editing "Maybe you should check your facts" to my user page...which is kinda the problem...because I did...which is why I went to ANI... --SmashvilleBONK! 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Long-term blocks on anons?[edit]

Looking at (talk · contribs), it's quite appalling at how the talk page is literally stuffed to the brim with nothing but warnings for almost three years worth of vandalism. Given that nothing good (to my knowledge) has emerged from this IP, and considering that the user has no problem waiting and regularly vandalizing, how long of a block may be acceptable? I understand the reasoning against indefinitely blocking an IP, but would something on the order of a year be an appropriately measured response? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not unusual for persistent school IPs to be blocked for 6 or 12 months. I'd do it here but that's just an opinion. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think a long-term block would be in order. The WHOIS says that the address is non-portable so a long-term block should have limited consequences on outside parties. WHOIS search. Woodym555 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone contacted the ISP, WHRO? Their T&C appears to frown upon their user's actions here. spryde | talk 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A low-level but persistent vandal... I blocked the IP for 3 months, which should give everyone a break. Next time 6 months would be in order. MastCell Talk 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, that addresses are marked as non-portable doesn't mean much with respct to blocking. A portable block is one where the owning organization can keep the addresses if they switch ISPs. Portability would only matter if we were range-blocking an organization for an extended period, and even there it doesn't help us much. William Pietri (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am emphasizing: non-portable does NOT mean not shared AT ALL. That only means the end users can't keep the IP if they change their provider. -- lucasbfr talk 13:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Three years of vandalism more than justifies a 3-month block.RlevseTalk 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd have given even more ;). That's just that I see this mistake often. The only way I see to guess if the IP is shared or not is behavioral. -- lucasbfr talk 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Page moving and blanking - possible BLP issues from previous block[edit]

Could someone review Special:Contributions/Martinlh and look at what has happened to Talk:David Howell (chess player) (moved to ZincBelief) and David Howell (chess player)? The previous discussion is here. There was some suggestion there that Martinlh might be a relation of the person the article is about, hence the BLP concerns. Note that the real-life incident in question was discussed on the talk page that has been moved and blanked by this user, so they may be attempting to remove any mention of it from Wikipedia. For my views on this, see the discussion on the talk page (if you can find it after all the page moves and blankings). It is possible that courtesy blanking of the talk page may be required, but the page moves need to be repaired. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Account blocked indefinitely: malicious intentions became obvious when the user blanked warning in their talk page. `'Míkka>t 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Now I feel vindicated :( -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. But it might be best to at least explain on their talk page why they are blocked (and that talking calmly and engaging in discussion will get them unblocked), and to explain to them how they should address any problems with the articles. ie. Tell them that they should discuss on the talk page, or make an OTRS complaint. My view is that the incident in question is verifiable but borderline notable. I'd be inclined to remove it, except that the article only reports the ban that resulted from the incident. It is the talk page that has gone into detail, and it is the talk page that should probably have a section courtesy blanked. This seems to be an all or nothing case. Either report the incident fully, or remove it as a minor, non-notable incident (non-notable as far as the rest of the world is concerned, though notable for the people involved) that recieved some coverage on the chess news sites. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Remember, it all started with this edit. This still looks to me like a BLP issue where the so-called "vandal" hasn't had someone politely explain to him how things work on Wikipedia, and they are resorting to page blanking and moving as the only way they can see to remove content they object to. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        • And I failed to see that Mikka removed the contentious edit from the article, thus satisfying BLP concerns. Discussion on the talk page has restarted. Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm re-opening this incident, as my explanatory post on Martinlh's talk page resulted in a post from him expressing his concerns. This is unclear enough that it probably needs further discussion. I've put a note on the talk page stating clearly that the material in question should not be restored until it is clear what is going on. Could people here review what I wrote here and offer advice? I've also notified Mikka (the blocking admin). Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of anti-vandal tool by disruptive editor[edit]

Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly disruptive in the Sri Lanka conflict (last time) and just used a vandalism tool to revert to his POV[2]. Can I, as an admin, take away the vandalism tool, or does someone else have to do it? — Sebastian 02:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe you can convince him, or you can have them blocked. I'm not an administrator, but I somehow happen to know this for some reason. -Goodshoped 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
And I can really use your help with the section above this (stoptaospam). -Goodshoped 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a precedent for ripping out abused tools from one's monobook and protecting it. east.718 at 02:59, November 28, 2007
Can I do this? How? — Sebastian 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Go to User:Snowolfd4/monobook.js, remove the tools, and protect the page. But it might not be a bad idea to warn him first, as I've done now. Ral315 » 03:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! — Sebastian 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
(copied from Ral's talk) Just to explain, I removed the section as I saw it was not at all backed by the citations given, and said so clearly in my edit summery, which was
"entire original research. None of the citations mention a "controversy""
I didn't believe it needed further explanation on the talk page.
User:Taprobanus then undid my edit, without any explanation, either in the edit summery or talk page. As you know, when you undo an edit you clearly see the edit summery given by the previous editor, and he decided to simply ignore it and undo my edit, simply adding his extremely POV, uncited section back. It certainly was not a good faith edit, and I saw that as vandalism, pure and simple, and reverted it as such.(end copy from Ral's talk)
None of this was mentioned in the above post, and Sebastian's claim that I "reverted to my POV" is blatantly false. Even User:Black Falcon has agreed the section should not be in the article, and should be removed, as I initially did.
Like I told Ral, I stand by my edit, and would appreciate further input from neutral admin's on what they think of this. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon merged it's non redundant content into another paragraph, he did not totally remove it. BF also reworked the entire article. The para Snowolfdr was sourced too. Interested parties should also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#2006_Mannar_massacre.RlevseTalk 15:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppety vandals[edit]


These two accounts appear to have been working together:

I've blocked them both as vandalism-only. Another set or two of eyes would be nice, though. --Masamage 07:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Even if they hadn't been working together, there's nothing remotely controversial about either of those blocks. Both accounts hardly have a non-vandalism edit between them. ELIMINATORJR 07:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I definitely won't be losing any sleep over that. I'm just not very experienced in dealing with sockpuppety concerns; I'm not sure if there's anything else to be worried about here in terms of sleeper accounts, etc. --Masamage 09:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sygtalia is the master account, it was created a week earlier. I've adjusted the tags. The oldest account is generally tagged as the master puppeteer, or sometimes the most prominent one if the oldest has little activity. I've adjusted the sock tags.15:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talkcontribs)

Arrest pol pot stoogerance (talk · contribs)[edit]


This new user is continually vandalising articles relating to communism and islam with the same message. Do we have to wait to block him or can we do it now? His account was created tonight and he was vandalising within two minutes. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him - obviously a sockpuppet of User:Runtshit who is just here to harass User:RolandR. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sneaky Vandalism of A. Philip Randolph by User talk:[edit]


Whenm doing various anti-vandalism patrols I noticed that this user had changed dates on this, article, however my knowledge of subject is almost none. I am posting this here in order for someone knowledgable on this to check the dates that were changed. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not sneaky vandalism, it's simple vandalism. east.718 at 13:36, November 28, 2007
Warned -- lucasbfr talk 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

I have been personally attacked several times over the past two days. The user in question, Alice.S, called me:

  • When I asked her to be more civil,[3] after her first two personal attacks, she responded with this.6 She was recently blocked[4] for a WP:POINT violation. Jose João (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Administer is trolling and threatening to block me[edit]

I would like to file a complaint against Admin User:Swatjester, is this the right place in order to air my grievance and show proof so I don't waste my time? - Jeeny (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If administrator attention is required, yes. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
He has threatened me with a block because he says I'm "trolling". He deleted this with the edit summary that I was trolling and uncivil. I really wanted to know why I and others of the community should trust his judgment when he is up for a trusted position of ArbCom. I have problems with his attitude, and he is exaggerating in his wording to me, and that I have "strong feelings" and need a break. He is abusing his power by intimation, and this needs to be addressed right now. See his message on my talk page. I have a troll that is following me around and has now responded to SwatJester's warning to me. So, I'll be blocked and the real troll is free to come back again and again to disrupt this project. Swatjester has to be kept in check on this issue. That if he blocks me, he is abusing his "power" that is supposed to be no big deal, and a trusted member of this community. This admin is calling me a troll, which is very offensive to me and not true. Are you sure this is the right place? I have more. - Jeeny (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You were warned for referring to another person repeatedly as a moron. After the first warning, you blanked it with the edit summary "If it fits...". You then proceeded to troll my arbcom candidacy page. That is unacceptable. You seem to have a disdain for the policies and procedures on this project. You would do well to heed them. Also, please note at the top of the page here: This is not the administrator complaint department. This is not an incident in which administrator attention is required. The only attention that is required here is for you to calm down, relax, take a deep breath and a nice cup of tea, and edit civilly without personally attacking other editors as you have repeatedly done in the past week. SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
He even admits he is an asshole (see my talk page). He doesn't mind being called names. Unlike you, I have more respect toward the a "real troll" than someone who cannot admit when they are wrong, and is all high and mighty. Cannot read between the lines, and has no flexibility. - Jeeny (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I will note that in the diff that I reverted from my candidacy questions, in one single edit you referred to me as arrogant, flippant, accused me of false representations, compared me to Essjay, accused me of making things worse for others, accused me of disrupting the project, referred to me as "Mr. Defender", accused me of lying, called me egotistical, called me a "babe in the woods" and made statements that could be interpreted as a threat against me off-wiki. You're lucky I didn't block you right there. SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Who would interpret that as a a threat against you off-wiki? That's ludicrous and you know it. In fact you seem to be threatening to deliberately misinterpret things in order to use your powers.

And none of the admins who read this board thought to say something to you about you throwing serious accusations like this around in bad faith? That's just great, guys. (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What? There you go exaggerating again. You repeatedly say I repeatedly call people morons. And where or what did I say that made you think that I made a "threat against [you] off-wiki"? You called me a troll. I did not accuse you of lying, show me where I said that. I said you exaggerate. Big difference, because it's difficult to know the motives of others when on the internet when you can't see their face, body language, etc. And now your saying I should be "lucky [you] didn't block [me] right there"? Is that not proof that you are a bit trigger happy? - Jeeny (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I exaggerate nothing. Typing words on a computer is one thing, but actions proves another could be construed as a threat, especially since you were talking about how you are "better than me" off-wiki in the sentence before that. Here, you change another persons edit summary to Scumbucket. Here, you call someone a moron in both edit, and in edit summary (hence, repeatedly). Again, you call someone a moron, accuse them of adding bullshit, tell them to get a grip on life, call them a troll. Here you call them the Perfect Troll. And even when blanking the conversation, you call them trolls. This incivility is unacceptable, and it is symptomatic of the pattern you have shown over your 14-entry long block log. It ends now. SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say I was better than you. I feel I am no better nor worse. See, that's what I mean about exaggerating. I can't trust you to be in ArbCom if you continue to misconstrue statements like that and turn them into something against YOU. - Jeeny (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? What was the point of "(BTW I have more experience than you in mediation, conflict resolution, and arbitration, and with many awards to show for it, in REAL LIFE)." then? Chopped liver? SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a fact. I've lived longer than you have. I have 8 years of experience in THAT one job. Just the facts. Not better than you. As you can accumulate the same time in 8 years. See that's fair. - Jeeny (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been advised several times to cease conversing with SWATjester. I really suggest you take that advice. FCYTravis (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What!? I have asked HIM to stop with me. Where was I "advised several times to cease conversing with [him]"? Oh, forget it, you don't need to answer that. I'm done for the night. - Jeeny (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Then oppose him when voting starts. I don't think this discussion is going to be very productive — everyone just needs to walk away and cool down. --Haemo (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right Haemo, thanks. I'm done. You show a reasonableness, and I can deal with that. :) - Jeeny (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, that's only really 4 valid blocks. --Haemo (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and Phil's shouldn't count. - Jeeny (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, you really need to cool down. I hate to say it, but the concerns Swatjester raises appear to be valid. While I'm not sure whether or not he was entirely cool dealing with you, just remember that when you get frustrated with a user, you shouldn't resort to calling him or her a troll. It's best to take a break for a little while, or go edit something else. Maser (Talk!) 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See, he was the one who called me a troll. - Jeeny (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The diffs Swatjester has provided are compelling. There is never an excuse for "a few bad words" directed at other Wikipedia editors. I've had death threats before on Wikipedia and haven't replied insultingly. What would be the point? --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The "diffs" Swatjester is using are against a KNOWN troll, which even he called him himself. This is crazy. - Jeeny (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:DFTT. Personal attacks are never acceptable against anyone, even a troll. SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
O'rly?. I can find many more where this is accepted from admins, MANY more. Don't you see that you're helping to make Wikipedia a joke more than it is? Do you not know any people in academia? They laugh at this place. I'm trying to help that not be so. Also for the essay; "There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not trolls". Again, I take offense being called a troll, and should not be acceptable for admins, ArbCom wannabees, or in any others in "trusted" positions to use that word without good cause, if at all. Stop the insanity! - Jeeny (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you just use the word "troll" in your edit summary? Seraphim Whipp 11:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Because that was what I was called. - Jeeny (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Jeeny, your continuing this discussion is becoming disruptive. You need to calm down or write articles instead. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to make a comment along those lines a few hours ago but I forgot to save (too many tabs). Jeeny, you are wasting our time and disrupting the encyclopedia. Please stop before you get blocked. John Reaves 11:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm disrupting because I see an inconsistency? Didn't you say once that if an admin abuses his or her power than to speak up? Do you not understand the implications this has? Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is not anarchy either. I'm truly trying to understand the dynamics here. I'm not disrupting for the sake of it, but to understand. Threatening me with a block is counterproductive. Honest to goodness I do not get it. I'm a degreed academic, and do not understand this place. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? - Jeeny (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are a degreed academinc haven't you ever taken a course on harrassment and appropriate behaviour or do you resolve your off-line problems by calling your colleagues and peers trolls and morons? Spartaz Humbug! 11:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No, there is no such thing such as a course in harassment, maybe a seminar, or for law enforcement. Also, it's spelled "harassment", one "R". I don't work here, I'm trying to help, but this harassment by young persons who have very little life experience, and little education is frustrating, and disruptive. Don't you see that? Plus they are in a position of power? Just because you did not call me a "name" does not mean you were not intending to insult me by your comment.- Jeeny (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes it is. Now go work on it. John Reaves 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm doing. - Jeeny (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No you're not, now you're harassing John Reaves on his talk page. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I have blocked Jeeny for 48 hours, not only because of his disruption and trolling but because he has a long history of it and is showing every sign of not learning. I think everyone concerned needs a couple of days of peace from this. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • He's been blocked for a couple of weeks, and presumably left the project as well. It appears my predictions were entirely accurate about the outcome of this situation. --Haemo (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For all our claims of supporting the actual editors of this encyclopedia we're supposed to be all out to write, we very rarely actually do it. —bbatsell ¿? 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop extending the block and then protecting the page. This backwards approach is needlessly punitive. El_C 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jeeny does not handle blocks well. Either protect her talk page when you block her, or ignore her, but don't leave it unprotected and then protect it later. Picaroon (t) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, instead of provoking Jeeny with a warning about personal attacks, I think next time you should block the banned neonazi who is provoking her. Her blowup, her disrupting your candidate page, was caused by your "personal attacks" warning in which you threatened to block her for calling a self-proclaimed troll a -wait for it- troll. I'm astonished that we have blocked a good-faith contributor for two weeks when we could have simply blocked the IP who was harassing her. Hayden5650 has been stalking her for months, and warning her for personally attacking him while not doing anything about the IP was not helpful at all. This block was entirely preventable. Picaroon (t) 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That does not give her the right to redirect her frustration towards anyone. We can blame and block Hayden5650 all we want (which we have done and will do), but being trolled does not give you a free pass to suspend civility at your pleasure. —Kurykh 02:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an issue of cause and effect. It's like this: a banned user trolls her. She insults him. An admin she has previously been in conflict with warns her about personal attacks, while not doing anything about the banned user. She gets angry and begins attacking him. She wouldn't have been incivil towards anyone if Swatjester hadn't left her a pointless warning. Things kept escalating because Jeeny thought (and rightly so, I note) that the troll was being ignored and she was being targeted. None of this would have happened had she not been given a pointless warning. It was her fault that she didn't stop herself from escalating the situation, but the situation itself is not her fault at all, which is why I still see this as a completely preventable block. Now, she's angry, and we can't unblock her till she calms down. Picaroon (t) 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Then Swatjester should have blocked the troll, but that still does not give license to Jeeny for being uncivil. —Kurykh 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, we heard it the first time. That's why she has been blocked for two weeks (and has probably quit the project altogether); the issue is why Swatjester, rather than addressing the problem initially, escalated her frustration, called a prolific editor to the ENCYCLOPEDIA (remember what we're all here to do?) a troll, has damaged the project as a result, and NO ONE IN THIS THREAD could give two shits. As I said above, it's sad how little we actually defend the editors of the encyclopedia. —bbatsell ¿? 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I made a similar observation here just recently. This was appallingly badly handled however one looks at it. Alun (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon: My warning was not for her calling a troll a troll. My warning was for her calling an anonymous IP a moron. That's unacceptable no matter whether it's a troll or not. Do not feed the trolls. Jeeny is a clear problem user, NOT a "prolific editor". Prolific GOOD editors manage to edit without continuously stirring up trouble, they manage to edit without repeatedly receiving blocks, both valid and invalid. You can dress it up and hide it however you want, but Jeeny has an EXTREME problem with civility and personal attacks, that is unacceptable no matter what her contributions are. As for you Bbatsell: nobody gives "two shits" here because Jeeny is not an innocent victim. What do you expect me to do here? I block her, you guys whine and complain "ohs noes, u r hurting good contributar!!!!". I give her warnings INSTEAD of blocking and it's "ohs noes, u r provoking her into torolllinggz!!!one1". Obviously the only remaining solution is to let her just personally attack anyone and everyone she feels like. Instead of repeatedly touting about how she's helping the encyclopedia, lets step back and take a look at the following diffs which clearly show that she has other things in mind rather than being a worthwhile contributor: scumbucket. moron edit + edit sum. moron edit, refers to edits as bullshit. feeding the trolls. more feeding the trolls. Obviously this is EXACTLY the kind of behavior we want to support. SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester has been placed in an untenable situation here. Every move he made has been second guessed, while he was doing the best he could. This is one of the reasons I would not want to be an admin.
I have discussed the situation with Swatjester and he has agreed to unblock Jeeny if she agrees to mentorship. If the community feels this is a good idea, I am prepared to do this. Jeeny and I get on well, and she listens to me. I want to thank Swatjester for being so open minded in our discussions. I would be hard pressed to react in such a way if I had been in the same position. Jeffpw (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to help out as well; I've encountered Jeeny before and our interaction was generally genial. (oh the pun) --Haemo (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Haemo. Swatjestor mentioned to me in our discussion that mentoring was usually done by admins, due to the occasional need to enforce actions, but was willing to give it a go with me. It would be beneficial to have an admin on board for the process, though, and I am glad you are willing. Jeffpw (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[5]. That says it all, really. I don't care what "bad word" you were warning her for using, Swatjester, nor whether she was "feeding" him; to use a comparison applicable for multiple reasons, your approach is like criticizing Poland for defending itself the wrong way during the blitzkrieg. We need to be protecting our good faith users from harassment, not warning them for responding with insults; if Jeeny removed the trolling immediately, he would have just left her a new message. When admins willing to block ban-evading neonazis aren't online, there isn't really much for non-admins to do but wait, and criticizing Jeeny for insulting him while she waits is ignoring the issue. Again, [6] says it all. Let's stop defending people like that from the oh-so-terrible insults of "troll" and "moron", and start blocking the banned neonazis. Simple, really. Picaroon (t) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good precedent. Only neo-nazis get blocked whilst established editors get carte-blanche to break the uncivility rules. Thanks for the heads up. Hmm, thinks, who can I insult first... so little time, so many to insult! --WebHamster 00:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad to know you don't care for our policies Picaroon, I'll keep it in mind. While we're on the subject of "protecting our good faith users from harassment" how about protecting our contributors from a user who self-admittedly refuses to assume good faith, has no concept of what being civil and not attacking people is, and thinks that "fuck you" is a perfectly acceptable response on Wikipedia?SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"Glad to know you don't care for our policies"?(!) You know, a bit of grace won't kill you. El_C 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, a sockpuppet (presumably) of that banned user is trolling Jeeny's page again in an effort to provoke her into another outburst. Could somebody please do something about User:Phral Phrallington? His hurtful comments will only make this situation worse. Thanks. Jeffpw (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

While we must do our best to keep good contributors, let me offer a reminder that we are not Editors' Ego Protection and Emotional Support Services, Inc. —Kurykh 06:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, Kurykh. Was that last comment in reply to me? If so, I find it an odd response to a post that a~banned user is trolling talk pages. Could you clarify that, please? Jeffpw (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It was a general comment and was not directed to you, Jeffpw, and was not a comment about Phral Phallington, but at the apparent scolding of Swatjester for actually doing something. —Kurykh 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I was, and am, concernced about a statement Jeeny made. Is it trolling to ask her to confirm or deny what was said? --Phral Phrallington (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What is your interest in it? You're asking some pretty private questions of another individual; why would you want to know this? Because asking intensely personal questions without a good reason is harassment. --Haemo (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What would you think if a user created a new account especially for the task? Especially one who is clearly aware of the inner workings on wikipedia, as shown by your presence on this page. What is wrong with your normal editing persona, IP or not? David D. (Talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny agrees to mentorship[edit]

Jeeny has agreed to mentoring, and to abide by our civility policies and WP:AGF. I have left a message for Swatjester and FT2, and would hope that Jeeny can be unblocked, with the proviso that she will be blocked again, and her page immediately protected, if she acts disruptively again. Jeffpw (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone's beaten me to it, I'm going to unblock Jeeny (based on the mentorship), and semi-protect her page (based on the Phral attacks). SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If mentoring works, then it will solve the problem well. Provisionally unblocked to allow trial. See comment on Jeeny's talk page for more. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
PS - beat you to it! FT2 (Talk | email) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


...there's this person that's been harassing me and trolling on my talkpage. StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs) has been harassing me since I reverted his removal of content, and he's been very uncivil to me and attacking me on his userpage, and he has been trolling on my talk page. I have the diff links if you want them, plus a warning that's still fresh on my talkpage. I would recommend you get rid of this message before he makes a big deal of this again on his userpage. -Goodshoped 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

These are the links that he is attacking me. -Goodshoped 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure StopTaoSpam's remarks on his userpage regarding Goodshoped qualify as an "attack" exactly, nor do two edits to Good's talkpage qualify as trolling. It appears that StopTaoSpam means well, but he may be harboring some resentment ever since Goodshoped reported his username to WP:UAA. Other opinions? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:55, [[28 November 2007 (UTC)
This user name is in appropriate. Corvus cornixtalk 02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I know! I wrote him up at UAA, administrator failed to block him, and he made an attack on his user page. -Goodshoped 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to voice my extreme complaint concerning Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I will request arbitration or resolution concerning the use of "harassment" and I was annoyed with Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) with his report at WP:UAA however It has growned to frustration. The first thing is I was not harassing Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He was Harassing Me.
For example with the policy of good faith and civility. My first edit resulted in a instant revert. With a edit on my talk page with [[7]] He doubted whether it was spam yet went ahead and reported me at WP:UAA. Not enough in his report he stated "StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) — Violation of username policy because: Is an attack on an specific user, includes profanities, obscenities, or references to genitalias or sexual slangs, matches the name of a company or group, promotes a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view, is defamatory or insulting to other people or groups, invokes the name of a religious figure/religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promotes one religion over another, refers to a violent real-world action, and refers or includes allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, et cetera; User was removing links that were possibly spam, but also was kind of directing a personal attack on the Taos.. -Goodshoped 04:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)".
When I quested him talk page concerning his reasons for the revert and in the laozi article discussion. He responded first contradicting himself last. It was when I edited my OWN userpage on the problem. In which case he proceeded to abuse my talk page with progressive threats. I responded with a warning on his talk page and you can read it yourself. I have listed my points. Now look at this post by his supporter [[8]] Isn't that a clear threat? If my name is a large concern than discuss and correct it but be aware I find this situation to be inexcusable and request arbitration with Goodshoped35110s and Gp75motorsports.

Well, the name got deleted from UAA without any action, and I am now forced to go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Would StopChristianSpam or StopMuslimSpam be acceptable user names? Corvus cornixtalk 03:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed if from RFCN. We do not create discussions there unless the user has been asked to discuss the username specifically, and the discussion was fruitless, or he ignored it. Neither of these has happened. If it has been rejeceted from UAA, then it is not blatant. If he is being disruptive, then he will be blocked for that. I (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
He ignored the requests on his Talk page, and he came here, right above my posting above, to abuse the person who brought it up there and here. Your removal of the discussion was blatantly inappropriate. How the hell are we supposed to get this offensive user name blocked? Corvus cornixtalk 03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If it has been reported twice at UAA, and declined both times, it is obviously not that inappropriate. I (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That's crap. The User name policy says, Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive. This name is all three of those things. The only reason it was removed from UAA the second time is because it was removed once before, not out of any consideration as to the validity of the complaint. The name is obviously promotional, and I am offended by it. I ask again, is StopChristianSpam an appropriate user name? What do we do now? The proper processes have been thwarted for inappropriate reasons. Are we just going to allow this highly offensive username to be used with no consequences? Corvus cornixtalk 03:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am making no comment as to the validity of the username. I merely removed the report, which was invalid, from RFCN, where there are criteria that must be met before adding, which this request did not meet. Take it up with the admin who removed it from UAA. I (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If it has been reported twice at UAA, and declined both times, it is obviously not that inappropriate - sure doesn't sound like you're not taking sides. But you still haven't explained why the removal from RFCN was appropriate, since the user has been asked to change his name and has decided not to discuss the issue, but to attack the person making the request. Corvus cornixtalk 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not, that comment is merely deductive reasoning. And I have read his talk page. At no point was discussion with the aim to resolve issues with his username started. Merely a "I'm reporting you to UAA". I (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
So you didn't manage to read your username is an insult toward somebody, even if it wasn't intentional? I admit it isn't particularly cordial, but it is an attempt at discussion. Corvus cornixtalk 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion implies you are open to the idea my name is not blatant and offensive but you may have expressed your opinion to be the contrary. The name was an simple enough to login and edit the problems I saw in the articles. However this post was about harassment. I refute such statements. Any name change can be done after arbitration StopTaoSpam (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

←I did. However, that comment was only made a few hours ago, and he has only edited once since then, here, and I don't see that as a refusal to discuss. It was not an attempt at resolving the username issue. The dicussion that needs to happen is not a "your username is bad". It's a "I have concerns about your username. Would you be willing to try to resolve them?" I (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on StopTaoSpam's page, as well as Goodshoped and Gp75motorsports pages, suggesting that everybody step away. I don't like agenda-based usernames, but I don't see a flagrant violation; it's a WP:RFCN issue. Some de-escalation would be good. I've been working with Goodshoped on his tact and diplomacy - obviously, more progress is needed. StopTaoSpam could be less touchy, and it would be good if he'd change his name, for diplomacy's sake. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The name is clearly disruptive I have softblocked the account and recommended to find a neutral username Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Very bold. I don't think it is clearly disruptive, but we will see how well this de-escalates the situation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The user has been unblocked and is changing the username. I really appreciated your help. -Goodshoped 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
{{unlikely}} that you are an AN/I clerk. east.718 at 04:58, November 28, 2007
Yes, I know. I just kind of like to do that for some reason; it looks cool. No offense to the real clerks, and I'm not impersonating them. -Goodshoped 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
{{unnecessary}}, as there are no clerks. east.718 at 05:08, November 28, 2007's a clerk war and we're supposed (aren't we?) to talk about this particular user? -Goodshoped 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
?{{clerknote}} He has filed the request at WP:CHU. Since I don't see any need for me to clerk there (everything there is in apple-pie order), I'll clerk here instead. :p Jéské (Blah v-_^v) 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent>{{clerknote}} Why not have him cool down at this page? -Goodshoped 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)?

{{clerknote}} Resolved for the night, don't play any games with him (for now.) (yawn!) Good night! -Goodshoped 05:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
{{clerknote}} Not yet; he just filed an arbitration request with me, Gp75motorsports, and Corvus cornix. -Goodshoped 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You may want to consider blocking him indef; I don't think he'll stop. -Goodshoped 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, stop making new threads, and stop doing things that disrupt the flow of this page. There's no way the arbitration case would be filed, and that is why I was bold and removed it myself. Nothing is going to happen here to either of you—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to those who stepped in and resolved this. Corvus cornixtalk 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you from me too. I don't think he's coming back. -Goodshoped 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

She Who Photographs (talk · contribs)[edit]

Can a neutral admin please look at the contributions of She Who Photographs (talk · contribs)? To me, it appears to be a SPA whose purpose is to add disparaging and POV content to Woodburn Company Stores and Image:Woodburn Company Stores.jpg. The content added to the article is non-notable incidents while the image content is a straight copy of a self-proclaimed "Employee support group", which is really more like an employee rant forum. I've tried to contact the editor, but they have been unresponsive. The editor has just reverted my changes for the third or perhaps fourth time and I would prefer that somebody else intervene. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, this editor has made edits that blatantly misrepresent the information from a cited newspaper article. I have left a warning message, as have others. — Satori Son 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Anti-consumer (talk · contribs) is making similar edits. Possible sock? Katr67 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

William Rodriguez[edit]


Edit war in progress. People calling eachother vandals. I didn't go through the edits to see who is actually making legitimate contributions, but see the history for yourself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon closer examination, it appears that Jrandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the one who is being disruptive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Then again, Jazz2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have some ownership issues with this article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is a huge mess, but it looks like the edit war is over. --Haemo (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It may be...for now. I left Jrandi a 3RR notice, and he hasn't edited since. Maybe those warnings actually do work? Thanks Haemo. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Spoke too soon. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jrandi (talk · contribs) has been blocked for twenty-four hours for edit warring. — madman bum and angel 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So has Jazz2006 (talk · contribs). — madman bum and angel 06:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Jrandi (talk · contribs) has requested a review of my block. — madman bum and angel 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Jrandi is an imposter of James Randi. The manner that the account edited (grammar/writing style, POV, edit warring) is definitely not the manner that Mr. Randi would behave. I have contact with Mr. Randi and have confirmed it is not him editing. It's a hoax or imposter. The block has been extended indefinitely. --Aude (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Has Jrandi actually claimed to be James Randi? Mr. Randi is not necessarily famous enough to be an "open and shut" WP:UN#CELEBRITY case anyway, and the username only has "J", not "James".—Random832 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Rodriguez used to work with James Randi, as an assistant. This is noted in the article. --Aude (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It's possible it's a coincidence, but that seems pretty unlikely. I think a username block is entirely appropriate here. Natalie (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Block for review[edit]

I've just blocked Danaullman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely, requesting review. Rationale - all his contributions consist of serious POV-pushing, edit-warring and fringe science advocacy on homeopathy-related topics. I've seen plenty of SPAs exactly like this and I seriously doubt we'll get any productive contributions from this quarter. Please also note he has something of a COI in this area, being, according to himself, the publisher for an advocate of odd views on homeopathy. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? Neil  15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • From what I can see, specific diffs would not be useful; the whole edit history is obvious POV pushing, and no attempts are made to discuss any of those edits. I'm not unblocking. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
(ed conflict)Ullman has a definite COI, as evidenced by his edits to his biographical page (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I nominated for AFD a while back). The article was created at his behest by a third party, as described in this[9] edit summary. I've been trying for several months to get him to talk about his edits, with no success until a few days ago[10]. I've even referred him to OTRS, in case he wants to correct BLP problems without discussing it with me. He has also repeatedly inserted links to his commercial website into homeopathy and/or deleted critical external links using both his main account and a handful of IP addresses.[11][12][13] Anyway, my $0.02. He's already created a sockpuppet, I gather. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove (talk*contribs)[edit]


Editors have agreed to disengage.--Isotope23 talk 15:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple attacks towards myself and User:Direktor. Also suspected of sockpuppetry and POV pushing od theDalmatia article for some time now. Has been reported to ARBCOM, who restricted him to one edit per week per article, with discussion, a restriction that he has deliberately disobeyed, making FOUR eits to the Istrian exodusarticle in one day, with absolutely no discussion. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia 2 for evidence. Best,--Gp75motorsports (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You two really need to disengage. Giovanni's restriction was 1 revert per week... not simple article edits. The "attacks" towards User:DIREKTOR would appear to be in response to being labeled a sockpuppeteer, sans any evidence (and as someone fairly familiar with the situation I'd say that the claim is somewhat unlikely). Direktor and Giovanni have a history of complete inability to work together, exacerbated by the fact that the are editing the same articles from 2 different POVs. I realize you are trying to help here Gp75motorsports, but all you are doing is ratcheting up the situation by calling his edits vandalism and accusing him of sockpuppetry.--Isotope23 talk 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have disengaged, I don't know if Giove has. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Solar energy Rfc ignored[edit]

I initiated a Request for comment of some confusing content on the Solar energy page about a month ago.[14] This seemed like an easy fix and the results of the Rfc are clearly in favor of removing said picture but one editor continues to bring it back. This picture issue follows several months of disruption on the page by this editor. I'd like the picture issue settled.Mrshaba (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible legal threat re: Marc Ostrofsky[edit]

Yesterday I made this addition to Marc Ostrofsky: [15] using the following pages as references: [16] and [17]. I believe that the references, which are to arbitration cases overseen by the .eu domain name registry, support the edits. I received this edit [18] from a person who more or less admitted to being hired to edit the Marc Ostrofsky page by Ostrofsky himself, which appears to contain a legal threat. Are my edits unsupported by their sources? Am I reading too much into this? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a legal threat. Jose João (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd call it a legal threat. The threat is to "report you to Wikipedia", not file a lawsuit. I think a friendly note cautioning against their making stronger threats would be appropriate though. --OnoremDil 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It's oddly worded. The disputed edits are described as "slander" (verging on a legal threat, but no threat actually made), it then talks about "taking formal action" (again, no legal threat as such), then it talks about being "forced to report you to Wikipedia" (whatever that may mean). The"deadline" mentioned is up in 2 minutes; I'm curious to see what'll happen... Tonywalton  | Talk 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What makes me wonder is that if this is a legal professional speaking, why is he referring to "slander", when (and if it was the case) it should be "libel" due to it be being written word that is published. Makes me think hot air is being blown by someone who doesn't have a clue. --WebHamster 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether they are good sources is an intersting one, but more suited for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the article's talk page than this forum. Normally final arbitration results are effectively final court decisions, and could be used the same way final court decisions are used. The reason that it is doubtful is that in part, those sources rely upon the Wikipedia page on which they are being used. In case #4014, this occurs in the Complainant's complaint, paragraph 28. In case #2438, this issue doesn't appear to occur. GRBerry 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire sectionMarc Ostrofsky#Conflicts with the .eu Domain Name Registry needs more justification in my view. These arbitration decisions are primary sources. In general we are supposed to avoid primary sources, though exceptions can be made (in my opinion) if they are essential to the article. It's not clear to me that a narrative of whatever applications Marc Ostrofsky may have made to the the .eu registry is essential to getting a full picture of his significance or his career. If they are included to suggest some ethical lapses on Ostrofsky's part, then the burden of proof rises (since it becomes a real BLP issue) and relying on primary sources alone becomes even more questionable. Why should we be the first published source to consider that Ostrofsky's role in was not proper? As an encyclopedia should be summarizing what's been published elsewhere on that issue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs)

I've been asked, by e-mail from a Charles Matthews, whoever that is, to have this block reviewed. I only vaguely remember the details, but reviewing, it seems a fairly clearcut case, and the e-mailer hasn't given any reason for it to be lifted. Anyone think there's a problem with it? Adam Cuerden talk 16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My problems with this can be seen firstly in the block log
  • Account making outspoken Talk page comments is labelled "vandalism-only"
  • First block on 3RR is presumably within the rules; second block uses the word "harass" which is bitey.
  • The second block is upgraded to indefinite with a vague accusation that it is probably a sock. Evidence?
Adam has little or no recollection of this. The AC heard directly from Matthew Hoffman, protesting that he is a real person. This I believe, and it's not hard to document.
The expressed views are shared with others, and are no grounds for saying it's a sock. We should all be sensitive to this kind of accusation, especially when used as here to take out a dissident voice. (I'm not saying that no blocks should have been isssued; we have WP:BITE for a reason.) Adam seems altogether too close to this for my comfort. I have been trying to get any response at all for some time.
What is more, I don't accept that the AN is some sort of standing committee handing down indef blocks. It seems clear that Adam, by refusing to discuss the block with me privately, feels that the buck doesn't stop with him, but here. That is not the basis on which admin powers are given. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to raise the issue of people moving too quickly to indefinite blocks here, but got little response. Blocking so-called vandals indefinitely straightaway is too bitey, in my opinion. It is difficult to distinguish between someone experimenting and someone playing around. The case you point out is clearer, as the talk page edits should not have been labelled vandalism. Regarding the buck stopping with individual admins, I agree. That is one reason why people are sometime reluctant to unblock after they have blocked. What might help is in cases where discussion between two admins has occurred, is that the blocking admin passes the block over, and allows the second admin to unblock with the proviso that they will reblock (if present) or endorse a reblock (if not present) if the unblocked editor causes trouble. The problem comes when such offers are rebuffed with a "no, I don't think this editor should be unblocked - take it to ANI/AN/ArbCom if you want to pursue this" (take your pick). As Charles says, agreeing to let someone else unblock is different to unblocking yourself. In the former case, you are passing over responsibility, in the latter case, you are continuing to take responsibility. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I stand by all my decisions, but am willing to change my mind, and if Matthew Hoffman wanted to discuss his block, then I would happily reconsider and might well give him another chance. But I fail to see what the point is of unblocking a disruptive user after several months because a random user asks me to, no offense to Charles Matthews intended. Adam Cuerden talk 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Adam, if you don't know who a "random user" is, check! That is why people have userpages. In this case, even a cursory attempt to check would have revealed that he is someone who you should listen to and you should have treated his concerns seriously. GRBerry 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I don't think Charles was acting in his arbitrator role, but just as another admin. Still, the "random user" comment did cause me to raise my eyebrows, and is particularly ironic as, if all goes "according to plan", Adam and Charles could be colleagues in just over a month's time... What will the "random user" comment be worth then? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
(ecx2) Charles, thanks for bringing more of the story to light. The prior AN/I conversation can best be described as thinly populated; only Adam, Moreschi and Jehochman participated, and noone other than Adam commented more than once. Looking at Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 04#Serious Violation of NPOV I see that other users were also somewhat incivil toward this user, which should generally be considered a mitigating factor. I don't like the combination of that conversation with the block; the combination clearly has a chilling effect of implying to any future readers "if you challenge this view, we will block you for it". I also think there was an easy compromise that should have been suggested at the time, and wasn't because too many editors were edit warring instead of seeking consensus.
Checking, the 3RR block is legitimate in my eyes, the violation clearly occurred. The harassment block is not legitimate in my eyes as harassment didn't occur, and neither is the extension, as there was not adequate basis to believe the editor was a sockpuppet. I believe the block should be lifted. GRBerry 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but after two months, it is somewhat odd to have this suddenly resurface. I see I received an e-mail from Charles Matthews at the time, checking my inbox, but I fear it got lost in spam and was never read.
Oh, fine. I'll unblock him, if you feel so strongly. But I'm putting him on a short leash and probation. Adam Cuerden talk 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's see, you ignored one email, you made no answer to a User talk question whether you'd had an email, you didn't try find out what my locus standi for asking was (I'm an Arbitrator investigating an indef block). You turned away another email saying you didn't recall anything. Admins are supposed to be reasonably responsive, in relation to their admin actions. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I presume you mentioned in your e-mail to Adam that you were "an Arbitrator investigating an indef block"? That makes the "random user" comment even more strange. On the other hand, this is the first time in this thread that you've said you are an arbitrator. Maybe saying that earlier might have resolved things a bit quicker? Not everyone knows who the arbitrators are, though Adam has no excuse really, as he is a candidate to be one. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't mention my status. Revealing, isn't it? Stonewalling all the way. Anyway, I suggest Adam withdraws from the AC election. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"Ah, yes. Hmm. Bring it up on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm not opposed to an unblock if that's the consensus, but don't want to do it without discussion." - My second e-mail to you. Your response was that this was not good enough, so I brought it up here myself, but upon some review, the block seemed justified and had been declared so by several admins. And, after two months, I think that it's reasonable for someone to only act on an indef block after finding out there's a reason why it's still relevant to look into. You seemed to expect me to jump through hoops on your sayso, without finding it necessary to talk about the reasons for your concerns, and so I see no reason to withdraw from Arbcom elections on your sayso. Adam Cuerden talk 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet, SPA, edit-warrior - why are we talking about second chances? Why are we wasting our time? I had a look at this first time around, saw he was not someone to get hot under the collar about. Please, ArbCom has enough problems with disruptive editors without adding to the casload. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that if you respect your fellow admins, and one of them approaches you suggesting an unblock, you will be prepared to let that admin take over responsibility for the block. If that admin is wrong, and the unblocked editor immediately goes on a rampage, it is their reputation and credibility that will take a hit, not yours. Lacking a convincing response and stonewalling a good-faith request after it is clear further discussion won't get anywhere, is just being stubborn. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, how do you justify the sockpuppet and SPA accusations from Special:Contributions/MatthewHoffman? Spending 11 days and 20 edits on a single article doesn't make an account a single-purpose account. Give them longer and they may widen their interests. Or is a requirement now that all accounts start off with wikignome edits on unrelated articles? Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is an example of an admin doing absolutely everything wrong (a block logged in a deceptive way, and defended by the bureaucratic runaround), and given that saying "an obvious sock" on no evidence at all is somewhat discredited right now, the fact that Adam's actions in an area where he is not really uninvolved at all find defenders conveys a message to me. The "noticeboard culture" is corrupting proper administration of the site. It seems entirely clear here. The phrase "random user" is the arrogance of power wrapped for Christmas.Charles Matthews (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Woah, wait a minute. Adam above says that he brought the block to other admins for discussion. Was it here, Adam? Can you provide a link to the discussion? and was upheld, you're certainly coming on a little strong, aren't you? And it seems to me that you are being arrogant, by assuming that everybody, even every admin, even every person running for the Arbcom, should obviously know who you are and obviously should stop what they're doing and kowtow to you, when you didn't even bother to identify yourself nor to explain your concerns, apparently. It seems to me that somebody as arrogant as yourself should be the one to resign from the Arbcom. Corvus cornixtalk 19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I'm not asking for name recognition. Five seconds due diligence? I'm not asking for obeisance. I'm noting that even plain editors of Wikipedia deserve something more than a brush-off. And why not read the whole thread before diving in? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I did read the whole thread, thank you. Corvus cornixtalk 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the link you asked for is a few lines from the top. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue for this forum isn't lack of name recognition, it is lack of due diligence and the lack of openness to review. (The lack of recognition is a current issue for a different forum, and I posed it there a while ago.) As I said above, if you don't know who someone is, check before ignoring them, especially before ignoring them repeatedly. Even the most cursory attempt to check would have revealed that the question was coming from 1) a long term editor in good standing, 2) an admin and 3) an arbcomm member, any one of which by itself is enough reason to respond seriously to the question. GRBerry 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
+Yes, because, you know,
Oh, yes, and guys, don't spam filter your Wikipedia mails, and if you do, don't ignore User talk messages "did you have a mail from me?". Charles Matthews (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've now read every single edit that MatthewHoffman made before being indefinitely blocked, and I agree with GRBerry and Charles Matthews that the indefinite block was unwarranted. I am concerned that the (unwarranted in my view) sockpuppet and harassment accusations remain in the block log with nothing more than a laconic "second chance" unblock notice (which implicitly shows that Adam still thinks the initial indefinite block was justified), and I'm also concerned that Adam has placed excessive probation restrictions on MatthewHoffman (one revert per article per day), with no indication of when the restrictions will end. Thus an indefinite block has turned into an indefinite probation, which is hardly an improvement. Adam's initial block notice on MatthewHoffman's talk page referred to "extreme rudeness", but I have failed to find any such thing in MatthewHoffman's edits, and I looked through all of them. I'm seriously concerned at the lack of judgment shown by Adam Cuerden in placing the block, Moreschi in calling for an indefinite block, and Jehochman for backing up that call. Unless Adam can provide diffs demonstrating the appropriateness of his block (specifically the "extreme rudeness"), I think Adam should retract his probation conditions and leave MatthewHoffman to edit under no more restrictions than any those any editor faces. I would urge anyone questioning this to read Special:Contributions/MatthewHoffman and judge for themselves whether those edits tally with what Hoffman was blocked for. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I share this concern and endorse the suggestion. I note that at the present time Mr. Hoffman has no deleted contributions, so anyone can review all the contributions. GRBerry 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope I may venture a disinterested opinion here. I've looked through all User:MatthewHoffman's edits, as suggested by Carcharoth. Sure, Mr Hoffman states his position strongly at times but in my experience there is nothing new in that in relation to articles as divisive as this. As to his apparent knowledge of policy and usage prior to editing, ISTR that all newbies to Usenet NGs are encouraged to "lurk" before posting- is it impossible that he could have done that? I couldn't find any evidence of bad faith on his part, nor disruption. And, for the record, the article could just easily been any WP article. The subject matter is of little or no interest to me. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Here is the entire e-mail chain. Charles (October 15, the email I missed) I have concerns about the ungrading to indefinite of the block on User:MatthewHoffman.

Would you like to talk me through it?

Charles (November 20)

I haven't heard back from you about this blocked account.

I think it would be a good idea for you to unblock it and see what happens. I can see that the editor is partisan. What now stands in the block log is unconvincing, and not greatly creditable to Wikipedia.

Me (today - it is exam period)

I'm sorry, I can't remember the details of this. Could you remind me?


You blocked with a claim of sockpuppetry. Well, he wrote to the AC about it; I certainly thought he was just who he claimed to be. He may have been a pain, but that log doesn't look any better to me than when I first looked into it. In fact, considering current concern about "deducing" someone is a sock, it looks worse. I'd appreciate it if you'd give this your attention.

Me (I'm horrible with acronyms, so didn't realise what AC meant) Ah, yes. Hmm. Bring it up on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm not opposed to an unblock if that's the consensus, but don't want to do it without discussion.

Charles Sorry, not good enough. I have prompted you before about this. This is _your_ block.

Me Okay, I've set up a discussion about it.

[Then this thread started]

Charles (5:23 pm)

By the way, if you'd looked me up first you'd know that, or asked who on earth I was, I would have explained that, I'm an Arbitrator. As I said on AN, Hoffman wrote to the AC about the block.

Me (6:02 pm) Right. Well, that makes a difference. Sorry, but there's so many ways to make a username that I didn't think I could guess yours knowing only your name.

Judge for yourself. Adam Cuerden talk 22:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and has anyone else noticed that I unblocked the editor several hours agoo, but am still being attacked over this? Adam Cuerden talk 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking back, do you not now think that it would have been better recusing yourself from taking any admin action in relation to this article considering you had been involved in editing it as shown here? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Tell me, why should an administrator, who has barely touched an article at some point in the distant past, be forever banned from dealing with anything related to it? I have a lot of pages on my watchlist in order to deal with vandalism and other problems. This means reviewing the edits, and you do end up helping out here and there because of this.
Why should we add a pointless layer of bureaucracy between the people monitoring the pages and actually dealing with problems? Adam Cuerden talk 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Responding to "and has anyone else noticed that I unblocked the editor several hours agoo, but am still being attacked over this" - no-one is attacking you over this. I'm questioning your judgment in placing that block, and your failure to adequately address the concerns raised. I'm not using incivil language or ranting and raving. I'm pointing out what I think was wrong about the block, and I'm asking you to provide diffs to back up your claims of "extreme rudeness". Characterizing people expressing concern over your block as an "attack" is being overly defensive. I've pointed out that your unblock came with unnecessary conditions and that your unblock comment "second chance" fails to acknowledge the concerns raised here that the indefinite block was not warranted in the first place. Finally, putting someone on probation like that shouldn't be done unilaterally - a probation should have community support or arbitration approval. Individual admins should not set themselves up as probation officers without outside review. I still see no reason for MatthewHoffman to be placed on a "tight leash" as you put it, and I'm repeating my call for you to retract that statement you made MatthewHoffman's talk page. Let him edit unrestricted and trust other admins to do the right thing if trouble develops later on. Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, I've finally had a chance to review the case a bit [Why, after 2 months, did this have to be settled right now, immediately, no time to talk things through?] I was mixing this with a couple other cases, but this one is the ranter, not the really vicious one.
Anyway, I think it was things like this edit [19] for the incivility, as well as a few others. Lots of rules lawyering, huge rants on and on in one day. If the sock puppet doesn't hold up, though, there'd be no call for the indef, however, as I said, I trust other people to make those judgements, and he's certainly a creationist type. Also, I'm now going on a short Wikibreak. Adam Cuerden talk 01:06, 29 Novemb