Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive424

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Dvira Ovadia[edit]

Resolved: Article is at AfD now. --jonny-mt 06:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bryka 9999 (talk · contribs) continually removes the speedy delete tag from an article he created, and continues to edit Dvira Ovadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've issued 2 warnings. GreenJoe 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Noble Man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.239.106 (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The speedy was declined and the whole thing is at AfD. If they remove the AfD tags, go ahead and bump up the warning level, and report at WP:AIV if need be. --jonny-mt 06:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:John51992.1992[edit]

Resolved

Need help with this user, his userpage and an article he recreated have included personal mobile phone numbers. –– Lid(Talk) 09:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Indefblocked as a vandalism-only account Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Florida babe[edit]

Resolved: Indefinitely blocked, by Iridescent. Anthøny 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Florida babe (talk · contribs) is back from her block for repeatedly uploading images with no copyright status, and immediately uploaded a new image with no copyright status and stuck it on her User page. It's a clear fair use violation. I understand that she's young, but she still needs to follow proper copyright. Corvus cornixtalk 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'd suggest an indef block. This user just does not get it, and either refuses to understand, or truly does not understand fair use. Until; the user can show that they are able to do so, block. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I think this young lady may have gotten lost looking for MySpace. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've indefblocked her. If she posts an unblock request that demonstrates that she understands where she's gone wrong, than feel free to unblock her.iridescent 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a message trying to explain how she can get out of this. I don't know if she even reads her talk page, but it may be that she doesn't understand the vast number of template messages she's gotten. I would actually like to blank most of her talk page, because all those notices and warnings may appear overwhelming and may be why she's not responding. Everyking (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, she gets it all right. Take a look at this [1] which she added May 11 and then deleted once she was permanently blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong antisemitic attack from the part of User:Mirelam[edit]

Please see this edit summary left on the Ion Antonescu page. Dahn (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

that's a disgusting summary, and that editor's history shows he's persistent. The underlying problem is a content dispute that should be taken to the talk page, but could probably use some outside help, as I do think the offending editor's edit is right, though his viewpoint is not. I'll start a thread there, but would appreciate admin backup. ThuranX (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
User has been indef-blocked by Raymond arritt a couple of minutes before I was going to do the same thing. I am TravisTX and I endorse the block. —Travistalk 22:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Beat me to it. Strongly endorse. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yuck, endorse Tim Vickers (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
To Thuran: I partly agree. There are several problems regarding both versions. As far as I can tell, the actual edit replaces a pic of Antonescu minutes before he died with a portrait of his that was most likely drawn by Mirelam herself (I'm saying "herself" because the user name seems to encapsulate a female name common in Romania). It also removes the article from a set of specific categories (probably because these were added between her previous edit and this one).
Now, here's where the problem is: I feel that allowing users to draw their own impressions of a person and other purely artistic stuff (as opposed to drawing a map, a plan, a copy of a blueprint, as well as to adding notable images created by artists who do not contribute to wikipedia) is not what wikipedia is for. Imagine the long-term consequences: wikipedia will transform itself into a promotional tool. I don't know if this issue was ever discussed, but I do know that wikipedia does not allow users to post doctored photographs - the same should apply here. Update: If the image was not created by Mirelam, then it is most likely a copyright violation. In any case, I do believe the indefinite block would have to imply the image being deleted either way?
When it comes to the image it replaces, I have to say I for one am not an advocate of that picture as much as I reject the one added in its stead. The issue is raised by Mirelam as a "self-fulfilling prophecy", and pushes a false dilemma: she claims that headlining the article with an image of Antonescu [shortly before] being executed is an attempt (of "the Jews", I presume) to undermine his public image. That reasoning is awkward and its presumption fallacious: I could just as well say that such an image will risk enforcing the image that Antonescu was "a martyr" and whatnot. But the main problem with that picture is that it may not actually be usable on wikipedia: it is not actually PD, and a fair use rationale would be awkward. In the past, users have added similar pictures of Antonescu, which were deleted for not being PD, and some of which were picked up from neonazi sites (which is also quite grotesque).
If this is really a problem, then, between a creativity contest involving Antonescu's supporters and picking up random photos that are sooner or later deleted, I do believe the article can do without any pictures. Dahn (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I admit I hadn't gone so far in depth as to examine the other image; you're right, it's a drawing, probably by the offending editor; I glanced at it, it looked like an old fashioned photo with that sort of feathered edge, instead of scribbled pencil technique. However, the potential for seeing the current image as a POV push by 'some group' (in this case, as in so many others, 'the jews' get the blame). To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I've brought up the matter on the talk page. Finally, I agree with oyur sentiment on contributor based interpretative art and this project. ThuranX (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking purely at the pictures (the edit summary has been dealt with, as above), the picture of him just before his execution is not ideal for the lead photo. That one should go in the death section. For the lead, if available, a suitable "portrait" style picture (from a reliable source) of him from the time he was in power would be best. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a community ban for this user.

Endorse Bstone (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Psst...He's been indeffed. Three hours ago. You're kinda late. HalfShadow 02:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
He was indef blocked, but not banned. Community Banning him will prevent him from returning in any form. Bstone (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Heartily endorse the ban. That kind of behavior has no place here. DurovaCharge! 03:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jimintheatl stalking me[edit]

I had bee inclined to ignore Jim's edits, but . He just expressed a believe that Larissa Kelly should be deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larissa Kelly) but prior to now, he had never previously participated in a deletion discussion. All of his edits prior to this one have involved trying to add criticism or other negative information about conservative commentators, particularly Bill O'Reilly. Most of his recent editing has involved inserting one particular type of information. He has attacked me on numerous occasions: he attacked me on my talk page, made snide remarks about me, and generally sought to disparage me. As he has never expressed any interest in the topic of game shows, deletion discussions, or anything outside of conservative commentators, I suspect that his "delete" vote is tendentious. His only reason to view this discussion, based on his previous edits, is that he saw it on my contributions page. I believe that it's motivated only by a desire to make my attempts to improve the encyclopedia more difficult. Croctotheface (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the other comments in the discussion, it seems that his comment was not made in good faith. Although one XfD does not wikistalking make, his contributions and talk page show a litany of problems stretching back months. I have left a warning on his talk page advising him that further disruptive behavior will result in a block. --jonny-mt 07:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the warning didn't take--call it providence or just good timing, but I caught this a minute after he made it. I've blocked him temporarily. --jonny-mt 13:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:90.196.3.244 and his Sock -Puppets[edit]

This user has been banned dseveral times before and has been issued several warnings. He always edits from anonymous IP address. His behaviour is same and he removes reliable sources and adds un-reliable sources. His blocks and warnings and efforts to evade are as follows.

Disruptive edits by this user as of today: [2] [3][4][5][6]Mahaakaal (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth giving the team over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets a look at this too. Lradrama 10:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I reformatted the info given above about with user5 templates. Looks like the IPs were used in sequence, not simultaneously. The first one stopped editing after two short blocks for disruption in March and April. I left a notice for 90.196.3.2 (talk · contribs) that we are discussing their edits here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock of User:Foxhunt99[edit]

Resolved

account blocked Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I first reported this sock to the blocking admin in Foxhunt99's SSP case at User_talk:MastCell, but he seems to be away while User:Centrallib has run amock on Serfdom in Tibet and its related AFD. He admits to being the same user on MastCell's talk page (and used the same IP as Foxhunt99 on Serfdom in Tibet), but it hasn't stopped him from trying to shovel his nationalistic POV all over Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay... just had to eat, sleep, and earn money. :) MastCell Talk 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Effervescenth30 threatening User talk:Wrosew on his talk page[edit]

Resolved: Both accounts 'sploded HalfShadow 15:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[7] HalfShadow 03:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's probably worth noting that Wrosew looks like a vandalism-only account. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make stuff like this okay. HalfShadow 04:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Block them both for a week and then investigate. Overt threats like this are grossly against the rules, no matter the circumstances. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked effervescenth indefinitely. Investigating Wrosew. — Werdna talk 05:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not inclined to block Wrosew, because the vandalism is not continuing. Apart from anything, it gives us a good place to watch for our friend returning to harrass him. I will be keeping an eye on his talk page. — Werdna talk 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting question here, Wrosew made what amounts to a legal threat here [8], but it was in regards to an obvious threat of violence. Does WP:LEGAL apply here in regards to WP:TOV? Dayewalker (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading it correctly, Effervescenth30 was previously a different, and possibly permanently blocked, user. Notice that he posted some barnstars from some apparent previous incarnation, and then blanked them out. What's up with that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Both users indefblocked. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is backlogged again[edit]

Resolved

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty empty to me. — Werdna talk 05:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was over one and a half hours ago. Lradrama 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that was the joke. Qst (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

P0lyglut (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: User warned. MastCell Talk 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

going about posting links to his own website, notably at human sacrifice presenting some Chinese nationalist's claim as "evidence" that the Dalai Lama endorsed human sacrifice. Since I was recently blocked over 3RR for reverting what I considered WP:SNOW, I do not want to deal with this myself, even though I do think it falls under WP:SNOW, and a block without furhter ado may be in order already based on the stuff on user's talkpage (warning: chances are this user despises you). dab (𒁳) 12:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I warned him that if he continues edit-warring to reinsert links to his personal website, his account will be blocked for spamming. If he starts up again and I don't notice, just let me know. MastCell Talk 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:PrinceGloria[edit]

As you understand, verifiability is important. As such, the media response to the manipulation if Youtube and wiki was sourced to a Polish magazine published by edipress.com. As a respected magazine with a large circulation in Poland this is considered to be a reliable source). The statements in question were proven in the article and cannot be considered to be rumours. The comments sourced as per reliable source by BBC host who is well respected as a commentator of eurovision who has been written up in UK newspapers over the past few days were written in a non-POV manner and provide more sources for her performance which came last. As Eurovision is a contest that Isis Gee tried to win her results ( place and critic of performance ) are not given undue weight. The article already went through WP:3O and User:Kevin Murray supported removal unless sourced. This was not completed as User:PrinceGlora and yourself have not responded to my points. In face, although User:Kevin Murray removed the false and unsourced Polish mnationality of Isis User:PrinceGlora and yourslef reverted versions that included a unsourced material and false statements about her position in the contest which violated WP:BLP.

I ask Ricky81682 to add to the WP:3O initiated by User:Kevin Murray and stop wasting admin time with entries such as this. Would some other admin like to get involved and settle this again?

Eurovisionman (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)



User:PrinceGloria has continued to place non-consensus information in Isis Gee even though a dispute resolution in in place. This is clearly infringing after the user was asked to stand down [9].


He been taking part in an edit war in isis gee. This entry is in dispute and a consensus version was agreed. User:PrinceGloria has in part inflamed this edit war by reverting contemt that is in dispute and labeling other users as sockpuppets which has been proven to be false. For example, Isis Gee came last in the competition but User:PrinceGloria has misinterpeted this to read as if she didn't. Please block for a short time for exacerbating the edit war. If one looks at the edit history of this user it is clear that he is simply removing negative content.

Polishchick99 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please check the users who voiced their "concerns" @ Talk:Isis Gee & Talk:For Life (Isis Gee song), check their edit histories, compare comments to those written by User:Eurovisionman and the anonymous IP he has been found to probably use to circumvent his ban and finally the misspelling of Isis Gee as isis gee. God, I feel like Hercules Poirot and Miss Marple in one! PrinceGloria (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this case but can spot an obvious sock when I see one and Polishchick99 clearly is a sockpuppet account, of who I don't know and don't much care. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

When your first edit is "Why have I been bloked??" (sic), it's a little suspicious. When your 2nd edit is "I heard some stuff on the radio and can Eurovisionman please put it in", it's getting pretty obvious. When your fourth edit is "non-POV" but focusing on a song being in last place (over who wrote it), you are getting ignored here and blocked if you continue this blatant silliness. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is getting outright hillarious - I have a filthy mind, but it just cracks me up when a self-professed "chick" declares she was "bloked". PrinceGloria (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is actually important The user who reported myself here is now actually abusing the articles in question, possibly acting as one of multiple rather crude sockpuppets for a user who has been originally banned, and now has uploaded unfree media claiming them to be his/her own work. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Ohh grow up, I didn't know why I couldn't edit the entry - the page is blocked to newbies. I heard about this on the radio and saw how the entry is full of PR and contributed. It seems that the whole world is a sockpuppet for this user!! Contribute to the discussion. Can someone please take a good look at the edits by the user in question - all reverting material. PrinceGloria is inflaming an edit war.


Can you contribute to my points in the discussion?????!??!??!

Polishchick99 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay...Just stop, please. This is like watching the mentally ill fight. HalfShadow 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, can someone do a checkuser immediately and put a stop to this? Now we have new images coming in (Image:My picture of ISIS GEE.jpg) along with the constantly changing users? Semi-protection isn't working as that stupid "fake tan cyborg" crap keeps getting reinserted at For Life (Isis Gee song). Recommend immediate blocking (I'm sort of involved so I'd rather not) to put a stop to this. There is some serious BLP concerns around here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If there's any more, add it to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eurovisionman. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the image and blocked Isgreatestman and Polishchick99 as obvious sockpuppets. The others I'm not sure about so I'll wait for the checkuser to be done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Eurovisionman was blocked for 55 hours, which has now expired. Do we wait on the CU, or do we sanction for abusing alternate accounts as identified above? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, he's now free and commenting at the checkuser page. More of the same soon enough I expect. If someone else wants to, could they please reformat the checkuser request. The last thing I would want is the clerk to have to deal with that disorganization. Why is it so hard to get checkusers taken care of? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Ricky, you are biased in this matter. I ask a non-biased admin to look at my edits.

From what I can see my edits are sourced and valid. I simply added that there is some controversy in the Polish media related to Isis. This was sourced from a major Polish magazine. I also posted comments from the BBC host who is now in the press calling for a change to the Eurovision rules. The host's comments are all over the media - one would think that this is possible relevant and not vandalism as you have said.

A dispute resolution was initiated by another admin. Unfortunatly you and Prince Gloria have not taken part??

Calling for a non-biased admin to investigate.

Eurovisionman (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


As you understand, verifiability is important. As such, the media response to the manipulation if Youtube and wiki was sourced to a Polish magazine published by edipress.com. As a respected magazine with a large circulation in Poland this is considered to be a reliable source). The statements in question were proven in the article and cannot be considered to be rumours. The comments sourced as per reliable source by BBC host who is well respected as a commentator of eurovision who has been written up in UK newspapers over the past few days were written in a non-POV manner and provide more sources for her performance which came last. As Eurovision is a contest that Isis Gee tried to win her results ( place and critic of performance ) are not given undue weight. The article already went through WP:3O and User:Kevin Murray supported removal unless sourced. This was not completed as User:PrinceGlora and yourself have not responded to my points. In face, although User:Kevin Murray removed the false and unsourced Polish mnationality of Isis User:PrinceGlora and yourslef reverted versions that included a unsourced material and false statements about her position in the contest which violated WP:BLP.

I ask Ricky81682 to add to the WP:3O initiated by User:Kevin Murray and stop wasting admin time with entries such as this. Would some other admin like to get involved and settle this again?

Eurovisionman (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)



Like everyone has told you before, verifiability is more important than "truth." Things like a random DJ says that a living person is a man (based on a random Polish blog that doesn't pass as a reliable source) is inappropriate. Unsourced rumors about a hidden PR campaign on YouTube and on Wikipedia is just wrong to add. The fact that a BBC host supposedly called her a "fake tan cyborg" (based solely on a video that only people in the UK can see and no one else has been able to confirm) is also not helpful and probably gives undue weight to criticism (and really doesn't belong at the article on the song where it is now). For all of these things, you would think that it would be possible for someone else to repeat the story. I only got involved when PrinceGloria remarked on your first WP:BLP violations. Would some other admin like to get involved and settle this again? The article already went through WP:3O and User:Kevin Murray supported removal unless sourced. Also, comments about Eurovision as a whole aren't appropriate for the article on her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dtobias violating the no personal attacks policy[edit]

Resolved: Original comment refactored by author. No more heat needed here. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

During discussions at the C68-FM-SV arbcom case, Dtobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has decided to lodge an unnecessary personal attack in my direction. I asked him to retract his comment, but he hasn't. Perhaps someone can explain to him why such commentary is unnecessary.--MONGO 17:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary commentary? *cough, shithole*, *cough, mental problems, cough*
Check yourself before you wreck yourself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
My comment didn't name any active contributor.--MONGO 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Besides, MONGO deserves a hell of a lot of leeway when it comes to ED. Sceptre (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"Makes one wonder what mental problems one would have to have to be involved in such a place."
"Everyone who is involved in such a place has mental problems."
These are semantically the same. One is posed rhetorically, which does not remove it from be a statement. Your statement that those involved "would have to have" mental problems is a set of all involved, with a non-insignificant subset being active Wikipedians. You've made a personal attack on many, not "any". This would have been no big deal for the talk page where you left it, but since you simultaneously came here to complain about being insulted while you were making insults - you need to be called on the hypocrisy. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Sematically? No, not true...no one was named...the website is a shithole, so not sure how that would insult YOU. It is a comment about a website and it's denizens...a fair representation of the facts I believe if one were to spend a few minutes examining the content there.--MONGO 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Subject of "shithole" statement = the ED website. No need for the statement, but whatever.
Subject of "mental problems" statement = insulting attack on the editors of the website, which includes many Wikipedians.
Making it a group attack doesn't absolve you from making the attack against an individual SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Drats...I forgot, you're an ED admin...so in that case, please accept my deepest apologies...sincerely and with the utmost respect and wikilove.--MONGO 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Dan is a gadfly who frequently shines light into areas of Wikipedia some people would prefer remain dark...that said, it looked like a hyperbolic example to me, no need to overreact. Kelly hi! 18:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he should retract it...it wasn't the least bit helpful.--MONGO 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've censored myself now... but your running to mommy AN/I about it says more about you than about me, I think. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
So, while announcing that you've refactored your comment, you've decided to take another pot shot at MONGO. What good does that do? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
He takes another pot shot here as well as at the redaction he performed at the RFAr. It works this way...Dtobias can insult others and when they complain he calls them thin skinned, yet he never hesitates to point out other's NPA violations and expects some outcome. The hypocrisy is amazing. My suggestion is that he confines his attacks to the usual offsite venues where I don't participate. There, he and like minded folks can say whatever they want without penalty.--MONGO 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
stfu, Dan, you don't need to take parting shots as you leave either. Your comment about who is a jerk could have been made impersonal and still gotten the point across. Simply stating you'd refactored your comment would have sufficed to defuse the situation instead of inflaming it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Dan does seem to be stirring things a bit lately for reasons best known to himself. [10] [11]. Those aren't personal attacks, really, just weird stuff. Hopefully he'll stop after this. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
a man's gotta dream. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hot Summer (song) and Category:House music songs[edit]

I created the category House music songs months ago. Late last week, I noticed the addition of a song called Hot Summer by the group Monrose. This is not a house music song by any stretch and is making this list misleading. Naturally, I removed the entry as I have written about (and followed) house music since its inception in the late '80s. Needless to say, the user Noboyo keeps re-adding this song to the list. I see from entries concerning Monrose that he has contributed a lot to their entries; he is either a fan or someone directly afffiliated with the group. In any event, the suggestion that "Hot Summer" is a house music song is horribly misleading and will confuse prospective learners on the topic. Wikipedia is supposed to deal in fact. Both times, I have left messages on discussion boards related to the topic (some of which seem to have been deleted). I ALSO left a report of vandalism, which vanished. Is anyone interested in the integrity of facts at Wiki anymore? Please deal with this issue and this user!!!Mwmalone

With respect, it appears that there are sources that describe Hot Summer as a House song - though other genres are noted as well. Do you have a source that explicitly debunks the proposition that the song is House? I acknowledge that you're more familiar with the genre than I might be - but if there's a source, then it can be included. I'll also note that, while you may have created the category, it is open and available for anyone to edit, add to, subtract from, or otherwise modify; in other words, you do not own it. Please discuss the matter on the article's talk page at talk:Hot Summer (song). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you, Mwmalone, even tried to discuss the matter, or to more appropriately cite source that back your position, anywhere? Since I see no evidence that any attempt has been made to resolve this dispute I don't really see where admins have any role in it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of us are interested in integrity. However, the solutions you seek should be sought on Wikipedia, not on discussion boards elsewher. Try explainign all this on the relevant article and list talk pages. ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think by "discussion boards" the OP may have meant "talk pages", as they are linked from a "discussion" tab at the top. Orderinchaos 16:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If so, then it appears he has met the burden jayron32's question suggests, and we should be looking at the other editor. no? ThuranX (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption on Little Green Footballs#Rachel Corrie[edit]

This article was recently listed on the Wikiproject Palestine notice board. Since then, users Eleland and Timeshifter have been engaged in general tenditiousness, incivility, and aggressive POV pushing. In addition, Eleland has also broken the 3RR rule.

In regards to Eleland's 3RR issue. His initial edit takes place at 10:07, 23 May 08. First revert at 18:40, 23 May 2008. Second revert at 19:09, 23 May 2008. Third revert at 20:24, 23 May 2008. Fourth revert at 12:29, 24 May 2008. That's 4 reverts in 18 hours. To be quite honest, I miscounted and thought he hadn't broken 3RR right up until I started writing this, which is why I never took it to the 3RR noticeboard.

Eleland's second edit on the Little Green Footballs article included a disruptive, insulting edit summary. [12]

Note from an uninvolved user - the "insult" is "this is nonsense". Kalkin (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Is that not an insult, or at the least incivil? McJeff (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eleland presents a highly disputed POV as fact. [13]

The complaint refers to the edit summary, to which I do not believe the NPOV policy applies. The change Eleland makes to the article here is quite the opposite of "presenting a highly disputed POV as fact": Eleland replaces "[Rachel Corrie] expresses the view that Palestinian terrorist tactics are justifiable" to "[Charles Johnson] claims that she praises Palestinian terrorists". Kalkin (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eleland leaves an abusive post on the Wikiproject Palestine noticeboard. [14]

The "abusive" part of the post appears to be, "At this rate we'll have NPOV in only, oh, six months". I haven't yet examined all of McJeff's evidence, but so far the characterizations of Eleland's behavior appear to be a bit tendentious. Kalkin (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eleland makes an insulting post, then later changes it. Twice. [15] [16]

More - Eleland writes a talk page post which contains several clear violations of WP:CIVIL, but then removes them within minutes before anyone else has edited the page. Kalkin (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Another even more disruptive, insulting edit summary, complete with a WP:OWN accusation. [17]

Eleland accuses McJeff of being a "fanboy" and of "crazy spin", probably over the line. Kalkin (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I should note further, though, having reviewed the talk page, that McJeff appears to display a basic misunderstanding of WP:BLP and that Eleland was almost certainly justified in making more than three reversions by the BLP exception to 3RR. McJeff wanted Wikipedia to factually describe Rachel Corrie as a supporter of terrorism, although she does not so describe herself and the only source is Little Green Footballs, which is an extremist blog. Sample of McJeff's talk page argument:
The issue here apparently is that, because Rachel Corrie's diary did not specify attacks on civilians, it should not be claimed that she supported terror. This is entirely inaccurate, and while I'm willing to compromise to an extent as per No Original Research, I am absolutely not willing to budge any further than I already have.
Corrie was part of the International Solidarity Movement, an organization that is emphatically anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian aggression. Whether they explicitly support terrorism is irrelevant, because they simply cannot have their heads so deep in the sand they don't realize that the vast, vast majority of Palestinian attacks are directed at civilians.
McJeff also violates WP:CIVIL in the user's very first post on the talk page, writing that Eleland is "unfit to edit this article". Kalkin (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The comment that he was unfit to edit was after a series of posts characterizing LGF as a "unreliable extremist source" (I object to LGF being characterized as extremist, it's anything but), comments on the talk page about "invading foreign troops", and accusations of myself and the other regular editors of the article refusing to follow NPOV. Although it was incivil perhaps, I believe it is suggested (though not required) to refrain from editing an article in which you are so heavily biased against the subject. Additionally, my statement was in response to his incivility and aggression, not to his POV.
As far as me insisting on designating Rachel Corrie as a terrorist, that is technically incorrect. Although that was my initial position, I later agreed that we shouldn't do that, per the fact that until a reputable source backing my POV is found, it is original research. So please do not characterize me as a POV pusher, or as "opposite but equivalent" to the editors I filed this on. I have my opinions, and as you may guess I'm strongly pro-Israel and anti-Palestine, but I understand wikipedia policy on NPOV, which is why I backed down during the debate from my initial position. McJeff (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Four quick points: First, I don't see how WP:BLP applies, as Corrie is not a living person. Second, the question of whether the word "terrorism," or any of its variants, should be used has already been resolved, apparently to everyone's satisfaction. Third: the source in question is Corrie's diary, not LGF. Fourth: the characterization of LGF here as an "extremist blog" by Kalkin is curious. (Disclaimer: as can be seen in the relevant sections of the article's talk page, I am an interested party in this disagreement.) HiramShadraski (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Duh, you're right about the BLP thing. One forgets that not all controversial biographies on Wikipedia are those of living people. Kalkin (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeshifter attacking another user with threats of banning. Also boundlessly accusing him of being a sockpuppet. [18] [19] [20]

Timeshifter with an inappropriate accusation of vandalism. [21]

Incivil patronizing. [22]

Accusation of wikilawyering. [23]

Accusation of "reversion team". [24]

Also please note the attempts of Timeshifter to push a certain weaselword phrase into the article. [25] [26] [27] (Third link is the same as Timeshifter's inappropriate vandalism accusation).

Both these users have shown an absolute unwillingness to compromise, and a significant level of hostility both to the opposing users, and to the subject matter in general. McJeff (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've been accused of being a sockpuppet, but other than that, I wholeheartedly support McJeff's complaint here. I have asked Timeshifter to not make threats and to edit in a civil maner, but to no avail. I actually wrote up a 3RR report on Eleland's blatant 3RR violaiton above, but decided not to file it becuase I noticed it a day late, and thought the edit war was over. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I swear I saw a sockpuppet accusation, but I"ll strikethrough my own until/if I find it. McJeff (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Found it. [28] McJeff (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal in need of block...(or not?)[edit]

I came across edits from this user tonight in the course of reverting one of his vandal edits. 68.191.179.217 (The IP appears to be static, judging from the history.) As I posted the warning, I noticed that a)he'd been recently released after a one-month block; b)he'd been warned several times since his block expired. I went into his contributions list and did a little looking about. The user has made 21 edits since being released on May 19th; of those edits, every single one has been reverted as vandalism. So, says I, let me take this over to AIV. Well, that didn't go too well, so I'm bringing it here, which seems to be the next logical place to take such an issue. Is there anything we can do about this now, or do we have to wait til he starts up again? Gladys J Cortez 07:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While AIV might not have been the proper place for this, it does appear we have a persistent sneaky vandal here. I think another time out might be in order. AniMate 07:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Gave him another three month. Next time please use WP:AIV for simple vandalism reports Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, but the user did use WP:AIV and Doczilla shot her down. AniMate 09:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this; Alex, AIV was my first choice, but as AniMate said, the report was declined. Thanks, though! Gladys J Cortez 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AIV is for simple cases where the vandal is vandalising now and quick action is needed. It says so at the top of the page. For sneaky long term vandalism where an admin needs to take time to look at the edit history in detail AIV isn't the best place as it tends to be very fast moving, with multiple reports being added and being removed as they are dealt with. I think here is the best venue to deal with that and think Alex Bakharev's advice wrong in this case. Note that having a report declined there isn't being "shot down" not does it mean that the person isn't a vandal or doesn't needs to be blocked. If the admin thought that they would say so in the edit summary.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, saying Gladys was "shot down" wasn't any sort of indictment on Doczilla. It was just disagreeing with Alex stating that WP:AIV was the place for this report. AniMate 12:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal: User: Mahaakaal[edit]

This user is reversing all cited references and material that I have given in many articles on Indian religious history. I have politely asked for discussions but he refuses to discuss and deletes or misinforms on petty fundamentalist issues/goals and ignores actual historical facts.

I dont know why ALL my references according to this user are deleted? Please can you kindly examine the situation, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.2 (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Post us some diffs as evidence please. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Theresa,

Thank you for noting my concerns regarding the above user.

Here is one example: The first complaint is that if you look at his first complaint about me, regarding Nanak the founder of Sikhism, he states repeatedly that Muslims revere Guru Nanak in Punjab. Now 2/3 of Punjab is in the Islamic state of Pakistan, in 1947, India was partitioned where Muslims formed the Islamic State of Pakistan and Sikhs remained in India so by by definition Muslims revere Their Prophet Mohammed as well as Christ, David and Noah, but not Nanak - its simply biased POV to state that they do revere him. I do accept that Sikhs and possibly Hindus revere Nanak since Nanak was born into a Hindu family, but to suggest Muslims revere Nanak in the same fashion or context as Muslims is blatantly biased and false.

There are many attempts by this user to twist original definitions of Deh Siva Var Mohe, Waheguru all the cited references I have provided have been deleted by this user. I have even provided many references from srigranth.org where the user deleted those references, yet they are used in many other wikipedia articles for referencial material.

What we need to see, is a diff where he is actually removing a reference so we can see what you are talking about. Otherwise we are in the dark about what is going on. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Having said that I looked at the Guru Nanak Dev page and saw that Mahaakaal made two recent edits there. The edits are here where he adds a reference in and here where he reverts someone else's removal of text and a reference. I don't see any evidence of him removing a reference that you added :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kulikovsky's illegitimate edits on Vladimir Putin article[edit]

This is to bring to the administrators notice that the user kulikvsky continues to violate wikipedia rules by deleting well sourced material and statements in the article on Vladimir Putin.

This has already happened several times. He edits are biased because while he continues to retain material and references related to recent political figures connected to Putin and continues to retain criticism by a questionable yeltsin era shock-therapist Boris Nemtsov, he purposefully deletes all my edits and references related to Yeltsin era oligarchs who are listed in forbes list of billionaires.

Infact, this user does not delete the other names such as Yakunin, Chemezov, which are not even listed in the billionaire list.

I request a block on this user for the consistent bias with which he adds and deletes the edits, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samstayton (talkcontribs) 20:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Other editors, such as User:Ender78, also undid your edits. A cursory look at the edit history of that article shows there's no consensus for your edits. Anyway, this is a content dispute. Sort it out on the talk page with the editors that dispute your edits. Don't come running here to ask for blocks of people you disagree with.--Atlan (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor removing CSD tags[edit]

I am opening this discussion in order to discuss the actions of User:Jbmurray. In the past several hours he has twice removed CSD tags on Peter Wall, once and twice. I warned Jbmurray twice for this. Reposting directly from WP:CSD

Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add [[hangon}} to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page.

Instead of following this policy of adding HANGON, Jbmurray took the very unusual and highly irregular step of ignoring policy and removed the CSD tag himself, despite being the creator of the article. I believe the community needs to look into this obvious derivation from policy and the actions of Jbmurray. Bstone (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I watched this last night on my watchlist. The article was tagged {{inuse}} and there was no justification for the speedy at that time. I was actually removing it, but Jbmurray beat me to it - the article was about a minute old, and I think that the action, whilst against the letter of WP:CSD was within the spirit of improving the encyclopaedia as it is now a featured article candidate. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For some reason this editor has a bee in his bonnet about this article. He has, as he reports, repeatedly tried to speedy delete it, and when frustrated in that intent has added a variety of tags, claiming a range of alleged problems,[29] [30] [31] [32] all without a shred of evidence, despite repeated entreaties on his talk page and on the article talk page. In each case, those tags were removed by uninvolved editors.
Most recently, he has sought fit to take the article to AFD, where at present four other editors have immediately responded that it should be speedy kept.
Meanwhile, the article is also a featured article candidate.
I would suggest that if there is any censuring to be done, it is of Bstone, for what is almost becoming a campaign of harrassment. Not that I would have dreamt of taking such a petty matter to AN/I. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"Campaign of harassment". Not even close. Bstone (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that he shouldn't have removed the csd-tags himself. It appears that you've already given him a pair of templated warnings for that. What administrator intervention do you think is necessary at this point? --OnoremDil 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec - I see that things are more complicated than I thought - or simpler, YMMV) My view on speedy criteria is that if anyone contests a speedy tag with a valid reason, the speedy criterion either needs to be revised or the speedy tag was inappropriately applied. Whatever, a deletion discussion has now started. CSDs should be unambiguous. Jbmurray should have trusted any reviewing admin to see that there was enough here to warrant an AfD, and Bstone, I don't quite see what administrator action is needed here. Can't you talk to Jbmurray yourself and discuss things amicably (without using templated warnings)? Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, Jbm shouldn't have removed them himself that, but Bstone, you added the first tag 2 minutes after creation of the article, and you then added it again while the article was being actively worked on. After you put it back the 2nd time, a non-involved user removed it as totally uncalled for, You then added 2 different tags for notability & 1 for tone & 1 for advert, which were all removed by another uninvolved editor, and then you added some of them them back. When yet another editor removed them, you finally nominated it for AfD. At that AfD there are 6 comments, some keep, some speedy keep. Three of these are eds. who had not previously been involved in the tagging. I see some remarkably persistent opposition to the article on your part. DGG (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Jbm shouldn't have removed the tags, but removing a CSD tag from a good article is hardly the worst sin in the world. The repeated tagging, eventually bringing this to AfD and ANI, was pretty darn excessive and not in the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and closed the AfD - there's no reason to permit this kind of behaviour. WilyD 15:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice that he did it twice and yet you warned him three times? Not to mention that the tag was eventually removed by a non-involved editor, which should make this whole debate a moot point. No, the admin shouldn't have removed the tag from his own article, but at the same time, the speedy tag was inapproprate. I mean, you warned him more times than he did it, then tagged it, then after an editor pointed out the tags were inappropriate, you tagged it again, they were removed, so, after it had 36 sources - at least 6 of which are very clearly WP:RS, nominated it for AfD. And then 20 minutes after you nominated it for AfD, you report him to ANI for something he did 17 hours ago and already warned him for more times than he did it. WP:IDHT much? --SmashvilleBONK! 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I do hope that the Bstone sits quietly and reflects on his/her behaviour in this matter. It doesn't show the kind of fine judgement and common sense that we expect and need from admins, in my view. TONY (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not, nor do I have any desire to be, an admin. However the actions of the admin in removing the CSD tag- in clear violation of policy- does not reflect well on his status as an admin. Bstone (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Nor does continuing to press the issue long after it is over. I mean, he was pretty aware that he wasn't spamming Wikipedia, much less blatantly. No, he shouldn't have removed the tag, but he has been told as such. I mean, when one admin tags an article another admin is writing as "blatant spam" two minutes after they start writing it...and persists at trying to get it deleted, takes it to ANI (when there is no incident)...it's kind of disruptive. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Another spam article nominated for Featured Article? What's going on with wikipedia? Is there that much of a shortage of good articles? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The perfect place for you to comment on this article, is at FAC. I look forward to your thoughts, and your suggestions as to how it might be improved. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not about "improving the article", it's about why wikipedia is allowing promotional articles to be elevated to featured article status. What's up with that? Is wikipedia really that hard up for articles? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As per your recommendation, I have posed this question at the FAC page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. And I've responded there, seeking further details. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Your definition of spam seems to be rather wide-ranging. You may want to go through the other 90-plus articles in the "Real estate and property developers" category, or the 3,300-plus in the "American businesspeople" category, and compare the writing and sourcing of this article to those we already have. It stands up rather well for itself as a profile of a prominent businessperson in western Canada. Calling it spam cheapens the work put into it by the editors involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
To me, it reads like promotion. And I heard the same spurious argument last week. It's not about the writing quality of the article or the presumed good-faith intentions of the editors, it's about the fact that it's got to do with selling stuff. In other words, spam. Maybe you don't agree. You've got your opinion. And I've got mine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If the article can survive AFD, it can be awarded FA status. It has survived an AFD already, so saying that the subject matter is inappropriate is not really accurate. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If wikipedia no longer cares about its rule prohibiting spam, I suppose you're right. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as it's not featured on the Main Page, it's not a problem for me. But I don't like the term 'featured', it's misrepresentative, 'quality article' would be more appropriate. Cenarium (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel WP:IAR could be used here, whether intentionally or not. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed something here. I don't understand why there are editors in this discussion saying that he should not have removed the csd tag himself. Has everybody's common sense gone on holiday? If an admin (someone who we trust and knows policy) starts an article and they choose to remove the tag and let you know that they are definitely working on it, don't add the tag back, don't report them to AN/I because they are trying to improve the encyclopedia (you know, that thing we're all here for), and don't tell them off for removing a csd tag. It's pure process wonkery. Bloody hell! </rant> Seraphim♥Whipp 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not above the rules that apply to anybody else. He could have put a hangon tag on the article and explained what was going on on the Talk page, and left it up to another admin to remove the tags or delete it. Conflict of interest applies to any editor, admin or not, and an article's creator has a conflict of interest when it comes to removing CSD tags. Corvus cornixtalk 21:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I should clarify, should it not have been clear: the fact that I was an admin had no bearing on my reaction to the CSD tags. I think any editor in my position (and indeed in Bstone's) would have been in an equal position to use his or her common sense. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 21:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the point she's trying to make is "He was clearly working on it, and we trust him - give him a chance". Though it may have been wise to sandbox the article. Sceptre (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Jbmurray! I didn't mean to imply that you thought you were above the rules or anything. It's exactly as you said in your second point and as Sceptre put it; we should apply common sense more liberally when it comes to established/long-time users, since they are well aware of the "rules". It seems like process wonkery to say, "You must not remove the tag!" when you made it plainly obvious that you were still working on it. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This kind of attitude with speedy tags is so disruptive and harmful, we should make user warnings about that. No wonder why new contributors are 'scared away'. May templates and user warnings rule Wikipedia. Cenarium (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why Bstone thought it acceptable to use templates here, given that User talk:Bstone says that's he'll revert them on sight.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I find that curious, too, as I noted on his talk page; he's yet to respond. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuous personal attacks, incivility, talk page harassement[edit]

Recently User:Tymek blanked large chunk of the article for no apparent reason with edit summary "keep your POV to yourself" [33], his edition was revereted, but Tymek blanked large section of the article again [34], and again this time calling me vandal in edit summary [35]. He was asked to stop edit warring [36], to which Tymek reacted by copy- pasting this message back to my talk page, adding title "A note to a vandal" [37], I've deleted his "warning" from my talk page, but he continued to insert it back [38], [39]. I've asked him multiple times to ceise personal attacks against me multiple times and follow WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF. After beeing "advised" "keep your POV-ish opinions about newspapers to yourself and concentrate on the article you are trying to censor." [40]. I'll reminded Tymek of WP:CIV and WP:NPA rules [41], after being called "extreme left-wing, anti-Polish POV-pusher" [42], I've reminded about civility policies [43], but in response I was called "anti-Polish POV-pusher" again [44]. Recently Tymek was warned that this behaviour unacceptable by uninvolved admin, and was asked to comment content and not contributor [45]. In response Tymek came back with the same slander against me "he deletes sourced information, just because it contradicts his anti-Polish POV" [46]. I really have had it with these continuous ad hominem remarks from user who simply does not want me to "spend my time writing any articles, as their quality is very dubious and biased" [47]. Ending my report I must stress that the issue is not the content blanking, which might have happened by mistake, despite beeing disruptive, but continuous ad hominem remarks, which deffinetly did not happen by mistake, and which are continued after warning from admin with user not showing any remorse or intention to stop it. M0RD00R (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note: The first several diffs where Tymek blanked a large amount of content appears to have been an error. I believe he and M0RD00R were arguing over the characterization of a particular organization as "extreme left-wing," and Tymek accidentally blanked half the article and (carelessly) continued to use the revert tools to undo M0RD00R's undo. This was a major snafu on Tymek's part, and I hope he has acknowledge this mistake somewhere -- but those diffs do not seem to require administrator action at this time.
I have not yet looked at the remaining diffs yet, checking those now... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Moving along.. Tymek did in fact repeatedly restore warnings that M0RD00R had removed from his page, which contradicts WP:DRC and WP:UT. However, that is a common mistake and he was appropriately warned about it this morning, and I see no evidence he has done so since then. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This edit by M0RD00R Tymek is a major WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violation. Absolutely unacceptable.
Here also spectacularly fails to WP:AGF in this edit.
Regarding the actual edit warring, it is hard to tell who is at fault, but I notice that most of the edit-warring between these two involves Tymek adding unflattering adjectives (such as "extreme left-wing") and M0RD00R removing them. That's not a good sign... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean edits by Tymek because these diffs are [48] [49] Tymeks edits, or maybe You've had something else on Your mind? M0RD00R (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, yes, that's what I meant to type, my apologies. I fixed my earlier comment. I think I was thinking "Tymek edits pointed out by M0RD00R", but that's not what I typed. ha ha ha, sorry, my fault. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Stuff happens. LOL. M0RD00R (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Blanking large amounts of an article was a mistake (stuff happens), I apologize, I was not even aware of it until today, see my contributions to check my hard work for the Wikipedia project. User Mordoor has been removing referenced information on various occasions, sometimes calling it vandalism (sic!), sometimes claiming that sources are not valid, sometimes without giving reasons at all. Since large part of his work is aimed at presenting Poland in bad light, I have called him anti-Polish POV pusher, for which I apologize if he is not one. However, when you see a person repeatedly adding biased info on Poland-related articles, or for no apparent reasons removing information that presents a different side of the described information, there is only one thing that comes to my mind. And forgive me, but I did not know that issuing an edit war warning was a personal attack on user Mordoor. Tymek (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know what to make out of this statement, when regrets and slander such as "Since large part of his work is aimed at presenting Poland in bad light" are going hand in hand. M0RD00R (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Tymek -- the personal attacks that I am concerned about have nothing to do with the "edit war warning," it was referring to M0RD00R as "extreme left wing", making offhanded and dismissive remarks about an "article he is trying to censor," and things such as this.
I took a look at your comments on User talk:Scarian, and I do not see evidence of M0RD00R engaged in inappropriate edit wars. Is there something I missed? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, if he finds extreme left wing offensive, I apologize. As for the article he was trying to censor, there is nothing I should apologize for. He was trying to suppress/delete information from an article just because he did not like it. This is called censorship, simple as that. My attacks, and the adjective continuous is a gross exaggeration, are just effect of his biased editing. Talk page harassment? Sorry for that, I always thought that warnings should be kept on user's talk page, Scarian informed me they can be deleted, so now it is fine. Tymek (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Both users have crossed the line (M0RD00R for example assumed bad faith and accused Tymek of vandalism here). Both are however valuable contributors who for the most part contribute constructive content to Wikipedia. Based on my years of experience with both users, I have to agree with Tymek that M0RD00R is certainly biased and non-neutral when it comes to Poland-related subjects, but he did not need to address that in such a strong way on his talk page (whether he was baited into it by M0RD00R other recent edits is another matter). In any case, I'd caution M0RD00R to pay attention to WP:NPOV and WP:AGF, and Tymek to pay attention to WP:CIV and WP:NPA and - since he did apologize for excessive language - close the thread.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Most recent Tymek edit shows that he is still not ready to comply with WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Non-apology apology filled with offensive ad hominem remarks and further accusations that I was "trying to censor the article just because I did not like it"[50], while I clearly sateted my WP:RS releated concerns on relevant talk page is not the way to go. This must stop. Can I be spared further inslults at least at this board? M0RD00R (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Assuming some good faith would go a long way towards improving your relations with many other editors. And WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a valid concern, and your editing pattern is not a perfect mirror of neutrality, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I have no personal beef with any Wiki editor, I'm not holding anyone my personal enemy. In some cases for example when I'm called "fucking pig", I choose to limit my contacts with those editors on talk pages to the minimum and I don't see anything what I could do to iprove my relations with editors like that. But let's not go off-topic, do no start content disputes here. I simple do not wish to be called "censor" and other names time and time again. Is it too much to ask? M0RD00R (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a reasonable request, and I don't believe Tymek will repeat such words again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The request is reasonable, and I will not repeat such words again. Tymek (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Roleplay online[edit]

Resolved: Dcholtx blocked, unblocked after agreeing not to make legal threats

There is an ongoing edit war and content dispute here, in which a user is demanding "official contact" from Wikipedia and threatening litigation. S/he is also publishing his/her email address in edit summaries. If an admin isn't already on the case, I think someone should take a look. -- Karenjc 19:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The editor has been warned about edit warring and, more importantly, about the legal threat, by user Ward3001. He/she appears to have stopped for now. The behavior in question is 100% unacceptable, and if it continues an indef block is warranted. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked User:Dcholtx for the legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I need help with the email I have received from User:Dcholtx, who is carrying on with his legal threats (and seems to think the editors he was reverting at Roleplay online are Roleplay online employees). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Naw it's ok, never dealt with one of these before, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Look at this edit summary. I've been in contact with the editor by email and he has agreed not to make any more legal threats, I'm about to unblock him. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My(?) edit to Edie Britt[edit]

Resolved: User accidentally edited older version of the page

I don;t know if this is the correct place to report this. According to article history. I made this edit. I am completely sure that I just removed only 2 lines that were speculations. I certainly didn't make massive changes to the article. had some problems in the past with my mouse and I deleted some paragraphs twice from other articles by accident. But this case differs, they are changes that I haven't made. (Still the edit summary its mine!). Does anyone have a logic explanation? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The change in the interwiki at the end, make me believe that a bot is involved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No, um, it looks like it was you. But it's okay! Everyone makes mistakes :-). CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
My English is not that good to change "invites him to his house" with "invites him into his house" and moreover I wouldn't have changed the interwiki order! The previous edit was 2 minutes ago. It looks like I read and corrected the whole article in 2 minutes. Is there any possibility that I submitted my edit and the very same moment with someone else and the software got confused? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you inadvertantly edited an older version of the article? Iblardi (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I did some research and that makes sense. Sorry but I got a little stressed because I did a mistake in the same article for a second time. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad you got it solved. Iblardi (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threat[edit]

Resolved: user blocked Toddst1 (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WadeKeller2008 is impersonating Wade Keller, a wrestling writer who publishes a well-known wrestling newsletter. When asked for confirmation, he responded with a personal attack, then a legal threat here [51]. Dayewalker (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks potentially delicate. Left a note and will monitor from there. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, he said "if you add libel, I will sue you". Indeed, he has reason to be concerned since people have been adding libel to his biography. Whether or not he is WadeKeller, who knows. But this doesn't look like the sort of threat that WP:NLT is meant to address. Plus the guy he's replying to called him a "fag". --Haemo (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If you'll check the edit here [52], you'll see that actually User:WadeKeller2008 added that to his own page and insterted it into my comment.
I've had contact with Wade in RL before, I'll drop him a line. Who should he contact if this is not him, and wishes to prove he's being impersonated? Thanks in advance! Dayewalker (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Have him contact OTRS. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Article: Toyota Camry[edit]

the Toyota Camry article keeps getting replaced with information about the Toyota Sceptor

the "Camry" is the name given for the US (and other) models, and the "Toyota Camry" article should give information relative to the US Market (and others) ... this article should not give information about the Japanese car or market, as the name for this car was different

people using Wikipedia will be mislead if people continue to edit the "Toyota Camry" article and replace its current info with Japanese information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venomnitto (talkcontribs) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute to me, and the top of this page says that this isn't the place for content disputes. Try one of these alternatives instead. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mrshaba versus 199.125.109.XXX[edit]

Full protection on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States[edit]

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've fully protected this article against editing due to the resurgence of an edit war after the lifting of the previous protection. As I know there is an ongoing arbitration case dealing with this article that I don't particularly wish to add myself to, I thought it best to note the protection here. There is also some fairly strong evidence of socking in the article history that I plan on checking out over the next day or so, and any comments on how to deal with that would be welcome. --jonny-mt 04:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As an involved editor, my suggestion is for an editing restriction on the disruptive SPAs in question until the ArbCom case finishes. We shouldn't get into the question here of whose socks they are, and meat vs. sock, for that is what the case is exploring. However, we should do something to protect the article while the case is running, otherwise, it will be full-protted for a month or more. So I suggest that the accounts listed here (except for Giovanni33) be restricted to editing only the pages of the ArbCom case for the duration of said case. With the understanding that should additional SPAs show up in the meantime, they will be accorded the same treatment. - Merzbow (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be necessary as the article has been fully protected (as jonny noted above). I request that it should not be unprotected until all sides pledge to resolve their differences through discussion and not edit warring.
Bless sins (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Such a pledge is certainly not going to be forthcoming from me. The side of the dispute I am on has not used any socks. Jtrainor (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a nice idea, but the whole reason sockpuppets are allegedly being used is to disrupt the page and POV push. Until they are restricted it will not be possible to reach consensus on the page - that much is clear from their attitudes and editing behaviour. Remove them from the equation and then a solution may appear.
I should note for the record that Supergreenred was unblocked on the strict directions he not tag-team edit war. Clearly his return to the page is a sign of his true nature. John Smith's (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Though it's easy to get confused, Supergreenred was actually unblocked on the condition that he not edit war/tag team revert.[53] It was User:Rafaelsfingers who was supposed to stay away from the article. Anyway SGR did start edit warring which is precisely not what they were supposed to do.
The sockpuppet issues are at ArbCom right now, it would be wrong to take any action with respect to that since the Arbs can handle it. Personally I think the article should just stay protected until the G33 ArbCom case is over. Topic bans for some of those accounts would be fine with me, but it's probably easier to just leave it protected (the main work over there needs to happen on the talk page anyway) and let the Arbs have their say about those accounts.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the socking issue, the wholesale deletion of sourced material from the article, without even pretending to challenge the sources on the talk page, needs to stop. I'm going to start handing out vandalism warnings if this behavior keeps up. -- Kendrick7talk 10:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You would probably be wasting your time - it's a content dispute. And sources have been regularly challenged on the talk page. John Smith's (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me also if the article just stays locked. Regardless of what happens with G33, I cannot imagine the Arbs won't be showing these SPAs the door (with pro-active remedies against new ones if peace is ever to be had). In the meantime we'll create a sandbox for "Allegations..." and work there. - Merzbow (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's disappointing. There is an ongoing central discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism. Maybe leaving this article protected pending a consensus there would be reasonable? --John (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea, John. You've only got a few editors taking part in that discussion when there are many, many more editors in dispute on the article in question. You can't obtain consensus by consulting only a few parties. John Smith's (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd actually like to ask that you not create a sandbox for this article--while it's a simple matter to merge the histories to preserve the GDFL, a sandbox version worked on by multiple editors would have to be reviewed for inclusion before any merging could take place. I have a good bit of material to review before I start making any proposals, but I plan on getting to that point sooner (i.e. in the next day or so) rather than later. --jonny-mt 07:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference, there is a previous puppet report on some of the accounts at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. John Smith's (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Supergreenred has now been re-banned - though the matter of the other accounts has not been addressed. John Smith's (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Only a thought here and I know, another AfD would be very unlikely close in a delete, but does anyone else think this article title (Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) will always draw edit wars, PoV drama and episodes of full protection? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. But in part because of the abuse of puppet accounts - if that stopped things would get easier. John Smith's (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The article has had several different titles and they all seem to attract trouble. There's a discussion about the title happening over at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism for anyone who is interested.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note (and to keep this discussion from getting archived for a little while longer), I've come up with a potential solution but decided to contact ArbCom first to make sure that it wouldn't hinder the ongoing case. Although I haven't yet received a reply, I also haven't received a notice that my e-mail was rejected, which hopefully means that they are at least aware of it. --jonny-mt 09:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of Giano[edit]

I have blocked Giano II for 3 hours for a violation of his civility parole in this edit and previous edits today. I am posting it here because I am aware of the history of what happens when Giano is blocked, but there is simply no excuse for his posts. If you are inclined to unblock, please first think about what the ArbCom editing restriction was designed to prevent, why I have issued the block, and then consider posting here to discuss first. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note the following disruptive edits:
Stifle (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the block was warranted for the reasons given. If anyone wishes to unblock please be sure you have consensus first. 1 != 2 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this. While the edits are disruptive and intentionally so, they are dealt with by page protection. While I will totally agree that Giano's comments on Bishonen's talk page (mostly in the direction of some members of the AC, though some in my direction as well) are not in the tone that we would like to see on Wikipedia, I do not think they are so serious as to warrant this block. That conversation annoyed me, because I was trying to enter into it in good faith and have a reasonable discussion, but I do not see block-worthy behaviour here, even considering the history. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Intentionally disruptive, not a tone we want to see on Wikipedia, long history of the exact same thing, no indication that if left alone it will not just keep going on. A small block such as this seems a very reasonable response. In his response to this very block more examples of name calling and assumptions of bad faith, the very issues in his arb-com restrictions. This will not go away if ignored. 1 != 2 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block Taken in isolation, any one of these may not be warrenting such a long block, however Giano does have a history of abusive behavior, and given that, should be held to that history. Every comment is not taken in isolation, and I have noticed that as of lately, his comments have become increasingly antagonistic as of late. We should not condone this behavior, especially given his long history of such abusive language and personal attacks. He doesn't get to arrive at Wikipedia each day with a "tabula rasa" like he's never commited a civility violation or a personal attack. He has earned the reputation he has, and there should be consequences for it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Sam Korn here. The majority of these "questionable" edits took place yesterday and were addressed by other administrators - Ryan Posthlethwaite, Until 1==2, Thatcher and Sam Korn; none of them, by their actions, determined that Giano's edit warranted a block. Stifle now comes along and essentially wheelwars with them; this is inappropriate. Today's edit on Bishonen's page was only made to that page because the thread to which Giano was responding was moved from his talk page to Bishonen's. Bishonen has not lodged a protest about what Giano has written on her page; failing that, the thread should be treated as though it is on Giano's own page - a place where users are generally granted considerable latitute.
I don't entirely agree with Giano's thoughts on IRC, and I don't particularly approve of his language, either. But one has to wonder at what point a committee that took on a case called "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC", and included in its remedies that it would address the IRC question is in breach of its own decision. It's been four months, and since that time the committee has been silent on the issue. Questioning this is no longer failing to assume good faith, I am afraid.
You are right, Stifle. There is a predictable reaction to blocking Giano. He gets angry and intemperate. Other administrators who've already been working with him are disempowered and their actions and opinions belittled. The blocking policy ("blocking is preventative, not punitive") is ignored. And at three hours, heaven only knows what you were trying to accomplish - except perhaps to make it of such short duration that nobody would unblock. I agree with Sam, though...this was not blockworthy. Risker (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see much to be gained by this. Giano's ire directed at ArbCom is nothing if not predictable. In fact the only thing more predictable is that he will get blocked and a huge discussion will ensue. So long as he is expressing his dissatisfaction on a user talk page, I would suggest simply ignoring it would be the most effective course of action. I had to laugh at Risker's redefining of "wheel-warring" though. God help us if we start defining, as a "wheelwar", any admin action in the absence of anyone else doing so. Rockpocket 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting question, Rockpocket - at what point does a single admin's decision override that of several other admins? Pity's sake, there were four experienced admins, including a former arb, an arbcom clerk, and an arbcom clerk trainee, none of whom felt a block was required. Why is it okay for someone else to show up a day later and decide that all of these people misjudged the situation? Risker (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It is an interesting point, Risker. And I didn't mean to dismiss it. One should expect admins to take notice of the opinion and, if one exists, consensus, of other admins who have discussed a situation. However I do think there needs to be an overt discussion about not taking action, rather than simply interpreting the lack of someone else taking action meaning that no-one else should. The distinction can be subtle, of course, and this is where the balance of initiative and good judgment comes in. My amusement was more at your use of the "wheel-war" label, and the chaos that would ensue of it was ratified as such, rather than your point - which I believe is a pertinent one. Rockpocket 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Risker, I didn't see any admins making a decision that there should not be a block. You listed me in that list, and I certainly took no such position. That, and the primary reason for the block was on Bish's talk page well outside the involvement of the listed admins. Please do your homework before yelling "wheel war". 1 != 2 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't you ever shut up, Until? As for ignoring something, anything, have you even tried it, ever?[61] It's not long since you informed me that you follow all my edits, presumably in the hope of finding something to complain about. It's not because you nurse a secret passion for me, is it? What delightful behaviour. Don't worry, I'm hardly editing now in any case. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC).
Please be more civil Bishonen. I don't follow all your edits, no sure what you are talking about there, I assure you that I have have no "passion" towards you. I don't even remember mentioning you Bishonen in weeks. The diff you presented is of a post just above. Really not sure what I can take from your post that is productive. 1 != 2 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
<sigh>.The diff was of you talking about "ignoring" Giano. Since I was referring back to where you said that, you know. It was on IRC that you told me you read all my posts. That's what I'm talking about here. Forgotten it? So be it. Or are you going to tell me I lie? Well, I don't. (Disappointing about the passion!) Bishonen | talk 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC).
Oh please Bishonen!!!! Surely 1=2 nver visits IRC, I just cannot beleive you have said that. You'll be saying next certain Arbs are there too, trying to make new and useful friends. Giano (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have done my homework, sorry to say. He did not say anything on Bishonen's page that he had not said on his own, on which you commented. Posting on his page, or in this case on Bishonen's page in response to a thread that for some reason had been moved from his page, is hardly drawing attention to himself; you had indeed indicated your action plan to leave him alone in such circumstances. Thatcher and Ryan Posthlethwaite both elected take the administrative action of protecting the involved pages rather than blocking. Sam Korn is pretty clear in his opinion above. Risker (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I came across the comments at the crats' noticeboard earlier today, by coincidence, and was a little disturbed by them, not least since they were entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I think 3 hours seems fair, all-in-all; it was admittedly fairly minor incivility. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk contribs)─╢ 17:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the IRC clarification got filed away today as "stale". Maybe another clarification filing is needed (I filed that request for clarification), or would that be disruptive? Maybe the community should take the initiative from Arbcom and look at this and this and come up with a more workable and equitable set of remedies, given the arbitration committee's seeming reluctance to take this any further. I think it depends on whether the committee are inactive on these issue because they are happy with the current situation, or whether they are just busy with other things. I might file a request for amendment asking that the whole issue be returned to the community for us to deal with, rather than arbcom. Well, that's a bit more than a request for an amendment, but that is what I'd file it as. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know that another <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">clarification request would be disruptive, the problem is that you don't really want a clarification, you want the committee to take further action that it has so far declined to do (and, I suspect, is deeply divided about). I don't know how to resolve the situation. Thatcher 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If the arbcom is indeed deeply divided, then other people (ie. others in the community) stepping forward with proposals might be the best solution. It may take slow progress, but giving the arbcom a clear question: "Will you allow others to try new proposals and see if there is support among the community to modify, clarify or otherwise amend the outcome of the IRC case (and in particular the ongoing situation with Giano's civility sanction)?" would seem to be a first step. No need to actually propose anything, but to see if ArbCom are willing to let the community have another go at resolving things. If some proposal gains clear consensus in the community, possibly the Arbcom will be only too happy to formalise it and move things forward. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact why are we discussing IRC problems on Wikipedia? It is really unfair to the ArbCom and to Giano. But it is more unjust to the community. Indeed, everytime someone brings me something said or done on IRC or something like "oh, user:someone contacted me on IRC and blah blah" I reply by "i am not interested". But I am really interested in seeing some order here. Call me a radical but it may be great to ban all IRC-related problems or discussions about them... [WP:NOIRCHEADACHE]. And believe me, the problem is not Giano or the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That only would be reasonable if in return, admins were forbidden to take actions based on IRC-based discussions, since the community at large has no input there. Though it is my opinion that such a thing should be done anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins make the decision to take action based on their own judgment (within the context of policy and process, of course). If an outside conversation aids them in that, that's fine, but they can't rely on it, no matter where it comes from. If I know some Wikipedians personally, and I ask for their opinions for something face to face, that's perfectly fine, but I can't rely on their words as anything other than personal guidance until they post them on-wiki. The exact same standard should apply to IRC. - Revolving Bugbear 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Revolving Bugbear, amazing name I love it, could you just put your point in words more simple. You see, I have the dubious good fortune never to have met a fellow Wikipedian (well actualy I have met 2, but they are unaware of the honneur) You see the Admin concerned here today, poor man, was sent from elsewhere - IRC? the Arbs Sam Korn? - who knows, how these days does one know the difference? Poor Stifie I hope the curse of Giano does not befall him, but at least 1=2 (or whatever his current name is) has stoped jumping up and down like a grasshopper on heat. Giano (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's run through this again: I might have sent Stifle to come and block you? Even putting aside the fact that backroom manoeuvrings are hardly my style, your accusation against me appears positively ridiculous in light of my comments above. Y'know, your valid criticisms of the AC appear a lot weaker on account of your more absurd accusations. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you on the Arb's mailing list? A simple yes or no will suffice. Giano (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Giano, yes he is. He is a former arb. Maxim(talk) 20:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I read and contribute to arbcom-l. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
We'll take that as a "yes" then Sam. I'm sure Stifie and 1=2 (whatever he is called) will be well rewarded for services rendered. Giano (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The cabal is giving out bounties now? Where do I sign up! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right. I, as a member of the cabal, orchestrated this block (despite opposing it) in order to get you banned (even though I don't want to) and will be giving rewards (what, exactly? Biscuits? Sweets? Super-duper blocking powers?) to Stifle for carrying it out.
This is complete fantasy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No Sam, not fantasy! Just the Arbcom you are part of and have supported. What else was a civility parole on me, but an attempt to supress the truth? You can't opt out now, you were on that list. Giano (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah but remember there is no such thing as a free lunch - especially when served by this Arbcom! Giano (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not on the arbcom list, I've been on IRC twice since the start of April, and nobody sent me. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No Stifie, you have the wrong end of the stick, we all know you are not on the Arbcom mailing list and have limited contact with IRC - we have all worked that one out ages ago - why else were you selected? Giano (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Giano, do you actually believe this? You are either being outstandingly paranoid or you are trolling. These accusations have precisely zero basis in reality. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It was the Arbs clear intention that clueless Admins would leap in and block me. every time I said something they did not like, and that is what certainly seems to happen, or am I imagining that too? Giano (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Adhere strictly to WP:CIVIL and you won't get blocked. Transmission end ... I mean problem solved. - Revolving Bugbear 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well GIano - stop giving them that choice - and you can do that while still making your point. ViridaeTalk 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

<- from my perspective it all gets a lot easier to understand if you start to look at things as 'you're either part of the problem, or part of the solution' - all I really see above is Giano indicating that because of Sam's involvement with arbcom, he's (in Giano's view) part of the problem. This is actually kinda reasonable, no? - anywhoo... I just wish people would be kind enough to apply some rigour in considering others' ideas, rather than reaching for the paranoia or trolling buttons......

by the way, and intended lightheartedly, this is far from the most silly thing occurring on Wikipedia at the moment, believe it or not! here you can see a genuinely first class wiki bun fight involving arbs being upset at a clerk getting uppity (imagine! trying to actually keep an arb case sane! arbonaughts to battle stations!)

Final note on the above - I think Stifle made a mistake (not the best username to be dealing with criticism anywhoo, no?!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It pains me to say this, but please, everyone, just ignore Giano's trolling. Since I was mentioned above for my role in not blocking Giano regarding his Arb case edits, let me say for whatever it is worth, that I consider Giano's civility parole to apply mainly to cases of alleged admin or arbcom abuse, where Giano is nominally uninvolved, and rides in on his white horse to stir the pot further. Giano has sometimes taken up the cause of editors whom he feels have been wronged, and sometimes he is correct, but too often his approach is intentionally abusive and confrontational and inflames the situation and stirs the pot, and this is what (I believe) Arbcom was trying to deal with, in the IRC case and its antecedents. This dispute regards only his own case, and consists of himself stirring the pot to try and get a reaction out of someone, in which goal he has succeeded once again. It is classic trolling. I think the block was an overreaction, and I think that attempts to continue a rational discussion miss the point entirely that this iteration of the dispute is not about rational solutions. The disruption, such as it was, of the arbitration pages was dealt with by protecting them, and the best response at this point is, sadly, to ignore him. Thatcher 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh here we go again - The Arbcom fucks up! So it must be Giano trolling or Giano is paranoid. Well done Thatcher - which one of them wrote that? The Arbcom are a bunch of failing cowards and liars - take your pick which is which. Giano (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Giano, you are throwing around accusations and characterisations again. In some contexts, that is fine. In an online context where you are literally only what you say, you are digging a hole for yourself as well as others. You may be right about some things, but these general comments don't help. Let me ask you this - even if the arbcom restriction were modified or lifted, or something like that, would you still carry on the way you are doing? You seem to be trying to get wholesale resignations, and that is extremely unlikely to happen. I don't think you really want that, and the amount of effort it would take to succeed in that is, frankly, not worth the bother. The impression I get is that there are other issues not being mentioned. Is this just about Arbcom, or is there more to it than this? Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My only wish is that the community see the true colours of its disreputable, lying and disgraceful Arbcom. What it chooses to do with them is up to the community. To me, they are people of no consequence, they are as ants on the pavement and about as much use. Giano (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call what Giano is doing trolling, but what Thatcher says does make sense. The Giano restriction doesn't reflect well on ArbCom, but some of Giano's actions don't do him great credit either. The trouble is, if you are going to say on the one hand "ignore Giano", then (after giving arbcom the chance to clarify things) there comes a point when you have to ignore some of the arbcom's decisions as well. We all apply varying levels of common sense and ignoring rules every day as we edit Wikipedia, and quietly ignoring, extending, diminishing or re-engineering some of the more "out of left field" arbcom decisions is not an impossibility, especially if they don't engage with the issues further. I'll reply further above in response to Thatcher's other reply. Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do not endorse ignoring Giano's provocations no matter the circumstances, but in this specific instance, yes. (Although I decline to name specific examples of circumstances where I would endorse or carry out a block; hopefully they will never arise). And to the other matter, the community already has the ability to modify or nullify an arbitration decision, but it requires a consensus not to act even when Arbcom has authorized action, and that does not seem to exist with respect to Giano. Thatcher 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Support block - eesh, Giano is being a massive dick, and I would consider a block on him if he were not sanctioned. Sceptre (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Giano was simply stating a solution to a problem on Wikipedia: an abusive and corrupt ArbCom. It'd be nice to see more users speak out against this crap. Monobi (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    There are better ways of saying it: saying "I don't like the arbcom because I think some of their decisions are wrong and sometimes double-back on their decisions" is fine. When it gets into calling it a "waste of space", "thoroughly disgraceful", "[a bunch of] liars" in just the edit he was blocked for, it becomes unacceptable. Even more so by saying "[the AC] are a waste of space", calling them "lying bastards" and a "walking disgrace", and saying they're "planning to have [him] bumped off as we speak" in only two edits after the block. Add onto the civility parole, and you honestly think nothing's wrong? Sceptre (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to make one note here. I saw this happen at RFAR, I saw Giano edit war, I saw Thatcher protect the page, and... I said nothing, and saw no need to do anything.
If Sam Korn is part of a fantasized version of Arbcom that hands out bounties, then, Giano, I haven't seen that. I have blocked you once, but as I've said before, I hope not to have to. As far as today goes, I saw you edit war and decided the page protection resolved the dispute the best way. I've advised you repeatedly how to avoid problems. Those aren't the actions of people against you. They are the actions of people against certain behaviors, which you and others sometimes use unacceptably.
You've been told many times that if you cease to act up, no arb will pay you attention; no admin will block you. If that's genuinely truly what you want, you know how to have it. You're intelligent; you know exactly what's being asked of you, and you know it's achievable completely. You haven't acted up the last few weeks; no admin has blocked you the last few weeks. You acted up yesterday; an admin blocked you. See the pattern?
You have exactly the equality and fairness of treatment you wish for, although you don't like it. If you act up -- and I'm not really fussed if once two years ago you might have had a point, or if you really do believe everyone is out to get you -- then you will come to admin attention. If you don't act up, you probably won't. If you make your points like Carcharoth, like Thatcher, you won't get blocked. If you do it by snarking others, personal attack, pointless edit warring and immaturity, you will. It's that simple and that direct, nobody is 'against' you. You choose the words you write about and to others, nobody else, and you do so knowing the requirements upon you. It's your call alone.
FT2 (Talk | email) 07:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to be able to criticize the institution: comments that the ArbCom is a "waste of space" or disgraceful are perfectly valid critical conclusions. If ArbCom is seen to act fairly and effectively people won't take the criticisms seriously. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic-banning Giano from discussing the arbitration committee[edit]

I know I'll get shouted at for this, and Giano will probably add this to his view that AC are against him, but really, his contributions in this regard aren't helpful at all, and the way he's going, he'll end up banned. I don't want that to happen because he's been here a long time and has done great work in the past, but he's making himself look horrible by acting the way he is doing, and I doubt he'll reform, if three blocks after an AC for civility shows anything. Thoughts? Sceptre (