Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Timmy Polo[edit]

Timmy Polo (talk · contribs) was blocked in April for repeatedly adding unnecessary plot details to film articles, and was warned several times. He previously edited as an IP ( (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and the IP was blocked for 3 months. Timmy Polo socked many times (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timmy Polo/Archive), and each time showed a lack of competence and clue to be editing Wikipedia. The 3 month block on that IP has expired, and he immediately began adding unnecessary plot details to articles. I am asking, first off, that User: be blocked for more than 3 months this time, and perhaps that a community ban take effect. Timmy has indicated on several occasions that he currently attends college (he edited from the West Hills Community College IP,, so I don't think it's a matter of him being young and immature. He has socked 14 times, and has continually lied about his name in his repeated unblock attempts. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that his hosting provider keeps the same IP address for so long, but I can't deny the similarity in editing pre- and post-block. Looks like the same person. My inclination, now that he's been fairly warned a couple times, is to apply a longer block immediately upon the next incident. Although I won't object if someone else decides to block anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just been blocked for one year. I still want to start a discussion about a community ban for Timmy Polo. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog[edit]

Resolved: Unbacklogged. TFOWR 23:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

AIV is slightly backlogged, if an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Shakira 2010 Tour (its become a bit of a mess)[edit]

Resolved: Mess cleaned up and move protection applied by Graham87

Ok this is less of a request for administrators to act against an inidividual user its more of a case of correcting the actions of lots of users which has left a tangled mess of redirects and articles.

  • Multiple copy and paste moves
  • Messy tangle of redirects.
  • Inconsistant article history.

-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a dedicated fan who is an admin? Because I'm not touching this one with a ten foot mic stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Well as an editor who has the first or second most contributions to the article I wouldn't have requested if I wasn't sure to some sort of degree. Shakira has officially confirmed the tour title on her website if that helps. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
All done, as requested, and I've also moved the old talk page over. I'm not a Shakira fan, just a history merge fan. :-) Graham87 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Graham... its been an utter and complete mess. I actually lost track of everything myself and I am one of the subject's largest contributors. phew! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


This user has been warned multiple times (eight thus far) about vandalizing Wikipedia yet continues to do so. The Writer 2.0 Talk 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you reported it to WP:AIV? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting wait red.svg No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Report to WP:AIV that is. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally[edit]

Resolved: Page protected for 7 days, editors encouraged to work for consensus on talk page before making changes. --WGFinley (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute about the Restoring Honor rally crowd size section. A handful of editors, such as User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous and an IP user who uses different IP addresses, are trying to undermine the section by filling it with POV. Many attempts have been made to resolve the issue on the talk page but these editors refuse to comply. They are fixed on trying to prove two certain estimates, made by CBS/ and Stephen Doig, are the only "scientific" estimates and thus the only ones to be taken seriously. Needless to say these two estimates are among the lower estimates out there. Estimates by many other reliable media outlets such as NBC have been removed or undermined. Several tags have been placed on the section -- POV, Debate, and undue weight. Several editors have warned the users and attempted to resolve the issue on talk but to no avail. Not only are the edits in violation of Wikipedia standards but they contain poor grammar. Examples:

  • Here, the editor tried to "debunk" a certain estimate.
  • Here, the editor removed important information about the physical size of the crowd and "critiqued" an "unscientific" estimate.
  • Here, the editor inserted a source of questionable notability criticizing non-CBS estimates when earlier he had removed a criticism of CBS's estimate, saying it was not notable.

These are just a few examples I can find at the moment with my limited time. It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which estimates are "scientific" or not and which are to be taken seriously. We need to report all estimates. These users reject this.

I am asking for assistance on this article. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Response: Objections have been made to good faith edits.
The editor asserts that"It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which estimates are 'scientific' or not and which are to be taken seriously. We need to report all estimates. These users reject this."
Early on this might have been the case, and since it was a valid point, later edits of mine never rated estimate as unscientific or not without citation. See: [1]
  • Here, the editor tried to "debunk" a certain estimate.
It would be helpful if the editor was less oblique. The editor seems be referring to a nonexistent estimate of NBC's of 300,000 which by citations, has been both misreported and debunked. Here is the relevant Talk discussion.[2] Since bad reporting of crowd size estimates is central to the controversy endemic to these estimates, the bogus nature of the NBC number was explained to give context, and my hope is that this is restored to the article. I did unsuccessfully try to find a source for NBC actually releasing an estimate of 300,000, and the editor is welcome to try, but so far, the editor has made no attempt to establish the alleged NBC estimate as valid.
  • Here, the editor removed important information about the physical size of the crowd and "critiqued" an "unscientific" estimate.
The editor seems to be again referring again the NBC estimate I left in a edit which I had since changed substantially making it now moot.
Regarding the "packed" sentence. This is not an estimate at all, it's hyperbole. Previously the 1st sentence of the paragraph said that the crowd was a large open event. To avoid having the first two sentences being redundant, the first one was removed.
  • Here, the editor inserted a source of questionable notability criticizing non-CBS estimates when earlier he had removed a criticism of CBS's estimate, saying it was not notable.
This is the first I've heard of the editor condemning On The Media as "a source of questionable notability". Since we have no idea of why the the editor is skeptical, there's no way of responding to this.
As for who "removed a criticism", this accusation is troubling and cause for concern. Per an edit summary,[3] BS24 said he/she was "Removing blogger sentence per further consideration." . [4]. The editor has not engaged in any any further attempt to defend the source found to be unusable in this case.
The blogger at issue who attempted to find fault with CBS's estimate has been thoroughly proven to be unreliable in this Talk discussion,[5]. After which the editor had quit the discussion, so we have no idea why the editor still feels source deserves inclusion. I would hardly refer to such a poor source by "saying it was not notable", and possibly infer that it was valid but just not that important, I object to an apparent attempt to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my concerns regarding the source. see:[6]
The editor says that I have maintained that the CBS and Doig have made "the only 'scientific' estimates and thus the only ones to be taken seriously." I know of no other scientific estimates made public by anyone with experience in the matter. On The Media unequivocally stated that there was a problem with scientific and unscientific estimates being given "equal weight." And Doig said statistical estimates were the only way to get numbers based in reality, but these citations are not in the current protected edit. This was done by citation of reliable sources. Regarding it is "Needless to say these two estimates are among the lower estimates out there." I have no idea what is being alluded to and would urge the editor to explain it further or withdraw it since it seems to suggest bad faith.
Most of these issues have been dealt with, or should be dealt with on the Talk page, especially the new arrival of whether or not On The Media is a notable source. In general regarding the crowd size estimates, the editor is not able to make good arguments why an unscientific estimates deserve equal weight. Most of the unscientific sources are briefly mentioned because there are so few of them. Because they do not reveal there protocols and procedures of estimation. (They often do not source the estimates, so where they came from is unknown.) There is simply not much to say about them. There has been a suggestion that the scientific methods are given too much attention, and I agree. This could be reduced and improve the section.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article history and talk page there was clear evidence of an ongoing edit war. I've protected the page for one week so the editors can work out their differences on the talk page to achieve consensus. --WGFinley (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to add it is not so easy to work constructively on this article if an editor uses "questionable" methods to reach his "goals", for example BS24 in this case. (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Acid Bomb[edit]


Can someone please take a look at Acid Bomb? The article is nothing more than instructions on making a potentially dangerous object. There is currently a prod tag on the page but I was wondering if this can be deleted sooner as something WP should not be hosting. If WP:NOTHOWTO is the only policy violation here and there's nothing that warrants immediate deletion that's fine; I just thought I'd ask the question. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. We have no CSD for that, but per IAR I have deleted it. --Chris (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Salted also, someone will need to explain why and what before using that title again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As long as y'all are IARing, you might want to salt Acid bomb as well. -Atmoz (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Would be good if someone could remove the salt. Seems like a notable topic. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: The Cabal has authorized me to certify this as resolved with no action. You don't know, you don't want to know. --WGFinley (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:WikiPolice acceptable? I thought we discouraged this sort of thing... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's really only intended to be the kind of jokey fauna that is always around. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It's humorous. Wikipedia:Village stocks and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars aren't necessary for the project either, but I wouldn't want them to go away. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly an attempt to be humorous. I find it... not so funny. Doesn't mean it's discouraged, other than by a wide response of "eh, whatever". Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh thanks(!) You're looking at the author. Never mind, to each their own of course. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if that seemed too harsh--I don't doubt other people might find it funny--I just don't. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As with the movie Office Space, perhaps the idea is funnier than the execution of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You take that back right now! That movie was/is awesome. Like a hundred million hot dogs. Protonk (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It was good, just not as good as I was expecting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Then you're wrong. As to the substance of this ANI report: the page is pretty weak, but well within the current essay guidelines. I'm not sure what C&E is accomplishing with it, but that doesn't matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm "wrong" that it did not live up to "my" expectations??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
At this rate, I expect we will shortly have articles on the jokey fauna Wikipedia:WikiNyarlathotep, Wikipedia:WikiOnychophora and Wikipedia:WikiBicycle Repairman. (Omigawd, did I just trigger WP:BEANS?) -- llywrch (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gero II[edit]

Ummmm... not sure if this is a browser problem or something and if this is the appropriate place to report this, but when I try to go to the article on Gero II all I get is either a black screen (in IE) or a black screen with just the Wikipedia logo and the tab for article (in Safari). Clicking on the "article" tab does not solve the problem. AFAIK this is the only article that this happens with.radek (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the same issue (it's actually with the page to which Gero II redirects, Gero II, Margrave of the Saxon Ostmark.) The edit page doesn't seem out of the ordinary... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, someone had inserted some CSS that created a black screen. Removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks.radek (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Is there a reason that we don't have a filter for position:fixed in articlespace? I understand that it's essential for daft user pages and the like, but I can't see any plausible reason to allow it on articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis, edit warring, incivility on Gold standard by[edit]

I apologize if this isn't the right place. The intricacies of WP bureaucracy elude me. There has been a long-going slow-motion edit war at Gold standard with one editor ( pushing various original research via synthesis. Several editors have shown amazing patience in discussions on the talk page, but these attempts have been met with general diatribes, abuse, more synthesis, and a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The talk page has become huge with nonproductive discussions.

The user has been blocked once already for these issues, as well as trouble at Second amendment [7]. They have received several warnings on their talk page since the block [8], [9], [10].

As examples of recent behavior, This edit continues reintroducing a whole lot of material. I objected to it here because the references provided for one bit where completely inadequate. As one concrete example of the WP:OR, the material "Since the gold standard rewards savers, there is a greater pool of savings which can be used to make investments and start new industries. Under a fiat standard however, saving is penalized,[35] quite often by negative real interest rates [36]..." with that [36] being a link to these charts that provide no analysis at all, never mind a mention of either gold or fiat standards. My objections went unanswered (in any specifics, the editor says they believed they addressed the objections), so I have simply pointed back there when the material is re-inserted (as it has been several times). The most recent time the response was this. Other examples of talk page behavior included this diatribe and this bit.

The problem could be potentially solved just by semi-protecting the page (although the talk page behavior would still be a problem), but it seems more reasonable to block CRETOG8(t/c) 03:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I have blocked this IP for disruptive editing for 5 days. Previous block from July dictates the length, and the general unwillingness to hold a dialogue in a civil manner necessitates this block. Jmlk17 05:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This IP editor has also been socking.[11] Suggest a longer block if he reappears and behavior remains unchanged. LK (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Community Ban of user:WillBildUnion?[edit]

(Sorry if this is the wrong venue).

I was investigating the edit history on some content that appeared to just be suffering from copy-edit errors, but looking further into the user's history, it appears that he's flaunting a topic ban (Greek, Roman, Christian). I'm having difficulty finding out exactly whether or not that's the case, but I thought I might as well err on the side of reporting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert (talkcontribs) 06:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. I don't see anything about this topic ban at WP:BANNED or WP:RESTRICT (those are not always kept up to date). Is it mentioned somewhere else?
  2. Unless repeated and/or egregious, breaking topic bans is usually handled with a warning, then escalating blocks. (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. The mentions I found were on his user:discussion page and here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert (talkcontribs) 07:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The topic ban seems to be in the ANI archives here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - While the topic ban seems to have violated, there's no way he should be community banned for reverting vandalism[12] and adding a reference[13]. A block for the topic ban? It may seem in order, since it's not yet October 3rd, and he's edited two "Christian" articles. A community ban? When his last block was for 72 hours? Massive overkill, IMO... Doc9871 (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    There's pretty strong precedent that a ban is a ban, and that editing in spite of a ban should not be looked upon kindly even if it is benign. If the editor thinks his ban should be reviewed then he should move to make that happen rather than just flouting the sanctions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    A topic ban (where, "Users who violate such bans may be blocked.") is not a community ban. Is a "community ban" tantamount to a "site ban", or not? He should be blocked for violating his topic ban again, not banned by the community. There is a huge difference between these two "bans", and the language needs clarification for us all, I think... Doc9871 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    If you look at other cases where editors have skirted round the boundaries of topic bans (or openly flouted them), they're not typically looked upon kindly. Sanctions are social measures and they aren't solely about preventing disruption. Users who aren't able to operate within our social boundaries (which includes respecting sanctions if they're imposed) should not be encouraged to edit here, as it seems to inevitably end in tears. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    Chris, I love ya dearly, "...but the question is whether an indef (which has halted the disruption) genuinely deserves to be upgraded to a siteban... Considering that his block log is hardly extensive, a ban on the grounds of unmanageability would be an extreme reaction. If it was true for Sven70: it's the same for WillBildUnion. No exceptions to this rule... Doc9871 (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    That's a cute little gotcha attempt, but the situations are apples and oranges. WBU is already under a topic ban, which he is not following. The question is what to do about that, and all I've done is point out that there's pretty good precedent not to allow editors who are topic banned from a certain subject to continue to make minor edits to it. To be quite honest a slap on the wrist with clear instruction not to continue to flout the ban while it is in place would seem to be an acceptable solution. Other than the word "ban" occurring in both, there are no similarities between this and the Sven70 sitation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    No "gotcha" in a bad way: I voted for your RfA because I know you're a good admin, and so what if we disagreed on the Sven70 thing. It goes beyond these editors. Block WillBildUnion for a week for violating the topic ban: longer if deemed appropriate. A community ban? I would vehemently oppose it. But... who am I? I'm Jean Valjean!!!! ;P Doc9871 (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    Apologies, I should have titled it "Re:Community Ban...". Brian Geppert (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPAM on Taobao[edit]

Would it be possible if was added to the list of prohibited spam URLs? A number of users keep adding the URL; note how they've piped it so that it appears as, which seems to be an attempt to fool people who click the link, anticipating a reference. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at WP:SBL. –xenotalk 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

new type of personal attack tactic[edit]

User:Dr. Dan made this IMO very uncivil personal attack [14] quote: "You see, Loosmark has a penchant to appear in the most unusual and untimely manner whenever I make a post on WP some have suggested that there's a schoolboy crush involved, others have suggested that he's stalking me." Just by examining my edit history and that of Dr.Dan one can see that his claim that I appear whenever he makes a post on WP is blatantly false: [15], [16]. Further, nobody ever claimed that I am stalking him or that I have schoolboy crush(!?), in fact this seems to be "clever" attempt at passing a personal attack under the radar: The formula is "some have suggested that {insert heavy insult}, but I don't think that's the case". Just imagine somebody saying "some have suggested that you are beating your wife but i don't believe that's the case". IMO that's nothing but a covert personal attack and IMO totally unacceptable.  Dr. Loosmark  16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA is thataway... Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Meeso- personal attacks gone too far?[edit]

Resolved: User warned of Macedonia sanctions and admonished not to make further threats. --WGFinley (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been concerned about Meeso (talk · contribs) for a while. I gave him a 3R warning two weeks ago [17] and noticed his uncivil behaviour then. Edit summaries such as "go fuck yourself !! deleting bullshit on my talk page" (on his talk page) and " IT IS NOT ANY LESS SIGNIFICANT THAN OTHER INFO! STOP YOUR IGNORANT BALLYRAG! OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THIS!" [18] are clearly not acceptable. I was considering going to WQA but then found an odd message on his talk page [19] from an IP which was clearly a response to a request for the name of an editor/Administrator editing Kosovo. His request is at [20] and says " Please tell me his name and I shall put him down for ever! I assure you if what you say is true, this admin will be lost from this article and maybe Wikipedia altogether!". I'll notify him now. Note that his sig reads 'Maysara'. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that his threat is probably just shooting the breeze, but it's still unacceptable. He needs to retract it or be blocked. I can put up with a lot in the way of incivility, but threatening editors is beyond the pale. And Eastern Europe articles are already volatile enough. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
His personal attacks and incivility are not just restricted to Eastern Europe. This (both the comment and the edit summary) is typical of his pattern of incivility and personal attacks at Talk:Egyptian Arabic. While not of the magnitude of his threats against Dbachmann, it is still indicative of his overall attitude. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Kosovo is protected by general sanctions I have warned him[21] and logged the warning.[22] I've also directed him to withdraw the threat or risk being blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I retracted my statement (which was not a threat, although of course it is understandable to be thus interpreted by the admin). Maysara (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but any reasonable legal proceeding would determine that to be a threat. --Chris (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
So, what happens when a user warned of discretionary sanctions moves to a topic area not covered by them? Is it just regular content dispute again? --Selket Talk 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
He's been warned about his behavior here and even if it went outside of sanctions that would still be looked at. If he acts in a simiar manner again free free to report it. --WGFinley (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Unless I'm mistaken(and granted, I haven't done much digging), the IP's post is outing and should be deleted/reverted, and rev-deleted.— dαlus Contribs 19:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Considered that but the user he named edits under his real name and no other information was revealed I don't think it's outing. --WGFinley (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Last I checked, 'D' was not his first name.— dαlus Contribs 21:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a post on Dab's talk page referring to the old thread with the full name that's still there. However deleting it seems a bit pointless to me since I find plenty of discussions which include Dab's first name including ANI itself (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
And you are posting anonymously here because? Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless Dab is the one that posted that name, it's still outing.— dαlus Contribs 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Zaspino and user:Theobald Tiger and IP'S[edit]

The two following threads are really one thread; I've joined them up so as to make them easier to discuss. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC).


I would hereby like to report the user User:Zaspino as I feel harassed. This user has not made any edit which was not in an attempt to prevent me from editing (see). This user is continuing an argument that was present on here. Since the account has apparently been created simply to counter my edits I definitely feel harassed. Since the user is asking for ridiculous things and thinks these are solid points no argument has convinced this user of the correctness of my claims in the articles morality and teleology. The user insists on retracing steps and is asking for references of the references I made and is furthermore insensitive to any changes I made, explanations I offered and references I left.
Now, I am willing to listen to most everybody, but my patience has run out with this user since there appears to be no reason in him. Unfortunately it shows that my patience has run thin, but I hope this matter will be properly dealt with since this user is not editing here to benefit the encyclopedia in my opinion, although he claims otherwise.
--Faust (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Calling people trolls is not nice nor does it help your situation. fetch·comms 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the, just ask.. --Faust (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • It would be clearer if you would refer to the specific differences link for the places where you feel that Zaspino has been harrassing you. Pointing us just at the whole talk page doesn't make it clear which particular action it is to which you are taking exception. One problem was that you got confused as to who said what, as shown at this diff; the words in question had been added in a section heading in this earlier edit by an IP, and not by Zaspino, but you refused to accept it when Theobald Tiger explained it to you. David Biddulph (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
This is simply ludicrous. Faust's arrogance gets in the way of his judgment, causing him to consider any objection to his edits as being inspired by a non-knowledgeable team of conspiring users. Zaspino (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not an arrogant man. I undid yet another attempt of Zaspino's to push his POV without consensus here. --Faust (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Theobald Tiger

I would hereby like to report the user User:Theobald_Tiger as I feel harassed. This user has come to to prevent me from making any edit here, after a dispute I have had with him on Not a single edit since he has 're-awoken' on is about anything else. Apart from that this user is insensitive to any and all arguments I have given in favor of my edits, including references, references of my references, explanations, dictionary suggestions, etc. I see no reason to continue discussion with this user since the user is clearly only interested in preventing my edits. That is why the user keeps retracing our steps and shows no recognition of changes I made on behalf of edits, nor recognition of clear sources........and worldwide recognition... --Faust (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • you will get a lot more sympathetic response if you quit calling them trolls and be more constructive in presenting your issues. Please provide some specific diffs where you believe admin action is required. Blocks are not punitive, rather they are invoked to stop future disruption. For that to be apparent i think you need to provide diffs of poor behaviour and examples where you have tried to go through the various dispute resolution stages :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the, just ask..

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, by "FTOWR" do you mean me? We've talked a bit recently, so it's possible, but I don't recall anything about this. Do you have a diff? I'll have a dig through my talkpage archives but a diff would greatly help. TFOWR 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I went look at the Teleology talkpage to see the two famous "trolls" Zaspino and Theobald. I found two users who seemed knowledgeable and bent on improving the article. And one user, Faust, who was behaving in an uncivil and inappropriately condescending way: "I have adapted the above in a way that I think will be more comprehensible to Zaspino"... "Theobald, you are interrupting a discussion that might prove a learning experience to Zaspino... please stay out of this." Here is an appropriately critical post by Zaspino, and here Faust's response to it. If anybody there is to be called a troll (which we're not supposed to do anyway, yada yada), it's not Zaspino, nor Theobald. Advice to the community: it would be good if somebody kept an eye on this article (unfortunately I don't have the time myself). Advice to Faust: don't be so bloody rude. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Going by your posts on their talkpages, apparently you regard this ANI posting as a "request for blocks". I don't think Zaspino nor Theobald are in the slightest danger of being blocked. But you might be, if you carry on in the same way for much longer. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

@TFOWR, Yes, I meant you, apologies for the miswrite. I sent you several mails, but never got a reply. I also alerted Shell Kenny, but she is short on time I think. @Bishonen: I can understand your opinion, but I ask you to bear in mind that I knew I was being harassed from Zaspino's first edit here since it was a continuation of events on That simply makes me lose my patience. Apart from that neither Theobald, not Zaspino are knowledgeable in the field, as is obvious from ALL comments they have made. They are only good at rhetorics. My case is made by the fact that I alerted TFOWR and Shell Kinney to what was going on at the very first post Zaspino made and predicted this chain of events. --Faust (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So you were in battle array from the very start? No... I'm afraid I don't see that as making your case. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC).
Face-blush.svg Ah, email! That would explain it. Let me have a dig... apologies for not looking into it, I suspect yours isn't the only email I've missed. TFOWR 23:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, caught up with me email. Faust sent me two emails on 27 August and 30 August which raised concerns Faust had with one of the editors discussed here. Faust subsequently sent me two emails on 2 September which additionally raised concerns with a second editor discussed here. Basically, I can confirm that Faust's comment above re: alerting me is correct. Beyond that, I'm way out of my depth: this is - as far as I can see - a content dispute involving philosophy. If I were to reply to Faust's emails now I'd basically say: ask the experts. TFOWR 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Actually, it proves that I am not the one who was in battle array from the beginning and that I have been very patient without any reason for that. In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding. This explain his unreasonable denial of my references and his continual stating of falsities quite clearly. It shows that no matter what he will never accept anything other than his POV and is not interested in building an encyclopedia based on truth. Since Zaspino and Theobald are in a tagteam together, continuing a dispute from here I cannot understand why this would reflect negatively on me.--Faust (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

IP'S and and and

I would like to report the Ip's stated above, which are used by the same user. This user insists on places his personal definition in the morality article, without reaching consensus. I have undid the revision four times now and I think an edit-war is just not done. Although a majority is in favor of a revision, I am not convinced this should be done since the thoughts outlined in that revision are POV's explained elsewhere in the article, now being trumped as a general definition. I cannot escape the thought that they are in a tagteam with Zaspino and Theobald, since I can think of no good reason why such a user who would be interested in moral ethics would not have a user page, but suddenly come to the rescue of Zaspino and Theobald. --Faust (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The revisions I undid are 1, undone because of a POV posited as a definition, 2, undone because of the same reason and requested to discuss first on the talk page, 3, same reasons, 4, same reasons. Although the IP's vary I think this is the same user, if not, it is a tag team.

NOTE: if you want them, ask for the 'whois' queries I did. They are seperate companies, but the user has acknowledged to be at least two of these IP'S and any more random browser appearing saying the current version is not correc after months of never being under dispute just when there is a dispute with is transferred from the would make this story even more (if possible) unlikely. --Faust (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can clearly see Faust's indignation, but I fail to see what I actually did wrong. As far as I know I have broken no policy here and I have treated Faust respectfully. My concerns are with the content of and I cannot help but notice that Faust's edits and proposals often show faulty reasoning and wobbly and untidy wording. The last few days my criticisms have been directed at precisely those defects. I have been careful not to refer to issues. I am not here to quarrel as my edit history amply testifies. I am definitely not the same editor as any of the above mentioned IP's (I have never contributed to anonymously) - the anons actually know a lot more about the taxonomy of ethics than I do. By saying "In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding" Faust refers (without my consent) to an e-mail exchange with me. His conclusion is an outright lie. Furthermore, I do not form a "tag team" with Zaspino or with any of the anons mentioned above. On his talk page Faust states: "I am a horror at following policies, but a miracle at seeing what is going on..." To cut a long story short: I think Faust's ability to see what is going on as well as his ability to communicate leave something to be desired, to put it mildly. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I know I am just an anon IP, so I ask you to WP:assume good faith and hear me out. I am not any of the other IP addresses and I find it a little premature that the conclusion is that I am especially when the user that is multiple anon IP's has disclosed his conflict of interest. I am a anon user who generally performs wikignome activities, primarily stubbing and copy-edits by solely using the Random Article tool. Prior to my edit, my ISP made the unfortunate decision to change my IP rendering my past edits inaccessible to Faust. I know this is not a standard way to edit Wikipedia, but it is the way I chose to give back here. The cleanup tag on the page made me decide to investigate the talk page and I felt that a consensus existed that Faust was not interested in as well as brought the article into conformity with Amorality. However, I also sought greater consensus with an RfC. As for the Whois, I decided to check that out too. Interestingly, one of the multis that Faust is claiming is not even on my side of the world and does not appear to be a proxy either. Also I fail to see a WP:3RR violation for edit warring at least if I am figuring out the times correctly and good faith is assumed. I wish to state that I only edited the part in question a single time.-- (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, Faust never warned me with {{subst:ANI-notice}} upon my mention at the noticeboard and only mentioned seeking blocks in passing in the Talk:Morality page. I had to dig this page up myself and I find this the wrong way to offer constructive criticism of a user on Faust's part.-- (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If indeed you are none of the other IP's and you arrived at the page by sheer coincidence I owe you an apology. I find that hard to believe though. It would be a one in a million chance, but even those occur. Your argument that one IP is an IP from somewhere else on the globe is one I do not take seriously since you might as well have a server somewhere. Since you are making the exact same -incorrect- claims the others do and wish to make your case by ad hominem remarks I must remain at my prior conclusion though. Tag team comes to mind. --Faust (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do take note of my RfC however, which I do hope can eventually solve this problem once and for all. You don't have to believe me if you choose, but know that I am trying to do good. (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If indeed you are none of the other IP's and you arrived at the page by sheer coincidence I owe you an apology. I find that hard to believe though. It would be a one in a million chance, but even those occur. Your argument that one IP is an IP from somewhere else on the globe is one I do not take seriously since you might as well have a server somewhere. Since you are making the exact same -incorrect- claims the others do and wish to make your case by ad hominem remarks I must remain at my prior conclusion though, especially since you seem to be watching my edits, as is the MO of the others. There are just too many similarities to be a coincidence, also the MO you are displaying is one that can easily be considered harassment. Tag team comes to mind, but, as said, I may be mistaken, in which case I apologise. --Faust (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, your pomposity seems to be very much out of proportion when compared to the quality of your editing and your comments. Your user name gives rise to the suspicion that you are aware of that fact. If you are roleplaying, please stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a game. Hans Adler 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I think further escalation of the conflicts between me and Faust can no longer be avoided, I have asked an administrator who has been involved to a certain degree in conflict resolution for advice. (I am prepared to leave the judgment of Faust's edits and proposals to the community minus myself, as did one of the anons.) See Ask for Advice. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Of course, I could have simply quit the scene without bothering an admin. I am not important, and though I am not completely unfamiliar with ethical and philosophical issues, I am not a specialist either. The reason that I doubt whether my exit is desirable or not is that an extremely mild-mannered, well-read and knowledgeable editor as Pfhorrest, who writes clear, unambiguous and with precision about ethics and philosophy, is left alone in fighting the dragon (if not supported by the community). See for example [23]. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained to Faust that this IP and are the only connected with me. He continues to accuse me of edits made by different IPs. I and several other IP-users have already complained about his grouping us together with some conspiracy theory to do with, which I have never even visited. Now he's doing whois lookups and still alleging we're the same people? Mention this again and I will report you or harassment. (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is getting ridiculous. The users Theobald and Zaspino have no interest, nor knowledge on the matters discussed. They are merely trying to block well referenced edits on behalf of their own POV. I can understand that some people share that POV and that, perhaps an objective statement on the subject is undesirable to them. However, I will need at least ONE source to support this POV. As to the knowledge of Pfhorrest, I do not think this is so tremendous. The only thing that I was happy with, until recently, was his ability to argue his points. However, he has chosen to edit an article which is in dispute without giving a source as well, which disappointed me greatly. --Faust (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There are now five sources, and clear consensus. If an admin reads this, can you please advise as to how I can prevent Faust from harassing me and vandalizing the article at morality? See that article's history and talk page for clear evidence of Faust's single-POV filibustering against a consensus reached by at least half a dozen other editors, with sources. (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Conduct of admin Cailil[edit]

Resolved: Further discussion on this isn't going to help. Disengaging and de-escalating is what is needed here. Fences&Windows 01:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cailil (talk · contribs) posted to my talk page on 8 September to warn me – quite correctly – for borderline incivility in this post to another editor. I immediately struck the offending comment, but I felt that the language used in his warning – "please avoid ad hominem remarks...This kind of comment is unhelpful and violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG" – was totally disproportionate for the rather mild phrase "behave like a grownup", not to mention the incorrect use of "ad hominem", and I told him so.

Cailil responded with a "second warning", telling me that my comment was "tendentious and uncivil" and adding, "I would suggest that is not the best idea to test the limits while operating in an area under probation (as the British Isles naming dispute is)." Now, first of all my comment, while certainly brittle, was not uncivil, and the assertion that I was "testing the limits" was unfounded and unfair, but more importantly, in commenting on his post on my talk page I was not operating in any area under probation, so the implied threat of sanction under Wikipedia:General sanctions is, not to put too fine a point on it, an abuse of admin privileges.

I protested strongly, but in moderate language (not, for instance, using the phrase "abuse of admin privileges"). Cailil responded with an even more outrageous post, telling me I was "repeatedly behaving in a tendentious manner (after being warned for such behaviour)" and that my reply was "inappropriate and would be worthy of a 3rd warning - but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt not issue a 3rd warning for it." Now, as long as I have been a user on WP it has been accepted practice that an editor may speak freely to another editor on his or her own talk page (as long as it's not outright abuse) without being threatened with sanctions. There is also – I hope and firmly believe – a tradition that admins do not use their position to place other editors at a disadvantage. There's a word for that, but I daren't utter it or I'll be blocked for sure.

Since Cailil concluded by saying, "If this continues I will have another sysop review my conduct and unless they contradict me I will then proceed to continue to enforce site policy", I wish to save him the trouble by asking sysops on this page to review his conduct. I needn't tell you, I am most unsatisfied with it. Scolaire (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:STICK and then go do something productive. Cailil has said they will get a second opinion. Your conduct may have been borderline uncivil and not quite meriting the strength of warnings (or maybe there is more background here that hasn't been discussed yet), but it is silly to argue over a mere warning. Go behave properly and you'll have nothing to worry about. Jehochman Talk 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
First, there is no history between Cailil and myself, or any other background that I am aware of. Second, he did not say he will get a second opinion - that was contingent on "this" continuing. Third, I have said up front that my problem was not with the "mere warning", but with the increasingly heavy threats to block me if I don't kowtow to him. "Go behave properly" is every bit as bad as the phrase I was warned about in the first place. I hadn't expected to be worse abused by the admins here than by the admin I am complaining about. Scolaire (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Scolaire I'm just going to echo Jehochman. I said I'd get a second opinion - you've already afforded my that opportunity by bringing it here - so thank you for that.
    To be clear there is no exemption from WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:TPG just because it's on a userpage.
    This is your third escalation of a simple, short to-the-point and accurate warning[24] (for this). In and of itself that is tendentious. While the warnings are perhaps curt they are accurate and appropriate in an area under probation (as the British Isles naming dispute is).
    While I recognize the good faith of your redacting the uncivil remark to LevenBoy your comments to me describing my warnings as "lazy",[25] "pompous" and "groveling>"[26] are inappropriate.
    Jehochamn is now the third editor to tell you to "move on"[27][28]
    For the record you were not threatened and I did not demand you 'kneel before Zod', "grovel" or "kowtow" in any way your above reply to Jehochman[29] is a misrepresentation of the facts of my warnings. Also your reply to Finn[30] looks like (and forgive if I'm wrong) a battle-ground mentality--Cailil talk 21:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Point of order: the word groveling was not a description of Cailil's warning but a description of the kind of response Scolaire supposed was being looked for by Cailil. At the beginning, Scolaire's "act like a grownup" remark was judged rude by all and it was retracted. Cailil's second and third warnings on Scolaire's talk page were two too much; they were bullying and should be retracted. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet just for clarity there was no 3rd warning. In fact if there is a portion or a phrase you can evidence as inaccurate or inappropriate (considering Scolaire's actions) please do so. As I said to Finn earlier I don't see how I belittled (or bullied) Scolaire. If you can't evidence exactly how you attest I have bullied Scoaire I will ask you to withdraw that remark. Thanks for pointing that out about "groveling" - my mistake--Cailil talk 22:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Your second warning ("And I'm afraid I have to warn you once more for misuse of the talk space. Please modify that behaviour") is something I interpreted as "stop being a smartass on your own talk page", but I was under the impression that one's own talk page was where one had the most leeway in that regard, and I did not see anything harmful in Scolaire's smartass response. What I take to be your third warning is in your third post to the talk page section, where you end with "If this continues I will have another sysop review my conduct and unless they contradict me I will then proceed to continue to enforce site policy." To me, this statement feels like a third warning, and the pointed absence of a specific named policy enforcement action (page protection, blocking, ARBCOM) made it a veiled threat, and to my eye it constituted bullying, in that the unnamed is the most fearful. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Binksternet, but I interpreted Scolaire's "smartass" response as tendentious and making a mockery of WP:NPA (ie they stated that as their remark to LB worked that they were happy with it). WP:TPG still applies to one's user-space - there is no exemption from site policy as users don't actually own their own talk space the rules still apply there. Scolaire described my short warning as "lazy" because I didn't wikilink policies that I expected them to know - I interpreted that as incivil. What I saw was incivility and tendentious after being warned for incivility - hence warning 2.
Re the third post I clarified at the top of that post that it wasn't a warning (perhaps I should have said "I'd AGF" rather than "give the benefit of the doubt" but that's what was meant) - I would be happy to apologize if that passage, the part you mention, came off as offensive (but this dispute was going with my first warning so that cannot be the point of conflict & Scolaire has never specified what exactly was wrong about my warnings or subsequent post).
To reiterate - that remark wasn't a threat, but I can see how if taken out of context it can be seen as such. However what I said is what I meant - if the behaviour continued I would have asked another sysop's opinion and input on it and then enforced policy accordingly, that's all. There's a bit of a leap to make (even though I agree I could have couched that line better) to saying that that's a threat, or that it could be called bullying--Cailil talk 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • (e/c) No, Cailil, it was you who escalated. My response to your original warning was not excessive, or even unreasonable. You could just as easily have said "thank you for your feedback" and let it go. You didn't. You "warned" me simply because you took exception to the tone of my response. That is not acceptable; it is ultra vires, and it is petty. And, for the record, there was a very clear, if veiled, threat. It is there in the diffs for all to see, and to say there was not is less than honest. And (though I forgive you for saying it) if I have a battle-ground mentality, what have you got? You must have seen within hours that I was not continuing any war on the British Isles Task Force or anywhere else, so where was the need for you to be increasingly belligerent in your posts to me over the following days. It comes across as a personal vendetta, and that is not acceptable from an admin. If admins are to admonish others for immoderate language, it is incumbent on them to be moderate in their own language. And thank you, Binksternet, for daring to use the word that would have got me blocked. Scolaire (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
No Scolaire you brought it here, you made an issue of the first warning and the second.
And now, I must ask what language exactly is either inaccurate or inappropriate in my posts - how did it infer anything about you? And how is it inaccurate to say that the post you were warned for is in an area under probation?
You intervened in a highly fraught atmosphere with a remark that you have admitted to being inappropriate. When warned you were incivil to me and responded in a tendentious manner - you were warned for that, not for "failing to kowtow"--Cailil talk 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The "behave like a grownup" is more of an inaccurate statement, then an attacking one. Why? No 2 grownups behave alike. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ad hominem remarks like that in a probationary topic area are inappropriate - Scolaire should have addressed the edits not the editor--Cailil talk 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bubba and 9/11[edit]

Should any authorities (Secret service?) be contacted about edits like this? The IP does geolocate to the phone # given. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Probably just a tin-foil-hatter but it never hurts to check anyway. Secret Service, and FBI crime tip form. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Might be tricky to report the edits, as they're now deleted. Fences&Windows 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
On that note, is there a simple way to get from a suppressed diff to the suppression log? In a case like this it might be handy to get ahold of the oversighter hiding the revisions and I don't really know how to do that. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You would have to contact an individual functionary or their mailing list. If it is fully suppressed, the log action will be hidden as well. NW (Talk) 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. Protonk (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ragusino returns"[edit]

Hi all, User:Ragusino has returned in the (very transparent) form of "User:Orsat", has harassed me on my talk [31], started an edit war on the Republic of Ragusa article, and began canvassing others for support [32] (there is no question at all as to whether that's him again, his socks are usually exceedingly easy to spot). Could someone semi-protect Republic of Ragusa and ban "Orsat" please? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. You might've got a better response at WP:SPI, to find any other sleeper accounts. Fences&Windows 00:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of History[edit]

Resolved: User:Slp1 revdeled the edits. Fences&Windows 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an admin may want to hide/delete the history of a couple of derogatory edits on the article Antisemitism [33] and [34]. If this is not please redirect me to correct page to post this. Thank you for your time - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just garden variety vandalism by an illiterate bigot and not really eligible for revision deletion. —DoRD (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict). I've both revision deleted and blocked indefinitely. --Slp1 (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... okay then. —DoRD (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi DRD, I certainly respect comment and your "Hmm", but I'd say that it meets the "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value" criteria for revdev. BTW, I've always loved your username. A good linguistic joke is a good linguistic joke!! --Slp1 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response, was this the right area to ask for this or is there an area that deals directly with RevDel requests?- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Considering all the dire warnings that came with the extra button, I tend to be overly cautious, but I don't dispute your judgment. Thanks for the username comment! —DoRD (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7[edit]

Resolved: No edit warring apparent, appears a significant article revision is being discussed. --WGFinley (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that some Windows Phone 7 fan sites have been putting out a call for fans to go to the Windows Phone 7 article to "fix" it or remove text perceived as being negative.

The largest of all Windows Phone 7 sites is, which recently wrote this article, asking fans to edit the Wikipedia article. Yes, the fan site attacked me, labelling me a troll against Windows Phone 7.

Recently, there have been more attempts at removing referenced content in the article, often by editors who edit no other articles or subjects. So I ask for advice on what can or should be done. Can some admins keep the article on their watchlists for a while?--Lester 16:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about the external article, but if edit warring happens on the article, it can simply be semi- or fully-protected as appropriate. In the meantime though, I'd just ignore that article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a major reconstruction beginning on the article. The only obstacle is lester (talk · contribs)--intelati(Call) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the community agrees with CalumCookable (talk · contribs) but he's afraid of a edit war with Lester.--intelati(Call) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
There has obviously been a content dispute going on for some time. Which of the processes at WP:DR have you been through? David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Calumcookable has just begun the community consensus part. So far me and one other editor, have agreed with his changes.--intelati(Call) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm that other editor. What are we supposed to do if there aren't many people (including Lester) contributing to the discussion of changing the article? We already posted up templates that gives the readers and other editors indication that there are multiple issues with the article being discussed on the talk page. Our ultimate goal is to simply make the article have a neutral point of view, and actually have the article discuss the product itself in a NPOV. Currently, that isn't that case. --Interframe (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
'Interframe', you can't complain about not many people coming to the talk page when you make uncivil comments such as this one.--Lester 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that Lester is reversing many of the changes I and some other reader made. There are lot a of people actually edition the article, but it's being reverted. If I reword the section, Lester would revert it right away. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:RFC. Templates on the page itself help, but only catch the attention of people visiting the page. -- Atama 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Now we wait. (Jeopardy theme song:)--intelati(Call) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
All of the proposed changes are in the talk page. can someone change the wording (of the WP:RFC) so that it is a place for the people to place their views on the article and the changes?--intelati(Call) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) never mind. :)--intelati(Call) 02:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible for fan websites to change the consensus out of shear numbers? Does Wikipedia have any defenses to avoid this sort of thing? --Lester 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Consensus isn't meant to be based on numbers. - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I am not a windows 7 Fan. Right now, the article's title SHOULD be called "Criticizem of Windows Phone 7" The only thing I have read of the windows phone 7 is on Thanks.--intelati(Call) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is to get uninvolved editors in the conversation and remove the fancruft and Balance the article for a Neutral POV. (added later) Ok, now this is a user problem is now that CalumCookable (talk · contribs) is threating lester (talk · contribs) to revert back his additions until he is blocked. I want someone to intervene on the conflict before it is out of control.--intelati(Call) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in editing this page and consider it to be very biased (against the Windows Phone 7 platform). Many changes to improve it are promptly reverted. A lot of the controversy has been because of a "missing features" section that some insist has to be there. It's a phone and a feature can't be "missing" if Microsoft knew of it and decided to not put it in the device. For instance, the phones don't transform into a jet and fly you to an island they create for you even if some tech reviewer somewhere thinks it should. My proposition is that there should be a section for announced features, features removed from Windows Mobile 6.5, and a reception section (this has been added but is very poorly structured and written). I'm tired of contributing because most of what I add gets removed in hours. This article needs someone to step in. CaptainStack (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The article is very biased against Windows Phone 7. In fact, it's more of a list of what Windows Phone 7 isn't rather than what Windows Phone 7 is. More emphasis is being placed on what WP7 doesn't have than what WP7 does have. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
'Illegal Operation', it may help your credibility if you were not making derogatory edit summaries such as this one.--Lester 04:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The only thing is that with Lester, is that his actions are very annoying.--intelati(Call) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Incredibly stupid comment by myself.--intelati(Call) 02:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
He didn't call himself a troll, it was just an IP edit; nothing to see there. Ryan Norton 22:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I haven't been commenting on WP7 because Lester (and occasionally some confused or SOCK random IP) just reverts a lot of productive changes made and is a classic case of WP:OWNing this article. He's just completely ignoring the countless people who have changed and commented about that article. Also, "missing features" - that is all. Ryan Norton 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been commenting either because of Lester. I have absolutely no problem with mentioning "missing features" in the article, but many of the points are debatable and whenever we try to discuss things like this, Lester is often the only editor to disagree with changes. Now I'm sure Lester has good intentions, but he believes everyone editing the article is a fanboy, and there have been many cases of this, but some editors only wish to have a NPOV in the article, and have the article just actually discuss the product instead of focusing on other things, like the Android and [Apple iOS]] articles. --Interframe (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to close this out, I don't see any major edit warring going on, there was a disagreement about one section being removed it was put back and being discussed. Review of the discussion appears reasonable on the talk page, I encourage the editors working the article to continue the work there. --WGFinley (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Request Administrator Oversight[edit]

Can this case be re-opened, please? The article needs administrator oversight. Talk continues, but it is not in good faith. Entire sections get blanked, even though discussions continue. One editor (User:Salilshukla) in those discussions has resorted to repeated vandalism of the article:

Thank you for your assistance.--Lester 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is better dealt with over at WP:AIV :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 08:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment): Agreed, nothing there seems to need Oversight or even RevDel. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Pretty sure he's using "oversight" in the normal, English sense of the word, not in the specific and confusing Wikipedia sense. ~ mazca talk 12:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────That user blocked 24 hours that's intentional vandalism I will have a look at what else is up on the article. --WGFinley (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Gypsydog5150: Threats of violence, block evasion, sock puppetry, 3RR, vandalism... and other abusive behavior.[edit]

Last night an admin made this block of the IP account that made this edit directed to me on a talk page: "I didn't, you fucking piece of garbage. I hope you get shot in the face."

At about the same time, the articles from which this all arose (the PA gubernatorial election and candidate Tom Corbett) were protected by other admins: here and here and here

Page protection (and perhaps the block) forced the blocked IP user to emerge from his IP sockpuppets and begin using his registered account Gypsydog5150, and he has resumed the abusive behavior - despite the block imposed by an admin.

He's done a 3RR on the Tom Corbett page: here and wiped out the talk page (reverting again to the wipe after I restored it) here

These are clearly all the same editor, based on the edits on the articles in question, his various other editing patterns, and his location in Pittsburgh.

All of the IP addresses (which appear to be dynamically assigned) trace back to Verizon in Pittsburgh.

Note Gypsydog5150's contributions show an interest in:

Greensburg PA (a suburb of Pittsburgh)

A Pittsburgh company called Owens and Minor



The Pittsburgh IP accounts in question show some of the same interests (and even at least one of the same edits):[35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

I note Gypsydog5150 has a history of abusive editing: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

It seems to me that it would be appropriate to take some stronger acction and perhaps a permanent ban, regarding this editor. I take the "I hope you get shot in the face" comment pretty seriously.

I suspect you don't want to get into the substance of the editing dispute, but I'd like to point out that after he was blocked and the pages protected, I restored the Tom Corbett page to a version closer to what he wanted than the revert imposed by the admin. here. I was trying to be fair about it.

His alteration here of the election polling numbers was pure vandalism.

Thanks. John2510 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, you are accusing me of things I didn't do. And somebody saying "they hope you get shot in the face" is not a threat or illegal in any way. Do you realize how many people are on the internet? And also why didn't you bring up you edit wars that you started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydog5150 (talkcontribs) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gypsydog, to say in an edit summary what was said using the ip account is a gross insult, a violation of WP:NPA, and a threat of violence--you are presumably saying the violence was only a metaphor, but we tend to take statements as wildly excessive as this as written. No conceivable editing dispute can justify it. I gather you are also denying that you are that ip. The only question in my mind is do we need Checkuser before blocking you, or whether the behavioral evidence is sufficient. If any other admin will agree with me that the behavioral evidence is sufficient, I will do the block. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I have done an indef block based on my own review of the situation. This was simply not vaguely OK behavior, and there's little doubt that the IP and editor are one and the same. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
He's not getting the basic message. See his responses here and here. He's now involving family members of admins addressing his behavior.
On the first one, the IP traces back to the same Pittsburgh Verizon origin per here.
Thanks for getting involved in this. I'm thinking my blood pressure would be better served if I stuck to editing... I dunno... geography articles, and steered clear of political articles. I doubt I'll follow my head on that. John2510 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI - I also got a phone call claiming "This cost me $6,000" and a large number of incoherent threats before I hung up. I have disabled talk page access and revdel'ed the threats against myself and my wife on his talk page, and blocked the IP for a year.
The claim that this cost six thousand dollars is interesting - do we have known paid editors in Philadelphia? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I will note that the IP range Gypsydog5150 is on is fairly busy, but I would say that the edits are mostly his. If this continues to become an issue file and SPI case and we can look into the option of rangeblocks. Tiptoety talk 04:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you had to get this involved. It really makes you wonder sometimes if it's worth it... John2510 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have stepped up to handling problematic and potentially vengeful Wikipedia problems with the full knowledge that I'm using my real name, that my contact info is out there, etc. I didn't do that by accident or without expecting a certain level of stuff to come flying as a result.
With that said, the particulars here are most unfortunate. The apparent paid editing, the on-wiki abuse against a number of editors, etc.
If there's more onwiki problems I concur that a rangeblock is reasonable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this allowed?[edit]

Resolved: It was a mistake in vandalism patrolling, thanks for flagging it up, though you can simply revert such mistakes if you explain what you're doing. Fences&Windows 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are sources being removed from an article about a living person? [45] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the previous edit was made without rationale or explanation, and was tagged "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)". If one wants to make major changes to a BLP article, one should at the very least use the edit summary to explain or justify the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That previous edit added sources, is not that ideal for an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP has a legitimate point. Their additions appear to be good-faith attempts to add references to a BLP that was previously sourced to only a single article. I see no vandalism. The editor who reverted should be more careful to look at edits before reverting just because the version tag brings up "possible vandalism or BLP violation". Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry folks, that was a big my bad on that one. Burpelson was right, I must have just seen the tag, I'm usually pretty good at these things. Thanks for catching that anon, good save. - Schrandit (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem, none of us is perfect! Burpelson AFB (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, personal attacks, and other problems from User:Republic of Texas[edit]

Resolved: Clear troll. Attempts to intimidate with false claims of being MP, threats of outing, racist and homophobic trolling, lots of lies, etc, etc, etc. Indef is clearly warranted. — Coren (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edits and behaviors[edit]

Let me start off by saying that I know this user is(at the time of this post) already blocked for 24 hours. This ANI thread is about a pattern of disruption overall, and how the behavior does not back up the claims.

Incivility/Personal attacks

This user claims to have a Law degree from Harvard, to be 44, and to be an officer in the military. However, their lack of civility with regards to other users causes concern. I would think a lawyer would know not to say such things, such as being held in contempt in a courtroom, for disrupting the purpose. It's the same thing here, insults and incivility do nothing but disrupt. Here are some examples(in no particular order):

What is more concerning about this, however, is that someone who claims to abide by the law, and enforce the law, would shatter the law in such a way.
Self explanatory.
BLP violations

Title self-explanatory:

Restoring the above after having been reverted.
  • [53]
  • [54] Horrible BLP comparing subject to hitler.
Concerning edits

As I have said, this user's behavior does not back up the claims they made above. Looking into their edits, I find several things of note that concern me:

  • [55] (m removed minor typos)
This edit does not 'remove minor typos', but two maintenance templates from the article. A false edit summary, plainly.
  • [56] Internet speak.
Referring to the internet as 'internets'. Not something I would expect from a Harvard graduate.
Same thing above, again using 'internet speak', such as 'ur' and 'luz'.
This is concerning because I've grown to not trust any of the stories they have told regarding their background. But, AGF'ing, this of course could be a typo.
  • [59] Inappropriate comment, violating WP:FORUM as well, although I am sure there are others.
  • Copyright violation. See history of article and user's talk page.

Looking at this user's talk page, post-block, they don't appear to show any remorse for their behavior, or any understanding why it is problematic, and why it needs to stop. A 24 hour block doesn't seem long enough. In any case, this user's behavior needs to be discussed more in-depth.

The section directly below this is a transcluded statement from the user's talk page, should they wish to address others here during the duration of their block.

User notified.

Please discuss.— dαlus Contribs 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RoT's response[edit]

User talk:Republic of Texas

Discussion of RoT's edits[edit]

RFC/U is probably were you need to take this Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC) On Second look this seems to need immediate attention Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Knowing nothing of the history here, this comment seems to be enough to warrant an immediate indef for personal attack—even if it was "humor" it was in such poor taste that it is grotesque.   Thorncrag  01:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Per WP:OUTING, I support indefinite block unless that threat to post personal info to sites is revoked immediately, strike the above - I support full indefinite blocking for racism, threats to out repeated attempts to justify abuse of the talk space, other users and this project. Agree with rob below--Cailil talk 01:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I also support an indefinite restriction on this user. User seems to not be listening to any advice that has been offered to him and I am very doubtful he intends to edit in a manner constructive to the community. Unless he was to change his position I don't see anything but disruption and a indefinite block on his near horizon. IMO wikipedia would benefit from a longer restriction on this user. Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. I assumed good faith on his earliest edits to the talk page of Wifey's World but I could see from subsequent activity on his talk page that he sadly just doesn't get it. Should the current block stay? Yes? Should it be extended? Yes. Indefinite block? Sadly, yes. As long as he displays that lack of civility and willingness to follow the rules and regulations that govern Wikipedia, he's not going to be a productive contributor. Tabercil (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, can anyone point out a single one of his 238 edits that is clearly helpful, constructive, positive, or in any way a benefit to the project? If (as I suspect) not, it seems to me that an indef is obviously the best move here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To RoT, you can clearly post a response fine. To your age, given your edits, it seemed a reasonable assumption that you were lying, you certainly weren't acting it when you insulted people instead of discussing content. To your 'shorthand'. Why is this the first time I've seen you say anything about your mobile? Even if you did that with your phone, it doesn't justify the taunt-like post in reply to that page's AfD.— dαlus Contribs 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Support indefinite block Referring to subjects as "homos" or "negroes" is clearly unacceptable. AniMate 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RoT's User page[edit]

Is all of that information on their User page appropriate? Especially the tags that refer to IP accounts, not logged in accounts. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

someone vandalizing talk page and being annoying[edit]

this is regarding a video game, ultima online and a dispute over the release date which has turned into a strange situation on the talk page

I am trying to explain that a certain source is WP:CIRCULAR by quoting someone (jcbuilder) on a message board that is frequented by those who play the game. jcbuilder is somewhat active in the game's community and another person/people (above IPs) who apparently thinks I am this jcbuilder and apparently does not like him is throwing a wrench into the issue at hand on the talk page.

I don't know what to do, but this guy is pissing me off by editing my posts on the talk page. (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AN
Hm, keeps reverting him. Issue warnings (see {{Uw-tpv1}}) in an escalating manner. If they persist, report to WP:AIV. Consider registering an account so if this persists, the talk page can be semi-protected. –xenotalk 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Xeno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

use of pages in userspace[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:STICK, heat >>> light --Jayron32 04:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This section is a good example of something that needs to be addressed. I warned user about not using Wikipedia as a social network and user tells me to "get off my back and fuck off!" Meanwhile, user has continued to use talk page as a forum in follow-up edits. Civility and policy issues with this one. Atlantabravz (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • More neutral title and, given the context I see no reason for admin intevention here. If I were in the same situation I would undoubtedly react to your unwarranted lecture in similar ways. The user is contributing to article space and has wide lattitude, as does every other user, to use their userspace as they will within reason. This was well within reason. Spartaz Humbug! 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Concur. You left a rather abrupt template on her talk page, and then complain when she doesn't take it with a thank you? There's a reason WP:DTTR is good advice, and you needed to have followed it here- or even better, to have investigated the situation some more before inserting yourself into it. If you have a problem with an experienced editor, some discussion goes a lot farther than a newbie template. Courcelles 04:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Editors will sometimes communicate in a social or friendly manner in their userspace. I have editors I know IRL or off-wiki, and discussing things of a personal nature, from time to time, does not violate WP:NOTMYSPACE. The issue is the number of social edits as relative to the number of project-relevent edits. This is I don't see where this user is any kind of a problem at all. This user is a good content editor, and I see no reason they should not be left alone. --Jayron32 05:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Especially given the sensitivity of the post referred to. Spartaz Humbug! 05:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would also have told you to fuck off, and stop templating people who are in mourning for sharing their feelings with their friends on Wiki. I'm disgusted that this was your response to reading that post. If you had to say anything at all, words of sympathy would have been appropriate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd be spitting fire and venom if someone did that to me; I'd probably use even stronger language than that. I don't like sympathy (directed at me) much, but templating me would be far worse. I can AGF that the OP was just taking NOTMYSPACE a bit too seriously, but I hope that they don't do this again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTMYSPACE, as I see it, was created for people who appear to regard this place as a place to network— beyond that, I'm fairly sure we're allowed to have lives that interfere with editing once in a while, and to express that. We're a community. sonia 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I should also point out WP:IAR. A little friendly communication once in a while can go a long way towards cooperative editing, which leads to improvement of the project. I'd say as long it's not a user's primary purpose on this encyclopedia it's more than acceptable. elektrikSHOOS 05:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I know this is marked "resolved", but I think there's maybe an opportunity for another bit of resolution. I once templated a good-faith content editor. They'd requested article protection at WP:RFPP, I lectured them about something entirely different, there was a heated exchange, and then I stepped back and thought about things. I went back to the editor's talkpage, apologised, and suggested we start over. We started over. I learned a huge amount of background stuff about serious issues on-wiki that the editor was dealing with in the course of her content work. Embarrassingly, the editor forgave me, and came to regard me very positively. I still have to remind her that I was a WP:DICK. She doesn't care. The editor? DocOfSoc. My point, obviously, is that this can end positively for both parties. Atlantabravz has behaved far better than I did, so I'd suggest an amicable resolution is a very real possibility. TFOWR 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


It appears, unfortunately, that the sound advice expressed in some of the replies above has fallen on deaf ears. It's a shame, really, because I know that it wasn't the intention of any of those that commented for Atlantabravz to reach this conclusion. —DoRD (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Shame. Clearly templating was a very bad idea but (s)he did have a reasonable point to make. :( --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Reasonable point, yes, but the choice of place, time, and method for making that point couldn't have been more poorly-chosen. Nonetheless, Atlantabravz seems to be a rather productive editor so I hope that, in time, he rethinks his decision. —DoRD (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
He made a report that didn't go his way. Who here hasn't? To "retire" over it... this is past the "fourth grade", and no one needs to "coddle" him back here. He's been here since March of 2007. Please... Doc9871 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This is terrible. Getting told to "fuck off" is unacceptable, and not only did AN/I not reasonably address his complaint, more than one commenter said they would've said worse(!) No wonder he left, this is like going to the police to report a rape and having the police chief say "Too bad, I would've raped you twice." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
A better analogy would be if you walked up to someone and punched them in the face, they punch you back, and you go crying "assault!" to the police. Atlantabravz has some serious fucking nerve IMO dropping that warning template into the middle of DocofSoc's talk page comment about autism; it was rude, terribly inappropriate, and the response was exactly what he deserved. I'd have to wonder just how Atlantabravz came upon this talk page topic in the first place. Have these two had prior interactions? Given this bit of harassment by a banned user not long after, something doesn't sit well here. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
We can walk around with analogies all day but at the end of the day Atlantabravz did something silly, Doc responded in an unacceptable way, Atlantabravz went on and took it to AN/I inappropriately and... AN/I failed to AGF and swung an axe. Lets just let it lie. Doc is now aware of the accepted policy on the use of user space (even if not in the best way) and Atlantabravz is chastised (even if not in the best way). [EDIT: FWIW I agree with/support Atlantabravz's point] --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it should be let lie. We lost a valuable contributor because ANI failed to respond appropriately to a perfectly reasonable complaint. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I regret that Atlantabtavz decided to retire, but he absolutely was *not* in the right here. Doc left a post on his own talk page, noting that his granddaughter has died (from a seizure induced by her autism). Atlantabravez responded by dumping a "not a social network" template on it, which is appalling. Yes, Doc should not have dropped the f bomb in his response, but Atlantabravez got flamed at AN/I for being in insensitive clod. Retiring is a disproportionate response, but obviously others disagree. Horologium (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly this is a terrible event for Doc (she has written about it before on her user page a number of times). But Wikipedia is not the place for grief therapy. We should be willing to support members suffering, but this entire episode is a reason why updates/commentary such as Doc's should be discouraged. I recommend off-wiki contact via email as the best way to go and a slap on the wrist to Atlantabravez for insensitivity :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Let me see if I've got this straight. An editor posts a few graphs on their own talk page commemorating the death of a granddaughter 10 years ago, speaks a little bit of their grief and the difficulties imposed by the deceased child's extreme lack of empathy (as a consequence of autism)... and gets a "not a social" network template slapped on them by some jerk (completely lacking empathy themselves, it seems).. do i have this right? And then the template slapper storms off in a huff because they got a rough response for their thoughtless intervention on the other editors talk page? Good riddance, I say.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I still think the AN/I response was inappropriate. Telling him he acted like an insensitive jerk is fair; what was said is not. Atlantabravz had correct advice to give; (s)he was not particularly insensitive about it, but the whole reason for having such guidelines is born out in this thread. It is sad and silly. It is inappropriate to abuse a good faith action, even if it was a mistake --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes it was a good faith action - an incredibly stupid, insensitive, and nasty good faith action. The sort of action that makes us look like martinets and bullies. A fuck-free response might have been more appropriate, but the mood and tenor of the response was entirely appropriate. I certainly wouldn't have wasted more than two words to communicate my response to such an insult. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I realize you're doing your best here, but do understand that in any adult, professional environment, Atlantabravz would be facing the full wrath of HR. and Starblind's rape metaphor could have serious consequences. No society, workplace, environment, or project can sustain itself while actively punishing people for a moment's grief. (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This is all a perfect example of why