Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive702

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

Noticeboard archives



Resolved: Other than some possible WP:MEAT, this would have been better served as a WP:SPI case (although that's now looked at), as agreeing with someone does not a problem make. There's not enough WP:DUCKism here, yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Csteffen13 (talk · contribs) appears to edit solely for the purpose of supporting Winchester2313 (talk · contribs).

  • His very first edit was to support Winchester2313.[1]
  • The only AfD he ever participated in was in support of Winchester2313.[2]
  • The only AN discussion he's ever participated in was to defend Winchester2313.[3][4]
  • His first, and until recently only user talk page contribution was a gushing praise of Winchester2313.[5]
  • His second, and most recent user talk page contribution was to admonish another editor for talking to Winchester2313 in a way Csteffen13 did not like.[6]
  • He returned to Wikipedia on May 20, after a 5 month editing break, to edit-war in support of Winchester2313. Winchester2313's edits:[7][8]. Csteffen13's edit:[9] His Talk: page comments were also all in support of Winchester2313's positions.
  • He has edited a total of 16 unique pages,[10] 11 of them in common with Winchester2313.[11]

Many of Cteffen13's other edits are in support of Winchester2313, though he has also made a small number of other "decoy" edits. Because his writing style differs from Winchester2313's, I doubt Csteffen13 is an actual sockpuppet, but it appears that this little-used (85 total edits) account's purpose for editing Wikipedia is to act as Winchester2313's meatpuppet. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, this seems like it would be more appropriate at WP:SPI as opposed to here. - SudoGhost
At the SPI talk page they said it wasn't required if one wasn't asking for a CU. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not (as yet) overly informed about the methods and workings of these things, but reading the charge above, I feel a few obvious points would serve everybody well:

1.I am quite active on some fairly controversial articles, particularly Elazar Shach, Chabad Lubavitch and other, similar articles. These seem to attract a number of sporadic, narrowly focused editors, e.g Csteffen13, Yonoson3 and others on both sides of the debate. Brewcrewer has focused here on Csteffen13, but much of what he says might be equally applicable to an editor like Yonoson3 editing sporadically in support of an editor such as Jayjg ?

2. The positions I take in controversial articles are well-sourced, and I hardly rely on others 'support' (or lack thereof) to establsh validity. That others may see things as I do regarding Elazar Shach is not surprising, as the man made a career of attacking other Rabbis and groups, so I'm sure he's viewed with an equal measure of disdain across many lines and by many different groups.

3. I'm not sure what significance an editing crossover of 11/16 topics might have, considering the confluence of so many popular debates within the Jewish religion and various groups of its adherents, especially, again on highly controversial subjects...? Winchester2313 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that Csteffen13's only purpose for editing is to support Winchester2313, and this is done in many different venues, which one would not normally find an editor with so little Wikipedia experience or with a specific topical area of interest. The question here is, does one actually need to make an SPI report if one is fairly sure a meatpuppet (not sockpuppet) is editing? Or can this board simply ban a little-used obvious meatpuppet account? Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It's obvious enough an SPI is a formality. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
So Csteffen13 should be blocked then? Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd actually prefer to see an SPI and checkuser results in this case. I realize the writing styles are different, but I imagine that's easy enough to accomplish if one sets one's mind to it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
To what end? Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(I've been asked to respond here by Jayjg) Technically a case like this would go to SPI, but I really don't see a reason to split the discussion. If they're not suspected of being the same person (leaving aside any meatpuppetry concerns), there's no technical information a checkuser could provide that would help. At that point, it would be up to a patrolling admin/clerk to close the SPI and decide what, if any, action to take. Leaving it here just skips straight to the admin action part. TNXMan 11:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
@Jayjg: The topic area is so contentious, and so rife with socks, that I'd prefer to see a formal SPI, with checkuser. I loathe socking, and I'm not convinced by the different writing styles that these are two different people; I'd hate to miss catching a possible sockmaster, and only block his sock. By copying the diffs already provided above, it would just take a couple of minutes to file the SPI and request checkuser. Also, and with all possible respect, Jayjg, I'd suggest it's probably not the best practice that ideal perfection would require for you to yourself block accounts on the opposing side of the I/P wars, except in cases of blatant vandalism. I mean no offence; I'd say precisely the same to any admin who's expressed any similarly strong support for the opposite side to your preferred politics in the topic area.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Ohiostandard, perhaps you are under the impression that this is an I-P related article. It's not. This is an Haredi Judaism related dispute, and more specifically a dispute that supporters of Chabad have with Elazar Shach, because Shach was very critical of Chabad's leader. I can't ask for a CheckUser here, because CheckUser is not for fishing, and no-one thinks Csteffen13 is an actual sockpuppet, even though he's an obvious meatpuppet. If you want to satisfy your own curiosity, feel free to, but I think most people that an SPI is not required, this is at the right place - in fact, they'll no doubt just kick it back here if you try. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Response: I am not any kind of puppet that I know of, and nice try by Jayjg and Brewcrewer to ban an occasional editor who they obviously disagree with. The simple reason for me being a heavy wiwkiuser and a very light wikieditor is that I really have very little free time. I happen to have strong opinions about Elazar Shach as I bet do most editors. I did in-fact study in Ponevich for almost 2 years, so feel like I have more knowledge about what happened there in the late 80's than most. Still, I limit my edits to things that meet the wp:v standards and try to keep a wp:npov. Interesting how Jayjg warns ME about edit warring on the Elazar Shach page, but not Brewcrewer who keeps warring to support Jayjg's own arbitrary and disruptive editing, which clearly violated wp:npov. Or am I the only one noticing? C Steffen 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talkcontribs) Oh, and the simple reason I support Winchester2313 on most of his edits on these controversial topics is simply because I usually agree with him. I didn't know there was anything wrong with that?!C Steffen 00:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talkcontribs)

NOTE: I see Csteffen13 has been recalled from his most recent absence to yet again defend Winchester2313 (immediately above), and revert on his behalf. Is it finally time for administrative action? Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Response: As I pointed out above and in my edit summary, I'm not here to 'defend' anybody or anything. My edits all conform to the rules as I read them. Its a really sorry situation if all Jayjg can do after harassing and edit-warring with editors whose work he doesn't like is to now try and ban them. Perhaps its time for Jayjg to post another warning on my talk page now, as seems to be his habit whenever he disagrees but can't legitimately deny others contributions. Yes, I think his actions on Winchester2313 s talk page make this clear to anybody bothering to look. As I read it "Wikipedia is not censored", even by long-term editors like Jayjg. Am I missing something here? --C Steffen 13:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an administrative closure here. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The accounts are  Unrelated technically. Brandon (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Fast block needed on article creator[edit]


Footyarticlecreator (talk · contribs) is creating about 1 article a minute. Each article says "is a *** player" sometimes with "in the X league". In some cases, the team names appear to be nicknames; there's not nearly enough information here for these even to count as sub-stubs. Articles are being tagged as A7 or A1 immediately upon creation, but there's no reason to let this continue any longer than it has to. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure but what I may be too involved here to think straight[edit]

An IP and some s.p.a. accounts keep re-inserting identical language into Steven Downes, recounting the subject's own version of a political dispute with a member of Parliament. The language they use is cited solely to the subject's own blog, so I've been reverting its insertion, pointing out the need for reliable sources. Instead, the various identities simply revert to Downes' preferred version (or at least the version sourced solely to Downes' blog). Can somebody else take a look? My union convention starts in 5 minutes, and I've got to be on the floor. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I semied it for two weeks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User HighKing back at compaign to remove British Isles from Wikipedia[edit]

Irish nationalist editor HighKing is back at his campaign to remove all use of the British Isles from Wikipedia. Expanded now to remove all references to Republic of Ireland contrary to British Isles and Ireland sanction defended by the corrupt Irish admin Cailil. Usual suspects involved.

Can we address this one at the source of the problem for once and for all, or are you going to allow it to blight the Wikipedia for ever and waste everyone's time and energy? Sven the Big Viking (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

You need to be sure you notify the other user involved in the discussion on their talk page. I've gone ahead and done this for you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This one [12] must surely be regarded as part of a systematic removal? Lancashire Druid (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


What Fetchcomms said. Can some admin please get to grips with this sockology. RashersTierney (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that user has identified as User:Toug ma Tojer who I recently blocked as a sock of Irvine22, perhaps mistakenly. I really hope an SPI isn't necessary? This is certainly a sock of someone or other. --John (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Toug ma Tojer has the usual remedies open to them. Editing with a new account while blocked is a no-no. RashersTierney (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware, there's a Twitter feed on this topic here; [13] Lancashire Druid (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Nationalists make my head hurt. Can't all these Irish and English people just hug and make up? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Just topic ban all of them, they make the Wikipedia environment toxic and new users see them and walk away. Highking's contributions here have solely been an attempt to remove some geographical term all of which has been totally disruptive and of zero value to the development of the project. Hair splitting disruption from start to finish describes his edits. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This is vandalism [14]. A whole section removed because it contains British Isles. Lancashire Druid (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Based on the removed content and the edit summary, I'd say it's pretty clear it was removed for OR reasons. lifebaka++ 18:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocked as a SPA - in the dozen or so edits over the two years of existence they spent over half arguing over the term British Isles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Sven seems just as much an SPA as the account you just blocked. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if both accounts are the same person. I can't think of any other reasonable explanation why Druid would come out of a 9 month period of inactivity just to post here.--Atlan (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Sven is also a self-professed sock of a banned user judging from the comment left at User talk:John. Is filing an WP:SPI necessary if the sockiness of Sven seems obvious to everyone here? --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
        They seem to have stopped, but if it restarts it will probably be short-lived. RashersTierney (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No Sven is not a "self-professed sock of a banned user" you deliberate little twister of facts. Some child who does not speak Swedish took offense at my name and disallowed it for want of any reason better to trip me up.

Let's put aside all the desperate attempts at poisoning the soup or creating drama and address the main issue, this man's campaign to remove the term British Isles from the Wikipedia. He is doing it again and again and again! Not one word has been said to address this. His trawling attempt to accuse me of being anyone else failed, so let's not waste any more time and address the issue.

Your silences are a confession of knowledge and guilt. You all know. You all know. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Highking won't deny he takes exception at the use of the term British Isles. I myself have no idea what all the fuss is about so I can't comment on that. I DO know however, that all you have done since your account was created, is revert Highking's edits and reporting him here. That is behavior very unlike the usual new account, so I don't doubt for a second you are a returned blocked user, and a distruptive single-purpose one at that.--Atlan (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What to do?[edit]

I don't want to edit-war with the guy, but seriously, what more can I do? I've posted a reliable scholarly source, a university publication, with URL and page numbers, for the text I've entered into the article (I invite anyone to check the veracity of the source). And yet - I simply am "not allowed" to enter this information into the Yugoslav Front article because of one user. I've asked the user to post his sources, he did not do so. Incidentally, he is also now trying to remove, by way of edit-warring, a long-standing, obviously relevant image from the article without consensus and essentially on a whim. This can't be right. What can I do? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've placed FpkCascais on an Arbmac revert limitation. Fut.Perf. 08:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This will hopefully grant more significance to references, as opposed to rhetoric and edit-warring, and encourage a more sources-based debate. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Two issues - why was FkpCascais not informed about this thread (I will do so now), and why hasn't he been allowed to defend himself? GiantSnowman 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I posted this thread on WP:AN as a general inquiry about the best possible course of action in the situation described, not specifically as a report on User:FkpCascais's behavior. I made a point of not mentioning his name. That is not to say that the course of action taken by Fut.Perf. will not be highly beneficial towards raising the quality of the discourse in this particular case. Edit-warring has now been eliminated as a means of removing content without discussion. The user did not post any sources, apparently relying on persistance in edit-warring, now perhaps we can have a more focused discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just informed now about this thread by User:GiantSnowman. I am already punished without a chance to defend myself, including a note saying that I´ve done "tendentious" editing [15] (?!). Seems clear to me that there was a precipitated wrong decition, lead by a clear agressive manipulation (including total missinformation) of the situation by a involved editor DIREKTOR. I am complaining about this situation and asking explanations and an oportunity to demonstrate what is really happening there. PS: Many thanks Giant Smowman, if it wasn´t your notice about this, I wouldn´t even know about it, cause I never even imagined this was here. Now, these are some facts:

  • This issue is currently under mediation. User Direktors edits are highly controversial and disputed. Weather sourced, they fail under WP:UNDUE. Also, it was agreed on the mediation that the parts of the article that are being mediated should NOT be edited, thus every revert of major changes in those sections are rightfully reverted.
  • I have an entire page of sources about this issue which I presented at the discussion: User:FkpCascais/Sandbox23. Seems that direktor purpously missinformed you all about being him the one backed by sources.
  • I am being ganged-up on that article by a group of editors that share a same POV, and none of them is a participant of the mediation, but all willing to include their disputed edits.
  • User:Direktor has been highly provocative and disruptive towards me for a long time now: as last exemples, please see the resposes towards me at [[16]] or [[17]] where in both cases I am attacked and trolled without any reason... This must end. Even after this I was completely stalked by direktor to every single user page. There is a big mistake done here and needs to be rectified. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, it is clear from the formulation of my original post that the subject was a general inquiry. I am aware of the requirement to notify the defending party and I always do so immediately. The way things have turned out is that now I stand accused of precipitating "unfair treatment" against you. Please, as far as I'm concerned, do not hesistate to post your defence.
That said, I must say I do not quite understand how exactly one defends what is obviously persistent edit-warring (against several users) to remove a long-standing, related image from the article, in spite of clear opposition, and without any semblance of a talkpage consensus? The only justification you posted is that this image is somehow the "same" as this image and that "clearly" therefore one of those two should be removed, to me that simply makes no sense at all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is only my opinion: FkpCascais is a fine editor and disputed articles are controversial very much! Photo, with German soldiers and Chetniks, is tendentious and slanted in that section and top position because in March 2004, the National Assembly of Serbia passed a new law that equalized the Chetniks and Partisans as equivalent anti-fascists; moreover photo is of obscure origin: when and where it was made?--Tiblocco (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That is an issue for the talkpage. Neither the original purpose of this thread nor the sanction placed upon FkpCascais have anything to do with the image itself. I for one am certainly open to moving the image about, but not removing it simply because it offends someone's patriotic sensibilities. The only reasoning posted by User:FkpCascais in the summaries of his edit war was that, since there are two images depicting Chetnik collaboration, one "clearly" has to go. "Proclaiming" a limit of ONE image related to a particular subject one finds personally disagreeable, and trying to enforce it with edit-warring, is imho indeed tendentious editing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink, civility block and unblock by Beeblebrox[edit]

I blocked User:Badger Drink for his continued disruptive interactions with Treasury Tag - specifically [18], [19], and similar (see [20] for more). Particularly this block was for personal attacks and for repeatedly ignoring the "comment on content, not on the contributor" mantra. Beeblebrox has then unblocked without discussion with me, and without a wide consensus to overturn the block - which I would hope would be established here. If such a consensus does exist, I have no problem with an unblock, and have started this thread to get wider input. If this thread doesn't show consensus to unblock, I intend to reblock, otherwise all is well. Thanks for your input. Prodego talk 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Just confirming that I have been made aware of this thread, but I have agreed to refrain from commenting. Badger Drink (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the unblock; I'd show a certain amount of tolerance for people who've been baited by Treasury Tag. Also, to pick a nit, if there isn't consensus either way, the default should be to leave unblocked (since it isn't an AE block); I think that should have been "if this thread shows consensus to reblock, I will."--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If Treasury Tag is such a problem, why not block him then as well? Other stuff exists, or in this case, other editors. Prodego talk 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, because I wasn't here at the time, for one thing. But yes, if BD was going to be blocked for that little spat, TT should have been too. Better they're both unblocked, however, and just go to their respective corners. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Admins should always work together...undoing another's block without at least consulting the blocking admin should be taboo.--MONGO 00:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If Treasury Tag is such a problem, why not block him then as well?
Now there's an idea. Just follow some of the links posted (no, not the one where TT defends a pro-nazi userbox because "he didn't understand it"), the complaints about his behaviour at recent AfDs: User:TehGrauniad/Sandbox1 and WP:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Assistance#Help_with_RfC, WP:Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers), WP:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who) and no doubt others. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's see, we've got:
"I find it quite surprising that such an evidently sensitive, easily upset snowflake would be capable of such provocative statements and actions." - Reply to TT's WQA request
"Your condescending swarm has not gone without notice." - In reference to the WQA community
"res to the illiterate" - Edit summary
Ect. And that's just a small amount. Not to mention the inappropriate tagging of TT's page. I completely support this block. SilverserenC 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This was a poor block. TT brought a complaint against Badger Drink to WQ. It was being discussed, but looked like being at very much the initial phase. Badger Drink responded with a complaint against TT. I've no idea who is in the right or wrong, but that was for discussion. Jumping in unilaterally and blocking one party is unhelpful. There was no outrage in what BD said, and no need to act before a few people had looked at the interaction. It would have been better had you given some opinion of what you thought was going on, suggested a remedy (which might be a block) and awaited a consensus. To block, and then demand a consensus to unblock is putting the cart before the horse. Unblock was justified.--Scott Mac 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Sheesh - I expect administrators to reduce disruption not open dramah threads like this when they have been challenged quite reasonably - and with a threat to re block - hold your hands up and stop digging. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. An editor who is in conflict with another should be able to speak more freely at WQA than in other venues, without being blocked for relatively minor incivility - especially when the dispute and incivility is not one-sided -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. TT is a frequent flyer in these drama threads, and to be frank, baits with such sarcasm that at times it's going to come back around at him. Not bothering to read in depth this time, as it seldom does any good as far as getting an end result. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Let me preface these remarks by stating that in my pre-admin days I was very active at WQA and have have always thought it was something we need as an alternative to the pitchfork-and-torches drama of this forum. Treasury Tag knows the difference between WQA and this board, having posted here many times. He chose to file at WQA. The entire point of that forum is to hash out issues without the threat of a block looming over the conversation. That's not me talking, it says quite clearly t the top of the page not to report if "You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures to be imposed/enforced." I don't condone BadgerDrink's coarse tone or smarmy responses, but issuing a block as a result of a WQA defeats the purpose of having a place like WQA. I would also note that two other admins, including a sitting arbitrator who has had his own problems with TT in the past, both stated they thought this was probably a bad block. I noted in my unblock statement [21] that I took their opinions into consideration as well, but somehow that has not yet been noted in this dialogue. While consulting with the blocking admin is something we normally would do before unblocking, in some cases it is not appropriate to leave a user unjustly blocked while we wait for a reply. I deemed this to be such a case. Civility blocks are for the very worst kinds of incivility only, or for repeated disruptive comments after being explicitly warned that a block was imminent. I don't see either of those conditions in this case and therefore I summarily overturned the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support unblock per those above, but then, no one would be surprised at that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I was only going to make that one statement here, but I've just noticed the following: When informing me of his objections to the unblock and his intent to open this thread Prodego claimed it was not in response to the WQA report itself [22] but solely for his reply there. Putting aside the fact that that is a fairly nonsensical statement, it also directly contradicts his statement to BD when blocking him [23] "Based on this WQA report, and particularly your response there, I've blocked your account for 48 hours. (emphasis added). Further his entry in the block log says the block if for "tenacious editing, personal attacks" [24]. So, we've got three explanations for this block that don't quite match up with one another. I can only assume he meant to say "tendentious" editing, but that reason is noted only in the block log and was not mentioned in his remarks to BD, to me, or here at this thread. Put that all together and it seems like Prodego isn't even sure himself why he made this block. I think it is time to to admit this was a mistake and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Why not just do away with civility blocks altogether? When even remotely questionable they are always reversed and nit-picked with "Aw, that wasn't so bad!" Then, we can all act like jerks and just carry on. Doc talk 05:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose any unblock for any reason whatsoever that was not previously discussed with the blocking admin. (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't really want to get involved in all this wittering, but would just like to say two things. Firstly—I did not intend to get Badger Drink (talk · contribs) blocked. My WQA report was merely to gather third-party views on whether or not the material I presented was considered acceptable (though perhaps unsurprisingly, that hasn't happened). I support the block because he was behaving very unpleasantly, but I genuinely didn't have blocking in mind at the time I posted the thread, merely reprimand. Secondly—the usual folks have turned out to say that I baited this person by arguing that a particular userbox should be kept, by posting someone a personal attack warning for calling me "illiterate" and by asking them to explain their warning to me about "using improper humour." If anyone can provide feedback on how any of those actions were provocative, I would be interested indeed. ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 07:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • "Baiting" is a red herring anyway. Being civil or uncivil is chosen behavior. The "look what he made me do" game is just that - a game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Badger Drink's comment were not significantly more inflammatory or out of line with what I frequently see at WQA. Given the lack of clear community consensus on blocking for incivility (see Wikipedia:Incivility blocks), the block seems inappropriate to me. Gerardw (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose any unblock A rogue admin who should have his admin tools stripped for following procedures incorrectly and when approached cannot admit to his errors. He needs to learn to respect other editors like Prodego, and communicate with other people. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that Blofeld made this remark right after calling me a "dickhead" on my talk page.[25] I trust he will remember that he held this position when his own block for gross incivility comes... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I told you to refrain from making snide dickhead judgements about other editors in your AFD closures. It is completely inappropriate for you to do so when articles can obviously create tension in the heat of the moment. In closing at article at AFD you should NOT act like some kind of wiki God and pass judgements on the editors involved in it but rather on the article itself. You seem to show a complete disregard for your peers on here. In this instance here you abused your position to make a fellow admin Prodego look foolish for his blocking decision.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC) you think your comment about "snide dickhead judgements" will create tension in the heat of the moment? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 by User:Fastily S.G.(GH) ping! 10:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Meant to make this block VOA. When I tried to change it, it did not go through. Can another admin block indef?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to Fastily (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Block needed asap[edit]


See Special:Contributions/Footyarticlecreator - creating loads of sub-stubs, which are being CSDd as A1, A7. Ignoring numerous requests to desist on his talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See above section - great minds, etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Already reported on WP:AIV. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Footarticlecreator is  Confirmed as Drodedsweard (talk · contribs), who was blocked 2 days ago for the exact same thing. –MuZemike 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits of User:Hobartimus and User:Nmate at Hősök tere[edit]

These two users are trying to remove the link to the japanese wikipedia correspondent of the article and refuse to respect Wikipedia:USEENGLISH (by imposing the Hungarian name Janos Hunyadi instead of English name John Hunyadi). Can you please warn them in order to make them stop the edit war? (Daccono (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC))

I don't see where either of them have edited today. I do, however, see where an admin has changed the name to its English variant and cited the WP:MOS as the reason for the change. Perhaps that will settle things down. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm no admin, but I know MoS fairly well due to some recent dealings with longevity lists; this is pretty straightforward. Same reason why we use John Cabot instead of Giovanni Caboto, even though the latter is his real name. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
My bad, I thought you had a mop. Still, the MoS is quite clear, so yours was the good call. I'll keep an eye on the page for a bit. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • First of all, everyone who wants to report anybody at WP ANI, meets a yellow stripe saying that "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion."
Well actually, nobody of those whose name is mentioned here in the report has been notified about being discussed.
  • Second, this discussion is in entirely the wrong place:
At the top of this page it says "What this page is not This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues." and also says "To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard." Well actually, It looks like a content dispute.
  • Third, I have to say that the way in which Daccono behaves himself when contributing to Wikipedia is quite surly:
[26] "remove vandalism from the English wiki; EN wiki should use the scientific EN terms", [27] (WP:NPA)
  • Fourth, So it looks like a discourtesy:
[28] For what this page should not be used is that that the reporter tries to recruit somebody to support his POV so that the 3RR supplement of the reporter emulates that of his antipodes ,whereof ensues that that this board might also be used for having the POV of someone rammed thorough an issue by those formerly uninvolved ones that consider the standpoint of the reporter to be sympathetic.

--Nmate (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a POV issue, it's a simple MoS issue; we go by the English name of people. See my example above, or consider Christopher Columbus; accusing people of conspiracy theories is neither productive nor factually correct. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: For now, at least. Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee. 28bytes (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I need some help here. I have tried over the past year to coach User:MajorHawke towards editing within the policies and guidelines of the site, but he's just not hearing it. He inserts original research constantly, and today has flat-out said, in an edit summary, "who cares no sources say it, it's true".

I've been trying and trying to help him understand our policies, but I have to admit that I haven't succeeded. A few weeks ago I asked LessHeard vanU to help me try to get through to him; LessHeard vanU left him a warning and explained to him in no uncertain terms that if he kept this up, he'd be blocked, and suggested that I take him to AIV if he kept it up.

If anyone can think of another way to get through to him, short of blocking, I would greatly appreciate it. If blocking him is the only way to get him to stop acting against the policies and guidelines of the site, well, I guess I'm reluctantly requesting that. 28bytes (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My 2p worth is that this is reminiscent of the Gobbleswoggler episode. Enthusiasm is one thing, but enthusiasm without WP:COMPETENCE doesn't help the Wikipedia project as a whole. If MajorHawke isn't willing to accept the assistance of an editor of long standing AND the advice of an admin, perhaps it's time for an enforced wikibreak. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The latest. 28bytes (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

24 hour block. Sadly, he's clearly not listening, and is instead lashing out with abuse. People have clearly tried hard to help him with constructive advice and encouragement, but if the carrot won't work then we unfortunately have to resort to the stick -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the user wants to be blocked for more than 24 hours per this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
People get angry when we block them. This is expected. Often, they vent a little. Also expected. I doubt that extending Hawke's block simply because of a little venting is going to help the situation. If he comes back and keeps this up after he's had a night's rest (or a day at work or whatever), then we can consider a longer mandatory break from Wikipedia. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I think this needs defusing rather than escalating. It's just an angry juvenile reaction and I don't mind taking a bit of abuse, so I've given him a (friendly, I hope) warning, and we can see how he behaves when the block expires - I'm keeping my eye on what he does, and I'm sure others will be too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee, thanks for stepping in here and for your message to MajorHawke on his talk page. Hopefully he'll come around and listen to the advice; as I told him earlier, if he can pair his enthusiasm with a good understanding of the do's and don'ts of editing, he can do lots of good stuff here. 28bytes (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
NP, I've seen a few similar cases while I've been here, and there's usually a good chance they can be brought round -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I've offered some tips and my help. If he takes me up on it, I'll do my best to help channel all that energy in better directions. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


I've just indeffed Bradford Guitar Boy 2011 (talk · contribs) as a sock of Bradford Guitar Boy (talk · contribs), who I indeffed a while back for edit warring. the 2011 account has inserted the same material against consensus. Is there really any need for a SPI, or is the duck test enough here? Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this may pass the duh test nevermind the duck test. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. A clerk would reject any SPI as unnecessary unless we're dealing with a prolific socker or there's a possibility of sleepers based on behavior. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 19:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Stubborn refusal to accept consensus by User:Jfitch[edit]

User:Jfitch is a semi-regular editor who is consistently inserting a specific image into two articles, despite accepted consensus to use another. See the lead image of Alexz Johnson and Jude Harrison, which is currently the version that was promoted as a 'featured picture' at FPC (a promotion which Jfitch opposed). The original nomination discussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alexz Johnson. After being on the verge of three reverts on at least two occasions, his reversal of the image was left in place for months until another discussion took place here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:2099725 FreightElevator 135wb.jpg. It's also been discussed here: Talk:Alexz Johnson#Lead image. Jfitch stubbornly insists that only his opinion of the image to use is right, despite the discussions linked which clearly overrule him. This dispute has been going on since September of last year. There isn't much that I can do as I'm involved, and he refuses to back off. I would like to think that uninvolved users can tell him to drop it already and leave the image alone. Please? This is getting superbly tiresome. Maedin\talk 19:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good lord. Is this really an edit war over an obnoxiously small change in the complexion of a photograph? Resolute 20:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The issue was never discussed as people are claiming. The featured picture discussion was. I have left that discussion alone entirely as you are correct, people decided to feature the edited image. I am not opposing a feature any more, that discussion has happened and moved on. The issue here is replacing images in articles with inaccurate ones. The article images are professional images and are accurate of the circumstances they were taken in. The arguement of 'guessing' what the picture should look like in order to make it more 'accurate' is simply ridicolous as the photo is of a fictional character. The character only exists in the mind of the creators. The creators provided the pictures stating that this is what the character looks like. It's not for anyone here to tell them that they are wrong and decide what it 'should' look like and then try to place this in an article as 'accurate'. This is the issue that hasn't been discussed ad resolved as people are trying to say. The place this can happen is on the article's talk page. Which is where the issue was started to be discussed but clearly nothing determined. Talk:Jude_Harrison. Please refrain from reverting edits based on things that simply didn't happen. JFitch (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Both editors are edit-warring at Alexz Johnson and Jude Harrison over the white balance (!) of the lead image. To get them to stop, I am blocking both for 24 hours. After the block expires, they should resolve their disagreement per WP:DR without resorting to further reverts. Some advice: (a) consensus about which version of a picture should be marked as featured is not the same thing as consensus about which version to use in an article; and (b) any consensus or lack thereof is not a justification for edit-warring.  Sandstein  20:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a block was necessary at this point. Neither of them broke WP:3RR and there is no indication that they would have done so. An official warning probably would have been equally effective and much less drastic. Maedin should have known better of course but I think Jfitch (talk · contribs) is probably not experienced enough to know that. Regards SoWhy 21:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
After reconsideration and discussion with Maedin on their talk page, I agree and have unblocked Maedin. JFitch, on the other hand, has been more clearly edit-warring (including a revert just after their post above), and has previously been warned against edit-warring, which is why I'm not unblocking them.  Sandstein  21:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I've unblocked the admin as a matter of urgency. I don't think we should be standing on each other's feet, and the fact that they drew attention to the issue exonerates them imo. Samsara (FA  FP) 21:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, I was just about to unblock Maedin; you seem to have been slightly faster. Nonetheless, I do not believe that administrators should get special treatment when applying standard conduct policy; on the contrary they should be held to a higher standard of conduct.  Sandstein  21:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You should know to carefully review cases if a long-standing previously fault-free admin is a party and is actively seeking comment. Regards. Samsara (FA  FP) 21:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

X-Men First Class[edit]

Resolved: Histories now in correct places. lifebaka++ 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin please review the following pages in light of certain moves and fix them (and probably revert the moves)? It does not appear that they were correctly moved, and there is an ongoing discussion at WT:COMICS about their placement anyway. The original setup was the comic series at X-Men: First Class and the film article at X-Men: First Class (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion (which I didn't participate in) stopped about two days ago. I don't think there is much disagreement, from looking at it, that the film is considerably more notable than the comic book series, by a significant margin. The main issue with the moves I made seems to me to be the page histories, which are mixed up a little. Everything else looks fine (at least to me). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
80000 edits, and you don't know not to do cut-and-paste moves? In any case, I _think_ it's fixed now -- wouldn't swear to it, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It wouldn't let me move the film page into simply X-Men: First Class, because that page already existed. Hence I cut and pasted. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Cutting and pasting causes licensing violations. If you cannot move a page, you can list it at WP:RM either as uncontroversial or as part of a request to move that involves discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Improper image added[edit]

Green tickY Not resolved, but RfC/U or other alternatives seems better suited at this point to generate a productive discussion and outcome.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User Mbz1 has added a very provocative image to a reply Betsythedevine posted to Mbz1's talk, subsequent to Mbz1's having posted to Betsy's. Her action makes it appear that Betsy herself posted the image as part of her reply, which isn't the case. Coming on the heels of Mbz1's having poked at Betsy earlier, when Betsy was incorrectly accused of having filed a frivolous SPI request, this just seems a needless provocation to me.

I'm not asking that Mbz1 be sanctioned over this, but since it presents another false impression about Betsy, would someone please ask Mbz1 to remove the image from her talk. No drama, please, just a simple request that the image be removed. I'd ask her myself, but she's previously requested that I not post to her page, so I'll also have to ask that someone else notify her of this thread. I noticed this because I have Betsy's talk page watchlisted, btw. I'll also add that I probably won't be able to reply to any response here very promptly, due to real life demands on my time for the next eight to ten hours. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

M's last edit to B's UT page was a while back (early May) . B posted a fairly lengthy post on M's UT page on 30 May. The image is a sort of reply, and does not appear "provocative" from any point of view. I see no reason for this to be of any importance at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Precedent says that an image like this is completely acceptable. I disagree with its need but when other editors have popped up images that are clearly problematic they have not only not received a reprimand but actually received support from admins under the explanation of more leeway given to editors on their own user page. Image isn't needed but this ANI isn't either. Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Just stepping in for a moment: This is now the third immediate and contrary follow-up to my posts that Collect has made here; I evidently have an admirer. But he's in error and needs to look at the history of both talk pages before commenting.
@Cptnono: Perhaps I should have titled this thread "Image improperly added". The problem isn't the image intrinsically, but its insertion in Betsy's comment to make it appear as if Betsy added it. Scroll down from the diff and view the page rendering: It absolutely gives that false impression. If Mbz1 wants to add a flame-war image to her page that's her prerogative, but she can't do so to give the impression Betsy was the one who added it. That makes it look as if Betsy had fanned the flames when it was in fact Mbz1 that did so. You can't edit other people's comments to give a false impression, even if those comments occur on your own talk page.
You're on excellent terms with her, Cptnono; do her a favor and ask her to delete the image before some admin sees this and takes any more severe action. And please inform her of this thread. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I did not find M's offer to bury the hatchet to be in any way problematic. As for where I respond to posts on noticeboards on my watchlist - that has nothing whatever to do with who posts ahead of me. Indeed, I recall you posting after me on occasion. If one looks at my total number of posts on any noticeboard, one will find a wondrously random assortment - as that is how noticeboards work. One thing is sure - making personal asides about who else has posted does not actually fit into the proper use of a noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Also worth noting: Mbz's edit summary reads "added image to thedevine's response"...and this whole thing in concert with the recent "third opinion" debacle just stinks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree that the image is provocative, and a misrepresentation of what betsy devine wrote. The image, if desired, should go below the betsy devine reply. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Image now seems to be gone, so there's nothing more to do here apart from optimistically hoping that Mbz1 would stop doing this kind of thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I totally get what you are saying, OS. Unfortunately, editors have done far far worse with edit summaries, talk page discussions, essays, and just plain images that highlight how insignificant this "incident" is. I think it is cute but not needed. If Mbz1 feels that the image is not needed then good for her. But mandating that it is removed means we need to revisit many decisions regarding other editor's user pages. Maybe it is time to revisit how the community reacts to what is allowed on user pages and how they are handled. I doubt that is something contributors to the project are willing to actually tackle. So as the tradition has been: Let it go for now. Hopefully Mbz1 will replace it sooner than later. And maybe the image has some point if it has come here.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
And there you go.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Question Not really related to the discussion, but I'm curious, wouldn't that image be a derivative work of File:Eliza-Crossing-the-Ice-Morgan-1881.jpeg, as opposed to a public domain work? I honestly don't know, and I may just be splitting hairs needlessly, but it isn't the same exact image, so I thought I'd ask. - SudoGhost 03:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The original is in the public domain (according to the States?) and the summary gives all of the detail. The file at commons could be amended to make it clearer. The file could also be deleted if no one is using it. I think it would be cool in an essay on hounding but we could also probably just request its deletion over at Commons. Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a good idea about adding an image to essay. I did add it to this one for now, and maybe one day I will write an essay about being hounded and how it feels, of course if I will not get hounded to death before that :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Mbz1 for you all. If there are other notifications that should have went out, can someone else please address that? (I'm off to bed). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops.I actually just assumed. Sorry for talking about you behind your back Mbz1. Looks like this is all fixed anyways.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Explanation For the last few days User:Betsythedevine has been busy retiring and changing her mind, and claiming such things as:
  1. "I don't have the heart to fight injustice when it settles on my own head, especially when it becomes a fun opportunity for Mbz1 to wikistalk into my life."
  2. "Basically, I am sick of being harassed by some anonymous person calling himself Mbz1."
  3. edit summary: "Links to Mbz1's harassment over the past six months".
  • I believe that if one user is asking another user to disengage, and if these users are not editing in the same area, and if the other user refuses, there is no doubt who is victim and who is the hound.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yup, I thought this was your goal as I wrote in the following section before you posted the above. As if you didn't know that Betsy's comments were in response to your doing a little jig on her grave, as you supposed, among other pleasantries. She certainly was intending to leave at that point, out of sorrow and pain at OhanaUnited's refusal to retract his unwarranted accusation. And now you think that if you start enough of a dust-up with her, with your vile dog-attack picture inserted into her post, and your monumentally mean-spirited barnstar (see following section) that you can provoke the community into silencing a critic. The community isn't so easily manipulated, though, as I believe you'll discover.
I suppose I'll have to inform Betsy of this now, since you're making accusations. But I hope she'll have the good sense not to be provoked into a fight, or even to respond to this nonsense. The community can handle the kind of strategic accusations you're making here without having to call upon an already beleaguered editor to defend herself from these kinds of attacks.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Frankly people, I have seen a lot of things in EE area, but never anything like that. Yes, it would be grossly inappropriate to place a slogan advocating murder of a living person (I saw it once), but filing an ANI request because someone placed an artistic image of a girl (apparently meaning herself) at his/her talk page?! Come on. That exceeds battlegrounds in EE area by a wide margin.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it urgently necessary to show up to support Mbz1 every time she does something like this, Hodja? Your loyalty is touching, but if you'd read the above you'd know that the objection wasn't the violent image, but rather that she purposely made it appear as if Betsy had posted it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it. So what? Do not you have any sense of humor? She feels like a person haunted by dogs. Yes, sure. And you are only proving her point by filing this request. Please see Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for making false accusations of character assassination[edit]

Well, this matter was sorted until Mbz1 decided to poke the bear again, by taking the time to create and post a customized barnstar (permalink) to OhanaUnited's talk for having mistakenly accused Betsy of trying to silence an opponent by filing an SPI that amounted to character assassination. Since the accusation was clearly erroneous − see "Third opinion requested" now on this AN/I page, or permalink − this just fans the already high flames over this very difficult issue again. The only motive I can guess at for doing so is that it's an attempt to provoke the community into issuing the interaction ban Mbz1 has been pushing for with respect to Betsy.

Pushing for an interaction ban is a standard strategy Mbz1 has used in the past to try to silence those who've been critical of her actions and who oppose her political orientation. Mbz1 actually began this latest round of interaction herself, though, and did so after her first unseemly "you are the truth-telling boy" post to OhanaUnited's talk, and after then following that with an extremely ill-timed post to Betsy's page that culminated in the business with the dog attack image, documented just above. She's evidently willing to risk possible sanctions for poking in a bid to silence Betsy, but the community shouldn't fall for it. We should just tell her to stop poking.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also rather ironic that Mbz1 added an image of hounding to her little "essay" about how persecuted she is, poor thing, while still having all but hounded Betsy off the site entirely. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hound Betsy off the site entirely? Really? I am happy to report that the user is as active as ever, and no, I would not like Betsy to leave wikipedia. I would not like anybody to leave wikipedia.
I gave barnstar to an editor bit to "poke" anybody. I did it in a separate section on their talk page. I did not mention any names. I did not link the text I added to the barnstar to any comment made by anybody. To bring this matter here is absolutely ridiculous. Here's is the barnstar:
I hope I still have a freedom of speech and a freedom of expression.It was done not to "poke" anybody, it was done to award the editor that I believe should be awarded.Just as simple as that.
That whole matter about so called "false accusation" should be dropped at last. Apparently nobody is going to apologize to user:Betsythedevine for making so called "false accusation". Demanding an apology is a bad tone. An apology should be issued from the heart and not because an editor is threatened with sanctions. For the last few days user:Ohiostandard has been busy preventing the thread about "false accusation" from archiving with the latest attempt being this artificially added comment. user:Ohiostandard conduct on this matter is disgusting. user:Ohiostandard was told by an admin: "By the way, were Ohana's allegations written anywhere except Betsy's talk? If so, it seems a little beside the point, as Betsy herself would be free to remove or refactor comments on her own talk anyway." So, just go ahead and remove the comment you do not like, stop making more AN/I drama. Enough is enough --Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Re the quotation presented just above from admin Heimstern Läufer's talk page, please see here in the since-updated version of the thread from which that quote was taken, where Heimstern has since written that he supports redaction of the comments.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I had to check the calendar to see if this was 4/1 again. On a scale of 1 to 10, this affront is not worth the paper it is complained about on. I am ordering a 55 gallon drum of tea. Collect (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That barnstar is about as clear a case of "I told you so, neener neener neener!" as one can get. In the grand scheme of things, is it minor? For any other user, probably. But it's these types of pinprick-sized jabs that led to mbz being, quite properly, banned from AN/I and related for several months in the first place. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The following is a reply to Mbz1
"I did not mention any names"? And you think that excuses your little grave dance? It couldn't have been more staringly obvious that you were referring to Betsy. And no, you don't have freedom of speech here. This is a privately owned website, and all our speech is obliged to further its goals and values rather than indulge our own private grudges.
As for Betsy's having reconsidered her leaving, it's my understanding that she's willing to do so now only because a very strong consensus has emerged that she did nothing wrong, certainly nothing remotely connected to any attempt at character assassination. In fact, you and the editor who goes by "Broccolo" were the only two people who supported those accusations. But I don't suppose your support had anything to do with the fact that you are both vehemently, passionately opposed to her view on Mideast politics, and are probably her two biggest detractors on Wikipedia?
That was a rhetorical question, and I'm going to try not to respond further if I can help it. Your behavior in this whole matter has succeeded in making me angry, which is a pretty unusual event for me, and I don't want to say something I'll regret. But I'd very much welcome the opinions of wholly uninvolved editors, i.e. of those who are fortunate enough to have no strong interest in Mideast politics, and who don't edit in that regrettably contentious area.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved Editor I don't edit in that area, I have no real opinions in that area, I have never encountered any of the at-issue editors except for having familiarity with Betsy's name for some unknown reason. I have, however, been following this extremely sad little case ever since it bubbled over onto ANI via the hilarious and ironic "third opinion requested" thread (which should probably have been titled "I have no intention of listening to the third opinion I've requested"). Mbz's posting the hounding image, and this adorable barnstar, would typically prompt a "Uhm, why is this at ANI" reaction from me had I not been following this terrible little escapade, but in this case, it's wholly inappropriate, bordering on grotesque. Ohana's initial accusation against Betsy was ill-advised, surely, but his failure to atone for this accusation once near-universal consensus against it emerged -- and in a thread he started called "third opinion requested," to boot -- is far worse. And...far worse still is anybody celebrating the unfortunate outcome of this fiasco, as Mbz is clearly doing here. It is further strange that Mbz is apparently continuing to update and enhance her celebratory actions by converting them into a barnstar.

    All that said, I have no idea what action or inaction is appropriate here. You might say I'm venting, and you might be right about that. This whole thing -- from the initial accusation to the poor way it's been handled -- has been a shame.

    I think the right way to go is to just drop this whole thing, so long as continued pettiness by involved editors who wish to celebrate the frustrated semi-retirement of a well-regarded editor comes to an immediate halt. And pretending that this barnstar is some kind of general reward and not in specific regard to this fiasco is patently absurd. Anybody who's been following this can tell that that's untrue.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things

  • Since Red Stone Arsenal is very likely to be a sockpuppet of a topic banned user, doesn't matter who, none of this would have happened if they had simply been blocked.
  • It's unfortunate that the admins who defended the policies of this project by blocking the countless sockpuppets of NoCal100, Stellarkid, Historicist, Drork and so very many others didn't get barnstars. Oh well, c'est la vie. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The problems in the past two sections could be solved if OhioStandard just removed Mbz's talk page from his watchlist and stopped following her contribs. Just a suggestion. A wise man once said "This is a privately owned website, and all our speech is obliged to further its goals and values rather than indulge our own private grudges". It's time to get a mirror. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Read the thread: I have Betsy's page watchlisted, and it was Mbz1's post there that brought this to my attention. I also have OhanaUnited's page watchlisted, and so noticed Mbz1's "barnstar" there. Nor is it true that attacks on others don't matter if no one takes any notice. Now would everyone please let uninvolved, and non I/P editors or admins comment, if they wish to, without further partisan comments? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I've read the thread. Mbz put an image you don't like on her talk page. She then gave someone a barnstar you don't like. Niether has anything whatsoever to do with you, except for what seems to be an infatuation with Mbz. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It is quite clear the Mbz1 has issues with civility and letting something die, instead having to make further rude actions that keep perpetuating a sad issue. Of course, since ANI has never really sanctioned anyone in regards to incivility and WP:CIVIL is a dead policy that is never followed or acted upon if someone breaks it, I suppose we should close this discussion. SilverserenC 01:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Guilty as charged. It was really uncivil of me to reward an editor with a custom-made naked Emperor barnstar, but may I please ask you to look at the mitigating circumstances? I assure you I have absolutely nothing to do with the undressing of this poor Emperor. It was Hans Christian Andersen who did it :-) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    You should really stop with this crap. You're not helping yourself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    What a nice post ;-) I am afraid you do not understand my situation. I am beyond help, so at least why not to have some good time ;-)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    If you want to commit seppuku, that's up to you. Keep in mind that with every one of those irrelevant posts which you find amusing, you're just convincing more people who didn't care before that your signal to noise ratio isn't worth allowing you to participate in this project. In other words, while you think you're being clever, you're just giving OhioStandard exactly what he wants. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Betsy, who is traveling with little time and rare internet[edit]

I would like to thank Ohiostandard for his great kindness in defending me. It seems to me that Wikipedia would have a lot more luck retaining women as editors if more people would do as Ohio has done here and speak up for a person who is unfairly attacked instead of urging those who are hounded by Mbz1 and others to cowboy up and drink tea. Let me remind people that WP:HOUND rebukes people for editing with the goal of repeatedly causing unhappiness or distress to another editor--as Mbz1 has done to me and to many others. It is not a policy that forbids people to provide diffs from the history of those they are debating. I am always happy when people provide diffs to what I really said. Hugs to all the kind people out there. It is true that my hurt feelings and plans to leave were greatly diminished by 1) having people say kind things in the "Third opinion" ANI and on my talk page, 2) by problems on my watchlist, 3) by Mbz1's continued attacks on my character for being a generally bad person who has clashed with her in the past (an accusation that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether or not it is true that I file bad-faith SPIs against content opponents), and 4) that I did want to contribute an article I've been working on Guide to the Lakes. I don't know what admin action is possible here. I am not asking for Mbz1 to be blocked, what good would that do? When there was an AE report on Mbz1 a while ago, I asked for some specifically-worded civility restrictions, but instead she was given a PI topic ban. Anyway, I am about to drive away from this patchy internet into unlikely internet for a few days. If somebody would give OhioStandard a barnstar for defense of the wiki, I think that would be a good thing. It is a wonderful project. betsythedevine (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Mbz1 complains in a section below that the above post on June 1 did not contain any diffs showing WP:HOUND. This thread was started regarding recent hounding at the talk pages of OhanaUnited and Ironholds, with the additional "improvement" of the now-deleted essay "Properly follow a proper policy."

And last night when I went to the talk page of BorisG, where I had posted in response to a question from him elsewhere, I found another new personal attack by Mbz1 had been created there with the heading "Unbelievable!":

Since Mbz1 cannot even restrain herself from hounding me even at the exact moment when her behavior is under scrutiny at ANI, I would just repeat my earlier request at the recent AE concerning her: That some brave admin should create some SPECIFIC requirements concerning civility (not saying "troll" or "hound" or "disgusting" would be a start) and not attacking other users. Perhaps her content ban on P/I could be lifted for as long as she abides by AGF, CIVIL, and NPA.

By the way, I still think it was kind and creative of BorisG to propose AE and ANI bans as an alternative to a full block. Even though what I had thought should happen at the ANI Mbz1 is complaining about was a one-week block, and I later supported the idea of extending the block unless there was some sign Mbz1 planned to change her behavior, I thought it was a clever idea of BorisG to propose a different solution, one I had not thought of. I likewise thought it clever of Gwen Gale to implement it with the additional requirement that concerns about another user should be taken to one (1) designated administrator. Because Mbz1 eventually disputed the admin boards part of her block, it is important to remember that that decision by Gwen Gale was made in a context of trying to find a solution that would both:

(1) Let Mbz1 remain part of the project, and
(2) Set no pre-condition that she should apologize for the behavior others had objected to.

I think goals 1 and 2 are still worth trying to achieve here and now. betsythedevine (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

With respect, Betsy, I disagree that the problem can be dealt with effectively here. The behavior has spanned a long enough time-frame, and so many pages and interactions, that this forum seems poorly suited to me to follow the complexity. Also, at least half-a-dozen editors have indicated their desire to participate in the resolution of the ongoing problem, and that would be difficult to execute here, in part because of the 24 hour roll-off time frame for comments.
I'm strongly of the opinion that an RfC/U would be a more appropriate and effective forum for the necessary discussion; other users have also suggested an AE request. I certainly understand the exasperation you must be feeling at this latest provocation, but for these reasons I think it best to go ahead and close this discussion, as you'd suggested doing before this new development arose. You should of course feel free to revert that action if you don't find this rationale sufficiently persuasive.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hounded (comment by Mbz1)[edit]

  • Once again user:Betsythedevine accused me in hounding her without providing a single difference to confirm the allegation.
  • WP:Hound is: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.
  • Here are my evidences of me being haunted by User:Betsythedevine
  1. "I don't have the heart to fight injustice when it settles on my own head, especially when it becomes a fun opportunity for Mbz1 to wikistalk into my life."
  2. "Basically, I am sick of being harassed by some anonymous person calling himself Mbz1."
  3. user:betsythedevine making absolutely false claims about my contributions that were obtained by using the tools that should not be applied to my contributions (May I please ask you to read the collapsed portion of the thread)
  4. edit summary: "Clarify what Gatoclass is talking about and Mbz1 is objecting to"
  5. edit summary: "Friendly wave from another target in the latest round of PA from Mbz1" and so on, and so on, and so on.
  6. This post was made, when the article was still in my user space! It was later moved to main space.
  7. Talking to yet another user about me;
  8. "I too was wondering if Mbz1 had mentioned in her request to you that she herself had posted the link,"
  9. "Mbz1's contributions and a wish that she would stay with the project but stop harassing others. "
  10. edit summary: "Links to Mbz1's harassment over the past six months". This post violates WP:UP#POLEMIC that states: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."
I encourage anyone curious to read the actual diffs, the first two of which refer the matter under discussion now -- Mbz1's grave-dancing over the OhanaUnited incident, followed by this. The objected-to list just links to sections in my talk page archives that have been started by Mbz1. From a tiny hotel pub with dicey internet. betsythedevine (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You've already made it abundantly clear that you'd like to be able to silence a critic who holds an opposing view of Mideast politics in this way, Mbz1. You've made the point over and over, here, and on half-a-dozen administrators' talk pages. And you've again neglected to mention that it was you who began this latest round of interaction with Betsy, nevermind your timing or the way in which you did so, which a completely uninvolved contributor here has described as "bordering on grotesque".
As your staunch friend, No More Mr Nice Guy has now twice advised, "You should really stop with this crap. You're not helping yourself." Despite his impression, I don't enjoy seeing this kind of thing. I'd respectfully suggest that you turn off the computer for a day or two. It's what your friends would advise, as well, I think.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I've had very little interaction with Mbz, and I can only think of 2 articles we both edited at the same time. But since you seem to put everything in a "who agrees with me on Mideast politics" framework, it's understandable you'd jump to conclusions. I don't know if you enjoy this kind of thing or not, but you've certainly expended quite a bit of time and effort over the past few days starting and prolonging discussions here which involve Mbz. Not to mention I've seen you try to sabotage at least one of her DYKs, so I don't think my impression is far off the mark. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I've expended time and effort here defending an editor who was very improperly attacked, and I'm proud of that. If people don't like their names mentioned in such an effort then here's a novel idea: Maybe they should refrain from making and escalating personal attacks.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD filed in relation to this[edit]

I'm sorry, but I see the creation of the essay as a dick move of major proportions. Mbz has essentially placed her altercation here into "humorous essay" form. This behavior needs to be addressed. Tarc (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. example 1
  2. example 2
  3. example 3
  • This essay was written as a humors help to the editors who feel wikihounded and trolled about constantly. It was meant to be a humors help to the victims of wikihounding and unfairness. So the real question here is what is worse an essay, in which nobody is mentioned by name, and that is seldom read, or being wikihounded as for example I am.It is a rhetorical question.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
IMO, those three above examples don't look like wikihounding, it looks like some concerned editors discussing how to deal with a disruptive editor who is on the verge of exhausting the communities patience. Heiro 02:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, and this example with the edit summary "bullshit" is not a personal attack, but a "concerned editor" expressing its opinion? Right?
This essay violates no policy. It was written by me and another editor, (probably mostly by another editor) starting in my user space and then in the main space. I believed the edits made in my user space were deleted, but they were not deleted. Here it is: one example. This edit got moved or redirected together with other edits see here.As you see it was not me who introduced the word "harpy". I do not know this word. The essay was moved to main space by me on April 28,2011 as it is clearly seen from the history.
In any case I do not longer care about this essay, and I asked it to be deleted. The other editor contributed to this more than I did, but I believe they would not mind it to be deleted.
I am also asking the first administrator who sees this post to delete the essay and to block me as a "disruptive editor" because it is much, much, much better to be blocked than to be hounded as I have been for many months. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The above is really the essence of mbz1; half-truths delivered in a Steve Urkel-esque "oops, did I do that?" air of innocence. Yes, policy was violated; harassment of another user. Perhaps this essay was created some time ago, though I see no way of verifying that at the moment. If it were, that is irrelevant to this recent addition, which was added only a few days ago. "There are definitely no any real user mentioned in this essay" is technically true, but it doesn't take a mental giant to read between the lines and see what you're really saying there. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm the "other user" who worked on the page, my thoughts on the issue are best expressed here. I thought it would be fun to write a Dante style satire of ANI/Arbcom etc., maybe it didn't turn out as funny as it sounded in my head--but at the time I last worked on it I didn't think it really related too closely to Mbz1 and her conflicts or attacked anyone in particular. Maybe I should have thought it through better--lesson learned, in any case. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Q had any intention of being pointy by helping Mbz1 with the essay. betsythedevine (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The Inferno concept itself seems interesting, so if someone wanted to write this from scratch...untainted by editors' acrimonious, on-wiki altercations...I don't see a problem with that. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Also agreed. I also don't see Qrsdogg as being complicit with the PA via metaphor that Mbz1 obviously intended by creating the now-deleted essay.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the MfD closed now as "Delete," so maybe some admin could hat this section? betsythedevine (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Spurious Greek etymologies[edit]

Over the past few months a user or group of users, editing under various IPs, have been engaged in adding spurious Greek etymologies and Greek origins to a variety of articles, beginning from Greek folk dances (Zeibekiko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Zeibeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Hasapiko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and spreading to yoghurt (Cacık (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Tzatziki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Yoghurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and lately mathematics (Algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). This circus has been going on for several months despite temporary semi-protections, and the latest incarnation is (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Despite warnings and temporary blocks of the previous IPs, he persists in reverting what he calls "vandalism", and is already deep in WP:3RR territory. Clearly a single-purpose account out to spread the obvious truth that the world owes everything to the Greeks and that there is no Turkish or Asian influence in Greek culture. I request blocking the IP and long-period semi-protection of the articles in question (Zeibekiko and Zeibeks at least, since they attract the most attention), so that we don't have to deal with this every month. Constantine 12:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. The anon uses as his source a site called "". Somebody please blacklist this. The owner of that site is notorious. Same guy who used to plague Ancient Greek phonology under the username of Thrax (talk · contribs) back in 2005. Fut.Perf. 12:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Double ouch, I know 'Agamemnon' very well from Usenet, he was a well known kook. The site should definitely never be used, blacklisting's a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you do that please? I still have this mindblowingly silly Arbcom restriction hampering my work. Fut.Perf. 13:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think I can only request it, and I doubt it would be blacklisted. But maybe someone knows more about the criteria than I do - well, I'm sure many people know more about blacklisting than I do. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Any admin can add the string "\bargyrou\.eclipse\.co\.uk\b" to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist page. Just watch out you don't write \b(argyrou\.eclipse\.co\.uk)|.+\..+" instead, because by doing so you would unintentionally burn the servers, delete the main page, desysop Jimbo Wales and freeze all articles forever. Fut.Perf. 15:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Blacklisted- hopefully everything is fine, and nothing is ruined. TNXMan 16:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware I could, but I certainly wouldn't want to, that stuff makes me nervous. I'd assumed my sysop permissions didn't apply there. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Someone should also take care of the WP:RPP requests, they've been overseen, apparently... Otherwise we'll be back to the same business in a few days. Constantine 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Still at it, apparently, coming in from, adding undue weight to the Greek origins of the Zeibeks. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

sources of wikipedia verification reverted :[edit]

This user(s) are known about anti-nation gestures and tactiks the articles of wikipedia Zeibekiko and Zeybeks are vandalising by them many times ago because just They do not like the Greek origin. I leave in your chance... Noone tryed to do any vandalism WITH ADDING some informations that are certified by world ,Its just a simply source but they dont like seeing it thats all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2011

I made this new section a subsection of the previous one as they obviously belong together. Hans Adler 12:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Thonos's offensive userbox[edit]

Resolved: Blocked as a suspected sock of Giornorosso by NuclearWarfare. Doc talk 02:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Thonos Who self-identifies as a racist, has a userbox with a Swastika on his user page: a clear violation of WP:UP#NOT. [29]

I suspect Thonos may well be a sockpuppet of a blocked user. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever else they were/are doing, I've blocked the proxies they were hiding behind. Please let me know if they edit again, so I can either a) block more proxies or b) see who they really are. TNXMan 16:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Do we leave the userbox on the page then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I left my thoughts on your usertalk. There was also a nice personal attack by User:BoxOfRazors in one of the reversions back to the userbox [30]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've gone ahead and removed it. Anyone is welcome to undo my action if it's unwarranted. TNXMan 16:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to me as I said. More people associate it with anti-Semitism. This whole thing actually segues into something I have been wondering about, and I know it's more for the Help Desk, but is it ok to put on your userpage that you might have some biases against certain groups (for reasons of declaring your biases)? Like just stating you have a bias, not any offensive names for said groups or colourful descriptors. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I could take BoxOfRazors's comment as a compliment: [31] ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well he got the banhammer anyway. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Dunno how he could nazi that coming... HalfShadow 16:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The editor (whose name is apparently a demon on some video game) claims to be against racial hatred. Maybe he needs flowers sprouting from the 4 tips of his swastika. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
As a counter to the use of the ugly symbol of Nazism, I've created this: File:Peace Nazi.png. If the guy had that in his infobox, maybe he would have more credibility? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if Thonos is substituting a generic racist userbox to get his "Disclaimer", but that disclaimer is exactly the same as that of User:Me ne frego, who is a sockpuppet of Giornorosso. Some of the non-race-related interests, such as weather, are shared between Thonos and Giornorosso. Quigley (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Me ne frego means "I don't care" in Italian, for what it's worth. It's not a generic userbox, it's a hand-constructed one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The exact same "disclaimer"? Why is he not blocked indefinitely as a quack-tacularly obvious sock of Giornorosso? Seriously. Doc talk 21:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Peace Nazi.pngThis user has a Fuhrer of Love

I laughed too hard at your peace nazi image to not make a little crack. -- ۩ Mask
Im still working on that. At infobox size, the dove is too small. Or to put it another way, I need to give the swastika a bigger bird. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Looks a little better now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Nuked. Good find, Quigley. Doc talk 02:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User PMDrive1061[edit]

Resolved: WP:BOOMERANG. --Rschen7754 10:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to bring you to the attention of this admin; User:PMDrive1061 , who made snarky comments against another user (User:Joker264) whom he banned for simply stating his mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering these edits, [32], [33] & [34] I would say good block--Jac16888 Talk 09:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
And in light of this IP edit, I'd suggest semi-protecting User talk:Joker264. Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: Wikid77 is topic-banned per community consensus. I see consensus for an indefinite, broad topic-ban from all edits (not just article edits) related to the MoMK affair. Fut.Perf. 10:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)