Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive153

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Vandalism by classmates with my first and last name 2 mormon 3 Legal threats 4 Chadbryant 5 reversion of warnings 6 User:Firemaker117 7 Complaint against admin 8 Dangerous Frenchie 9 Main page 10 Zoe Tay 11 More Cplot socks 11.1 Range block assistance 12 User:Goodlief trolling RfC 12.1 Indef block? 13 198.144.206.230 - Multiple Vandalisms 14 User:74.103.137.166 15 Ban evasion and vandalism by Eowbotm 15.1 Post-Block Socks 16 Requesting block for non-consensus page moves 16.1 Statement from the MedCom 16.2 MAJOR CLARIFICATION 17 sight 18 Impersonator? Not sure 19 Instruction creep 20 Block of User:Elaragirl 21 Disruption on Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 and Talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 22 Reference desk problem and block 22.1 LCs retorts 22.2 Samir 22.3 Gandalf61 comment 22.4 Zoes input 22.5 Justanother's input 22.6 Bishonen's proposal 22.7 Geogre's view 22.8 Another late comment 22.9 Request for additional help 23 Personal attacks, harassment, baiting and pestering by user:Oden 24 Non-consensus page moves 25 Breaching of my privacy 26 TerriNunn 27 Sarah Ewart 28 Backlog at CSD 29 User:Sarah Basse off to a bad start on 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy 30 User:Puneetsquare blocked 31 TerriNunn again 32 admin 33 Blocked user 34 IP vandalism - "page replaced with..." and "blanked the page" edit summaries

[edit] Vandalism by classmates with my first and last name

Just about every day, I revert vandalism on Wikipedia in my school library. Now, unfortunately, two of my classmates have seen me doing it, and have started vandalizing Wikipedia.

The problem is, they keep putting my first and last name in articles (see 1 2 3 for ones I definitely know about).

What I know is that they create accounts through the IP User_talk:208.108.145.4 and then vandalize Wikipedia with them, sometimes putting my name in articles.

I dont want to violate WP:LEGAL here (just trying to keep myself from getting banned), but could someone please delete those revisions and possibly block the IP for one month with account creation disabled to get them bored with vandalism?

I appreciate any help here. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you go to WP:RFO, you can request an oversight to permanently remove the edits. As for the user being dealt with, I (not an admin) don't know how Wikipedia would deal with a school IP inserting personal information. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 03:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, its not the school IP, its accounts made by the IP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You really ought to be taking this to your school authorities too. Hesperian 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If I do so, they'll block the site, perhaps permanently. I dont want that to happen! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have prevented account creation for your school's IP address and extended the block (which was going to expire on December 9) until December 23. -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, its started up again through User:Onikudaki and User:LucyJenkin2. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

HELP! My talk page is being vandalized by them. I've requested semi-protection, but HELP NEEDED NOW!!!! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, User:208.108.145.3 (and possibly User:208.108.145.11 could be used) are also being used to create those accounts. Theres a current block on there that expires on December 13th, but account creation wasn't disabled. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be pushy, but is anything going to happen to User:208.108.145.3? If its blocked, I'm betting all my troubles with the vandals will end. Originally posted by 24.50.211.226 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC), who was Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) logged out.

Both the school IPs are blocked, and I thank whoever blocked them. However, the two vandals continue to overload my userpages with hundreds of barnstars, and are creating accounts outside of school now. All I can think of is doing total protection of my userpages until they get bored with this (which I want to save as a last resort). I'd like peoples opinions on what they think I should do. I dont want to report this to the school authorities, because it may get Wikipedia blocked at my school. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the (recent) vandalism to your user pages of which you speak. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See here, here, here, and here for examples. Note that this will slow your computer down, as the vandals loaded at least 100 barnstars on those revisions. One of those is from just yesterday (I believe the first one), and the rest are older than that. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mormon

I've been trying to contribute to the mormon article but I'm having to fight off the vandalism. Is this article worthy of semi-protection? If so, please help.

Kothar 06:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, semi-protected. Hope it helps -- Samir धर्म 07:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Kothar 14:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threats

At 3:54 this morning, HighInBC gave a final warning to that blogger to stop making legal threats. A few hours later, the user made another threat on this page. Since it looks like HighInBC has gone to the land of nod, would someone care to block the account in question? Thanks. yandman 09:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the comments, getting these shananigans over with. -Patstuart^talk|edits 09:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that something is libel or is libelous does not constitute a legal threat. While I can't say this user is polite, according to WP:NLT, Making a polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks against you is not a "legal threat" [...]Similarly, slander, libel, and defamation of character are not tolerated on Wikipedia. It is imperative that someone check to see that this user has not been warned unnecessarily. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The warning was for "through a piece-of-cake lawsuit". After this warning he said "The next request will be from someone else", which IMHO is rather explicit. yandman 09:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you linked to comments that aren't legal threats, per my aforementioned explaination, and then you called for a block. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Patstuart, I appreciate what you did. If that had been done a day ago when I originally pointed it out to Admins, I would never have had to contact an attorney and then followed her advice of notifying timecop that we were prepared to respond in a legal manner to his illegal behavior. My hope is that this will be the last note that I will be forced to leave on any page in Wikipedia. The debate of my entry was interesting, being libeled against was truly distressing. I hope that Wikipedia spends just as much energy taking care of users who actually break the law as they do upon new users/visitors who follow the instructions of their attorney during a very serious matter. TP 70.219.47.146 09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"A very serious matter"? Some troll making fun of an unknown blogger? yandman 10:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the legal action would have been against the one who posted the allegedly false resume on the internet, since all Timecop did was report what he had read. yandman 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The resume is posted on tony's personal site, d'oh. Originally the link came from archive.org, but it has always been on his site. --timecop 10:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but agree. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when did we concern ourselves with people's internet fame? Even Tony's "thank you" reads like a legal threat. I'm tempted to restore Timecop's comments, simply because of how absurd this complaint is. (of course I would not actually do that.. I'm just saying..) Potential employers looking at a Wikipedia AfD... give me a break. -- Ned Scott 10:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

People say stupid things and act irrationally when they get upset. Tony is upset that his article is going, and at that from someone who's a self-admitted troll who's goal is the "war on blogs". This statement isn't, BTW, a backhanded attack on timecop; it's an explanation of Tony. Personally, while he's been a little silly about the resume, I understand why he's upset (even if he might not deserve an article). Patstuart^talk|edits 15:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chadbryant

Following his latest 3RR violation, I have extend Chadbryant's block to indefinite. This was his 12th block for 3RR, not counting extensions for sockpuppetry (and two for incivility) [1]. Almost all of his recent edits (I'm speaking literally here, have a look at [2]) are edit warring, reverts and other disruptive edits. He has had ample warnings over many months, and shown no sign of stopping despite many, many blocks. It seems that he's simply a disruptive user carrying on this external conflict from some other internet forum to Wikipedia, and he should not be welcome here. I think he should be considered banned by the community for exhausting our patience. This action is up for review. Dmcdevit·t 11:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. Another good catch by Dmc. --Srikeit 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If banning is endorsed, the following may require deletion: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of DXRAW, User:Chadbryant/monobook.js, User:Chadbryant/standard.js, User talk:Chadbryant/Linden Arden, User talk:Chadbryant/Dick Witham and User talk:Chadbryant/Sandbox. MER-C 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.CraigMonroe 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reversion of warnings

sometime recently MacRusgail (talk • contribs) deleted [3] these warnings about incivility [4] [5] i'd put there for [6] & [7] respectively. i believe these are supposed to be either left there or be archived? wasn't quite sure where to report, wld apreciate clarification if this is wrong place thx  ⇒ bsnowball  13:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is at the editor's discretion whether to keep, remove, or archive these. Wikipedia:Removing warnings is inactive at this time. El_C 13:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Firemaker117

I found Firemaker117 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) today after an edit to Train. The userpage says that he's doing unproductive edits as an "experiment". Block candidate? Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. --InShaneee 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint against admin

I would like to see the removal of User:osgoodelawyer as an admin. He has attacked me and another user in bad faith and generally violated every requirement of WP:EQ. How can I start a procedure against him? Mikebe 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs to back up your statement? That would definately help. Also, have you tried working it out with the user in question on their talk page? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. At this point, there is nothing to work out. This admin has attacked me and another user first for being sockpuppets and then for being anti-American. He did this with no basis for either charge. He has admitted wrong-doing for the sockpuppet charge, and I am waiting for his reaction on the anti-American charge. It is precisely because of his actions that he does not deserve to be an admin. You can see all of this by starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ#Patto1ro and then reading the three subjects following. Mikebe 15:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

At any point has he used his or her administrative privileges against you? Ie, blocks, page protects, etc? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry one of my edits was lost. He has not used it, but has threatened to: "You are undoubtedly the same person as User:Mikebe. Since you have voted in AfDs with both accounts, you are violating WP:SOCK. I will kindly ask you to choose one account to edit with. Further use of both accounts may result in me having to take administrative action against you. And we don't want that. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)" Mikebe 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think an admin is acting improperly, but has not used admin powers to do so, then act as though it was a regular editor. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• What about threats (see above)? Can a regular editor do that? Mikebe 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In most cases, we treat behaviour as a user and behaviour as an admin separately. I don't see any evidence that User:Osgoodelawyer has made any use of his admin tools in any disagreement with either you or User:Patto1ro, who appears to be the other user you mention. It is very unlikely indeed that an admin would lose admin privileges without abusing them, unless their behaviour as a user is bad enough to earn them a ban from the site.

As to conduct as a user, from what I've seen, there has been an element of poor behaviour from all sides including your own. Osgoodelawyer should not have accused you and Patto1ro of sockpuppetry without more convincing proof than I've seen; I personally strongly doubt you two are the same person. I would caution Osgoodelawyer against making sockpuppetry allegations so freely in future.

You have also been uncivil. You have nominated articles for deletion based solely on disliking their current content, without regard for deletion guidelines. You have aggressively put forth the notion that an American editor should not be editing articles on European beers and that your opinions should automatically carry more weight since you are European. Rather than attempting to resolve differences with other editors, you have inflamed them.

I would suggest that if you feel your disagreement with Osgoodelawyer is insoluble between the two of you, you ask for mediation. Be aware that a willingness to compromise and assume good faith in others is essential to successful contribution to Wikipedia. Beware of asking for further steps in dispute resolution, because in such steps, the conduct of all parties will be examined, including your own. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, Morven. Very good characterization of the situation. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I will make no claim to being perfect, but I can assure you that the articles I nominated for deletion were based on Wikipedia rules and not on my personal tastes -- I didn't even know that was possible! I have only been here for a few months and I'm still learning my way around. What I am trying to do is clearly not popular, but I have not threatened anyone nor have I ever acted in bad faith. Mikebe 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please try to assume that everyone concerned is trying to improve the project. It's clear to me that both yourself and Osgoodelawyer are trying to improve the beer articles - can you see that? I hope so. You are just disagreeing as to what best to do to improve them.

Thus, try and find compromise positions, and respect Neutral point of view. You assert that Belgian Strong Dark Ale is not a classification in use in Belgium, nor does it correspond to any Belgian classification. If that's correct, it certainly should be noted. However, if anyone else in the world DOES use it as a classification - and it appears that at least one brewing organisation in the US does - then what purpose is served by deleting it? Better that the article exist - since it is a term in use - but explicitly state who uses the classification and who does not. Belgian classification of their own beers is certainly very important, and it makes a lot of sense for the Belgian descriptions to be paramount, but this does not mean that nobody else in the world is entitled to describe and classify Belgian or Belgian-style beers.

Please consider this and try and reach compromise decisions based on respect for the facts and on existing points of view, and try and characterize them fairly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Belgian Strong Dark Ale could be treated like German Chocolate Cake, namely explaining that it is not common in the country which bears the same name, but rather in __insert_region_here__, and explain the purpose of its naming. I would have to agree that it's inappropriate to delete that article simply because it isn't used in the country it purports to be from. The same would apply for French Fries. On a different topic, I think it's very poor form to accuse someone of being "anti-American", as such a position in and of itself is not wholy inappropriate, or wrong. Yes, they should treat things neutrally in the articles, but using an anti-American bias as a position for editing articles is not inappropriate, and is not wrong. --Puellanivis 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A good suggestion. And yes - while accusations of being anti-American may well be correct, in my experience they are rarely helpful and serve only to inflame the situation (as do most accusations of being anti-whatever). They should be thus avoided. I have not examined all the contributions of the users involved in this dispute to see who (if anyone) made any such allegations, but it's not in the best interests of the project to do so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• First thank you for all the helpful information that was posted here. There seems to be a misunderstanding about Belgian Strong Dark Ale: it is solely a classification for home-brewing competitions. That is, amateur brewers attempt to brew a certain recipe and then are marked on how close they come. This has nothing to do with commercial products. I know that it lists two commercial beers, but, if I call your child "Beatrix" does that change your child's name?
• And for what it is worth: Osgoodelawyer has now apologised for calling our work "blatantly anti-American".

Mikebe 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for pointing out German chocolate cake and educating me on something today - I never knew the provenance of that recipe before. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I apologized to Mikebe, he accepted it, and then his very next edit was to immediately file this complaint asking for my admin privileges to be revoked. That's not really what I'd consider an acceptance. I have apologized for accusing Patto1ro of sockpuppetry without enough evidence to go to a checkuser, although at the time the resemblance between the two users in question and the circumstantial evidence was pointing towards it. Clearly it was imprudent, and I have obviously learned from it. I have also since (prior to noticing this complaint), retracted my accusation of "Anti-Americanism" (albeit someone facetiously). I should note, though, that never did I complain that "Anti-Americanism" was grounds for action (nor do I think I even really accused Mikebe of being "an Anti-American"). In fact, the term "Anti-American" was simply being used to characterize edits made by both Mikebe and Patto1ro as being similar in a certain respect (that is, evidence to bring to a checkuser), when I was asked by another admin what I thought was the evidence for sockpuppetry. While I probably shouldn't have accused Patto1ro of sockpuppetry at the time I did, I certainly do not think it was an "abuse" of admin privileges. As noted above by others, this is really a content dispute that has gotten somewhat personal. As such, any further discussion from me will take place off AN/I. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous Frenchie

Normally I'd take this to AIV, but he's not really been warned in the last week with the full range of templates, and he's written some of it in French. I think this is so far enough over the line you'd need a telescope. For those of you who don't speak French, he claims to have and use numerous socks, says the other user is a dirty facist faggot (huh?) and he will bugger him, asks the other user if he wants to meet up for a fight, and gives the other user's IP address as proof that he can track him down. This was after having been warned fairly politely by two other editors to stop making personal attacks. yandman 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

D'accord, j'ai fait un block de longtemps sur cet utilisateur. Feel free to correct my French, or my block, but I blocked him for three weeks due to extreme incivility and personal attacks. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought 'Frenchie' was a derogatory term? Why is it being used in the title above? (OK, the WP article is now about the western, but how about the urban dictionary definition? Carcharoth 17:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Knowing a bit about French culture I'd say that the term "Frenchie" is moreso viewed as a tongue-in-cheek ref to French people and not so much derogatory. (→Netscott) 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main page

Can somebody please unlock my main page? It has gone three month... --Striver 00:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning on placing fair use images there again? This appears to be the reason your page was protected in the first place. Repeated requests were made for you to remove them and not replace them, but you didn't seem to want to cooperate. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected. I'm sure Striver will adhere to our fair use policy -- Samir धर्म 07:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoe Tay

On November 8, I ran across the Zoe Tay article while doing Recent changes patrol. I had never heard of the person, but the article as I saw it at that time was incredibly peacockish. I put a {{pov}} tag on the article and explained my reasoning on the Talk page. User:Walaha2006 removed the tag and said on the Talk page, "The article is fine". Well, no, it wasn't fine. I explained to the user that removal of a pov tag without discussing the changes was not acceptable, and put the tag back on, but Walaha removed it again, and I blocked them temporarily and tried to explain that repeated removal of the POV tag was vandalism (all right, I admit, I should have gotten somebody else to do the blocking). So Walaha came in with a series of sock puppets to repeatedly remove the tag. I finally decided that I would stop just slapping the tag on the page, and made some rather extensive edits myself, to cut down on the fannishness, to remove some rather libelous comments, and to add "citation needed" tags on a lot of places in the article. Walaha reverted. Since that time, a large number of sock puppets have come in and repeatedly reverted any and all edits made by anybody to Walaha's preferred version. Each one has been indefinitely blocked. But now it's time to sprotect the page, and it's probably not me who should do it. Would anyone else care to look through the history of the article and let me know if my edits are wrong, and if they agree that the page should be sprotected, by someone other than me? Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

After having a quick look through the history, and comparing the versions which are being reverted, I would endorse a semi-protection. Sockpuppets to circumvent Wikipedia policy/practice/guidelines, such as WP:OWN, are covered as reasons to semi-protect/full-protect in the protection policy. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And semi-protected by Sarah Ewart (talk • contribs).[8] Cheers for that, Sarah. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel. Sorry I was a bit slow coming back...I was too busy pondering the article. It's awful! I think maybe it should be chopped back to a short bio stub. Most of it seems to be the opinion of the author and crufty unverifiable rubbish. Seriously, who cares if she liked climbing trees when she was a kid! Sarah Ewart 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, User:Walaha2006 is apparently the latest sockpuppet who has reverted all User:Zoe's edits to Zoe Tay. The most outrageous thing is, User:Walaha2006 is applying for administrator status! Please kindly do something about this; help would be greatly appreciated! OngBS 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The incomplete application is here. It hasn't yet been added to the main Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Cplot socks

I've just been playing whack-a-mole with some more Cplot socks. Several I've indef-blocked after a single edit. I've also semi-protected Tom harrison's talk page. Hopefully I haven't over-reached on anything. If someone feels like double checking and reversing any actions which were over zealous I'd be much obliged. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. That's excellent work StuffOfInterest. Keep up the good work. --ItWillNeverEnd 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

With above post, is this guy trying to give himself away? That's an honest, not flippant question. -Patstuart^talk|edits 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what it looks like doesn't it. What sorts of trolling has this troll been up to? How many articles have they vandalized? --StopPropoganda 05:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on links to my talk page, I see that Cplot's propaganda piece is still on at least five of his sock's talk pages. Is there any policy regarding deleting talk pages of socks so that they don't serve as a propaganda distribution point? The ones in question right now are:

• User talk:ItsALostCause
• User talk:DuckAndCover
• User talk:ItWillNeverEnd
• User talk:StopPropoganda
• User talk:WowYouClownsSuck

Just trying to sweep up the mess from last night... --StuffOfInterest 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Range block assistance

Due to persistent trolling from a banned sockpuppet, User:Cplot, on a certain ISP, we need a range block.

I've reinstated two from earlier this week:

• 70.8.0.0/16
• 68.30.0.0/16

But I think the user jumps around more on other ranges on the ISP, since those blocks were not entirely effective. A list of IP addresses used is here. A whois query shows these net ranges:

• 70.0.0.0 - 70.14.255.255
• 68.24.0.0 - 68.31.255.255

I have tried entering these into the netmask calculator, but not entirely sure what to do with the results and what exactly to block. Blocks need to prevent these IP addresses from creating accounts. The ISP uses dynamic IPs, so the user keeps jumping around to different IP addresses. I have tried contacting the ISP multiple times, but no response yet. Please advise. --Aude (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

First one appears to be a 12 bit mask and the second one appears to be a 13 bit mask. I'm hesitant to block that big of range, but this guy is out of control. It just may be needed. It would be nice to get the new check user request back. --StuffOfInterest 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the ISP was responding to my multiple queries and working with us, then I would be more lenient. But, I'm still waiting to hear something from them. Maybe the two blocks will at least slow him down. --Aude (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably editng from multiple locations...work, home, internet cafe.--MONGO 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of talk pages out there that appear to be storing their manifesto, including both of the above redlinks... Tony Fox (arf!) 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not much can be done about that since it is still obtainable in the article histories. I wish the troll would simply limit his attacks to me and not on others...if he would do that only, it would be an improvement as I am used to having sock armies attack me and have been for almost six months now...what about it Cplot? Care to just pick on me for now on?--MONGO 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, Mongo, Mongo. Were you worried we would stop chastising you and you would start to feel lonely? Not a chance. You put that smile back on your face. And yes, we'll limit it to you, Fred Bauder, Tom Harrison, Aude Vivere, Tbeatty, Regebro, NuclearUmpf, StuffOfInterest, Morton Devonshire, and a few others. But no one else. How about that? --ItsALostCause 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take that as an admission. Mole whacked. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Goodlief trolling RfC

Goodlief (talk • contribs • logs) registered and somehow has found his way to the RfC page wherein he has commented on a number of user conduct RfC's, sometimes with inflammatory comments. He's placed comments in the wrong section of RfC's and is reverting changes I make as a result. I view his behaviour as trolling, but would like someone uninvolved to look into it -- Samir धर्म 07:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like trolling to me. I just gave him a warning.--MONGO 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He's continuing to do so. I'm blocking him for 48 hours, but as I initiated one of the RfC's in question, I leave this up for review here -- Samir धर्म 07:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He's been leaving comments at numerous Rfc's and he just registered today. A 48 hour block is more than acceptable.--MONGO 07:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone fix his unilateral copy-and-paste move of Humor (his first edit)? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done -- Samir धर्म 07:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... "WoW, the inside of Wikipedia is horrible. I'll stay on the outside and just use it instead..." sounds like we need to block him indefinitely and impose his leaving the project.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indef block?

Judging by his first <100 contribs, this guy is acting a way which perfectly defines "troll". His/her first edit(s) were to unilaterally copy-and-paste move humour to humor - this debate, whilst only settled recently, was one of the most bitter I've ever read. His/her next action was to disrupt RfC - how on earth does a "newbie" find RfC so quickly, and understand how it works? Not only that, but a number of his/her comments were extremely disruptive and inflammatory, and he/she also (deliberately) removed other peoples' comments, admitting he/she'd never read the RfC anyways. Finally, to cap it all off, some more trolling at User talk:Samir (The Scope). I'll leave it open to you guys, but I know what I'd do. Throw in the above comment quoted by Ryu, and it looks an open-and-shut case. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 198.144.206.230 - Multiple Vandalisms

Multiple vandalisms in the past hour. Final has been issued. PWdiamond 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please report obvious vandalism to WP:AIV once the user has vandalised despite a final warning, and sign and subst user warning templates. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:74.103.137.166

This user has repeatedly vandalized the page Bardia, as can be seen on the page's history. The user has been warned repeatedly by other Wikipedia editors.

[edit] Ban evasion and vandalism by Eowbotm

Note: This incident was automatically archived without resolution. I am reposting exactly as it appears in the archives. It's a pretty straightforward case and I would appreciate any feedback/remedies you guys can offer.

I thought about taking this to WP:SSP, but decided to try posting here first. Blocked user Eowbotm (talk • contribs) appears to be evading his block with the use of accounts Eowbotm1 (talk • contribs), Eowbotm2 (talk • contribs), Eowbotm3 (talk • contribs), and Eowbotm4 (talk • contribs). All of these accounts have committed vandalism:

Vandalism, POV, and other reverted shenanigans (a lot of which is very subtle)

• Eowbotm1 [9][10][11]
• Eowbotm2 [12][13]
• Eowbotm3 [14][15]
• Eowbotm4 [16](I just now re-added this, is properly cited and should not have been removed) [17][18][19][20]

Evidence incidcating that they're the same accounts (besides the names)

• And an edit indicating that Eowbotm3 is Eowbotm2. [21]
• And edits by Eowbotm3 and Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm, suggesting a link. [22] [23]
• An edit by Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm4, in case more evidence is needed. [24]

I've also found that this user cleared vandalism warnings off his talk pages for Eowbotm1 and Eowbotm4. And just did so again with Eowbotm1 (a day later).

Can we get these sockpuppets of a blocked user who has consistently vandalized on his socks blocked as well? And perhaps an IP ban or something to keep him from doing this again? Thanks in advance. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded by me, as one of his victims Mgoodyear 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:SSP? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't socks of indefinitely banned users just be banned by an admin though? WP:SSP takes 10 days. =/ —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can at least say that WP:SSP isn't necessary for vandalism-only accounts, and if those aren't sockpuppets, they're impersonators, which also violates Wikipedia policy(not sure which, however).--Vercalos 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked all. People may want to review Eowbotm1 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), the other three are unequivocal vandalism-only socks. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you very much JzG. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Block Socks

You've won the battle, but you havent won the war...get down on your knees and take what's coming to you...eowbotmwashere 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And another sock of Eowbotm's gets banned. ^^ —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

58.170.255.90 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) is highly likely to be Eowbotm (talk • contribs). Edits to the Feminism article are consistent with Eowbotm's editing style ("get back in the kitchen" comments). Compare an edit made by his blocked sock Fortunefaded (talk • contribs) [25] with the IP 8.170.255.90 [26]. Would it be possible to get this IP blocked for a more lengthy period of time? —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Lantoka, that ip is more likely to be just another vandal than eowbotm. You can read the main commment on the page for the ip.69.19.14.39 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The above IP was blocked by Malo (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) because it was used to edit on Notapuppetofeowbotm21 (talk • contribs), a sock of Eowbotm. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Man, this guy looks intense...I just tagged maybe 7 more obvious sock puppets(user:notapuppetofeowbotm2, i.e.) What can we do about it?RetrialByFire 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Eowbotm for a complete list. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting block for non-consensus page moves

I am requesting that Yaksha (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) be blocked for engaging in hundreds of non-consensus page moves. There has been no attempt to go through WP:RM, and requests on Yaksha's talkpage to cease the moves have been to no avail[27][28]. Edit summaries claim that the moves are in accordance with WP:TV-NC; however that guideline is clearly in dispute, as is evidenced by Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), which Yaksha has supposedly "agreed" to [29], but such agreement has not seemed to stop continued bad faith actions. Immediate admin intervention is requested, to prevent further disruption of hundreds more pages. --Elonka 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with blocking anyone or stopping any page moves. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) is another admin who has been involved in the discussion at WT:NC-TV and has also supported page moves. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Josiah Rowe and Wknight94 are actively involved in the dispute, as can be seen at the Mediation page, and as such are not in any position to be making decisions about blocks. Further, as admins, both of you should be speaking up to stop non-consensus moves, rather than encouraging unilateral action by what is clearly a secondary user account. --Elonka 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Non-consensus moves" is a blatant mischaracterization that you've repeatedly made with no evidence to support it. Actively involved or not, I can make a recommendation. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, could you spicify which policy was violated by Yaksha? It is not the first time that we see you forum shopping for blocks on this page, therefore each of your complaints should be scrutinized more than carefully. If you dispute Yaksha's actions, why don't you pursue standart dispute resolution procedures? This page is not part of the DR process, you know. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:RM, controversial moves need to be formally requested and debated. There has been no such attempt for the articles that Yaksha is moving -- not even so much as a courtesy note at the series page. As for WP:DR, both MedCom and MedCab are in-process, but Yaksha is proceeding with the moves anyway. I would also point out that the series page had a clear notice at the top of the page showing how episodes were to be named, which, though it had been there for many months, Yaksha removed without any attempt at discussion. [30]. This is clearly a disruptive user who is acting without consensus, and needs to be stopped. --Elonka 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have seen how much damage such unilateral moves can do, I strongly support Elonka - if the users ignores warnings and discussions, and disrupts wiki with moves, blocks are in order.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I must strongly support Elonkas position, there has been a lot of patience towards these unilateral moves and a lot of requests for them to stop. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I support these moves and strongly oppose any block. WP:RM says that moves may be simply moved by an editor if they are not controversial - I don't consider them controversial, since the moves follow WP:D, WP:NAME and consensus agreement at WP:TV-NAME I feel they do have consensus support. In the cases where a RM was used, there have been comments asking why it was needed. I consider one or two editors making a blanket declaration that a potential move of any TV article would be controversial to be a disruptive attempt to slow consensus action by making it as cumbersome as possible. On a similar RM that is going on now, MatthewFenton even went so far as to suggest that each page move should have a seperate RM with a separate discussion (even though there's currently a clear consensus to pass the move). I find it incredibly bad faith on Elonka's part to complain about unilateral page moves and then within minutes, start doing edits and page moves on those very same pages (with a "per ANI" edit summary, even though no admin here has given her permission to move pages back). And neither medcom nor medcab are in progress - medcom was attempted but multiple users, including myself, declined because of Elonka's continued evidence of bad faith. Elonka tried starting a medcab case, but I doubt it will go anywhere either for the same reasons. I don't see potential mediation as a reason to ignore wikipedia guidelines (particularly when, in the absence of WP:TV-NAME, the moves are still supported by WP:D and WP:NAME), if anything I see Elonka's "attempts" at mediation as an excuse to try to get a de-facto "injunction" and try and stop consensus moves. As were her attempts to unilaterally declare WP:TV-NAME "in dispute", even revert warring in an attempt to ad a "disputed" tag. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As a demonstration of good faith, at least two formal requested moves have taken place with in this dispute. One is still in progress, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Proposed moves for episodes of The Wire, the other was Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Episode title RfC 3#Requested move. We continue to establish a consensus over and over again. -- Ned Scott 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement from the MedCom

These page moves have been made unilaterally and without established consensus from all parties involved. This is disruptive to a potential mediation case. However, I cannot endorse a block or lack thereof due to our committee's commitment to remaining neutral in disputes. I do beg Yaksha to please cease her actions until consensus has been reached, and allow the pages to be moved back to where they were for the time being.

On behalf of the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For further reference, please see #Non-consensus page moves. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Demon, might I ask you to clarify your statement? It is being interpreted by Elonka as an official decree that there is no consensus for WP:TV-NAME. It looks to me like you're just saying there's no consensus for this particular group of moves. Please clarify, as Elonka is already using your comments as ammo elsewhere. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Five parties have disagreed to the mediation request. It's no longer a potential case, it's a case awaiting official rejection. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The page moves are not unilateral. Many editors have been helping with page moves since the start of the month. The mediation suddenly popping up shouldn't be an extra excuse for Elonka to complain about them. The moves do have consensus - this much is obvious from the results of the one Request Move entry which i did file (here is the Request Move entry which i filed, after Lost editors insisted there was consensus to not move the articles. We ended at 15 support vs. 3 oppose, and the RM closed with a "all moved"). They also directly follow naming conventions, not only WP:TV-NC (not the convention itself was never under debate, just the issue of whether and how to allow exceptions) but also WP:D. --`/aksha 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've filed in a Request Moves for one TMNT03 episode, where the move was reverted by Elonka. The RM can be found here. Guess this would be a good time to see exactly how far Elonka's claim of my page moves being "against consensus" and "unilateral". --`/aksha 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the request of WP:MEDCOM above, I recommend that this and any further RMs which are submitted by parties to this dispute -- no matter who submits them -- be speedily closed. --Elonka 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? but since when did the MedCom have that kind of authority? You ask for me to be blocked, on the basis that i'm not going through Request Moves to make page moves. So i put one of the moves which you reverted through Request Moves, and you ask for it to be closed?

Exactly what are you trying to do? You complain about my page moves being non-consensus. When all the Request Moves filed so far show the moves to be very much pro-consensus. So you decide it's not good for your case and instead demand us close off the Request Moves?

So moving without Request MOves means you threaten to block me, and moving with Request Moves means you ask for speedy closes? Exactly how are we supposed to get anything moved?

Or is your entire tactic to simply delay the moving until we all get bored and decide to leave?

Seriously, all the Request Moves show clear consensus for moves. Just deal with it and stop trying to stir up problems that don't exist. --`/aksha 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, most of the users participating in this ANI thread so far (including myself, Wknight94, Ned Scott, Milo H Minderbinder, and Yaksha (`/aksha) are actively involved in the dispute, leaving the only outside opinions so far to be those of Ghirla, Piotrus, and ^demon. Additional neutral admin opinions would be appreciated. --Elonka 03:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MAJOR CLARIFICATION

Once again, I am NOT endorsing the pages be one way or the other, NOR do I request that the moves go through a particular medium. However, I am notifying here in addition to at WP:RFM that the mediation has been rejected. I do not see mediation as being successful through our medium. I leave you with this: I suggest everyone involved stop what they're doing, calm down, then try to figure it out again. Massive page moving (whether with consensus or not) is not going to solve this debate.

On the behalf of the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me just drop a clarification in here: A mediator may issue a request to a party in mediation to cease a certain behavior for the good of the mediation; it is not, however, an enforceable directive outside the mediation. Mediators do not have the power to order parties to do or not do certain things; mediations are always voluntary. What a mediator can do, and what this has forced ^demon to do, is close the mediation as a failure, if the parties are not willing to refrain from conduct that harms the mediation. So, to be clear: ^demon was within policy to make the request to cease, and he is within policy to close the mediation. Failure to abide by the mediator's request is not enforceable outside the mediation (Note to everyone involved: If you're trying to get anyone blocked based on this, stop, it isn't going to happen.); it is, however, cause for the mediation to be closed as failed. If the parties are still interested in settling the issue, they'll need to seek an RfC or arbitration.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk), Chairman of the Mediation Committee 02:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sight

Can somebody take a look --Striver 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• It looks like he's been warned to behave himself (User talk:RunedChozo#Comments against Striver). Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I noted this because it speaks very much to the behavior of a group of POV pushers on that article. RunedChozo 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's one thing to note POV edits or collusion. It is another thing entirely to engage in a personal attack against an editor (as you did by insinuating he is part of Al-Qaeda) because you have a content or behavior dispute with them. I'd suggest Striver takes it to WP:PAIN if RunedChozo does it again.--Isotope23 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not insinuate he is part of Al Qaeda, but he is certainly very sympathetic to terrorist viewpoint and propaganda, and he is trying to make a page in Wikipedia into a terrorist propaganda page. This is POV pushing of the worst sort. RunedChozo 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to put the warning template on RunedChozo's talkpage, as I am one in the discussion that has disagreed with Striver a fair deal. I did so because I was hoping he would accept it from me more than he would from one of Striver's supporters. Civility is key.--Rosicrucian 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) WP:PAIN. That one is new to me. Ill use that in the future. Thanks. --Striver 03:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonator? Not sure

While checking the history of an article in DYK, I noticed the page had been moved by a User:Geejo. The guy's been around since late September, and seems to be mostly just moving pages around to new titles, some sensibly and others not so sensibly. I'm a bit leery of taking any action myself given the obvious conflict of interest, but I can see the similarity causing some confusion down the line. Someone else care to weigh in on it? (for the record, I've had this username for a year and a half now, and was promoted to admin status a few months after the creation of Geejo's account) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked as a violation of WP:USERNAME + up-to-no-good account. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instruction creep

Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) and Steve Hart (talk • contribs) have apparently gotten the impression that legalistic and bureaucratic guidelines are a good idea, and that our long-standing page against it should be deprecated. I'm not sure what Steve's reasoning is, but Jeff's appears to be his dissent with the current wording or procedures at WP:CSD, although he has declined to point out specifics. Anyway could I get some comments on the issue of whether or not we should keep avoiding instruction creep? (Radiant) 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to completely misrepresent my argument. At no point did I say "legalistic and bureaucratic guidelines are a good idea," I've merely said that the way we handle our guidelines and procedures are "instruction creepy," and that your tagging of WP:CREEP as a guideline is premature, lacks general consensus, and hasn't been approached properly. I do not know what this has to do with AN/I, honestly, but if you're going to draw attention to my claims, have the common courtesy to be accurate about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to completely misrepresent my actions. It's not "premature", it was three months ago and despite this page being heavily linked and in use, there have been no objections at all in that time. (Radiant) 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thus my complaint. You haven't had any objections because no one knew about it becoming a guideline with minimal discussion. Now that people are noticing it, they're coming out in opposition. That tends to happen. Considering WP:CREEP is linked to less than 50 times and the actual page less than 50 as well, your claim of it being "heavily linked" also lacks merit. It especially lacks links to the various pumps, which is telling. The meta page may be linked a lot, but that doesn't make it guideline here without discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We should keep avoiding instruction creep. El_C 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we should. And we do. But I'm looking at the talk page of WP:CREEP and seeing very little discussion and NO consensus anywhere to make this a guideline. It doesn't matter if Radiant did this 3 months ago, he did it with almost no input from the community. This is the kind of unilateral behaviour that makes me worry were he elected to arbcom. pschemp | talk 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

However, see the second section on its talk page, "Wikipedians who have used "instruction creep"". It shows usage by 36 users - hardly a lack of input. (Radiant) 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they have used it. And possibly did while it was still an essay. But no actually gave input, your claim that use is input on the question of changing this from an essay to a guideline is illogical. Additionally, You are missing that fact that I stated there was no input into the change from essay to guideline, I didn't say no one ever used it. Its the changing of the status with no input that is the issue here. (Not to mention 36 people is a trivial amount on Wikipedia. I'm quite sure our other guidelines have thousands of instances of use. More people believe in the flying spaghetti monster than 36.) A change like this without input or in case without even an attempt to get input deserves to be questioned as inappropriate. pschemp | talk 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just read WP:CREEP and I agree with most of what it says. The bit I disagree with is the last paragraph:

"Page instructions should be pruned regularly. Gratuitous requirements should be removed as soon as they are added. All new policies should be regarded as instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise."

This is a classic case of over-generalisation, and may indeed be an example of instruction creep itself. Page instructions should be pruned when needed, not regularly. Not all new policies should be regarded as instruction creep. It should be easy to identify whether a new policy is instruction creep or not, without assuming it is guilty. It is much easier, and less derogatory, to consider whether a new policy is identical to, or an extension of, an existing guideline or policy, and then subsume the new policy under the old one by merging or redirecting. Slapping the derogatory label "instruction creep" on something is the wrong approach because, as the page says, the efforts are often "well-meaning".

More generally though, it is important to realise that the opposite process can happen. Just as instructions can get so bloated that they are useless, they can also be so excessively pruned that they are equally useless, something I've termed "anti-instruction creep creep" in the past. Maybe WP:PRUNE is needed?

The essence of the argument is that some people want detailed instructions, and some want brief, bullet-pointed nutshells that help them remember things. It should be obvious that the new editor will want something short and clear, the inexperienced editor will want more detailed explanations and instructions, and the experienced editor will want a brief summary with their own annotations added to make it as clear as possible to them. The trouble comes when people start adding what should be their own personal notes (which could be added to an 'examples' page) to the main document, lead to bloat and instruction creep.

It is also extremely important to distinguish between instruction creep and genuinely useful additions to a guideline. Sometimes a logical step is missing from a guideline or set of instructions, and adding it is simply filling in a gap and is not instruction creep. Also, it is invariably the case that someone expanding an instruction either finds it useful, or thinks someone else will find it useful. If you don't find it useful, ask yourself "can I put this somewhere else instead of just deleting it?" and "how can I make sure those reading the main guideline know how to find these extra instructions if they want them?" Carcharoth 15:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hm, considering that we actually don't regularly prune page instructions, I'd say we remove that phrase. (Radiant) 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. I've also commented, with examples <gasp>, at Wikipedia talk:Instruction creep Wikipedia talk:Avoid instruction creep (gah! why didn't that talk page get redirected...), in case those here haven't bothered to go there yet. Carcharoth 15:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Carcharoth's post overall, w/gratitude (can't type much today, you saved me trouble/pain.) Creep bad; essay 2 guideline w/o community support = creep; what prune/regularity?! makes me think bad joke but not joke in this context, eh? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One handy way to avoid instruction creep is to never bother reading the rules in the first place. I haven't. --Cyde Weys 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! A worthy response. But surely you want other people to read the rules? :-) Carcharoth 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this relevant to ANI? AN maybe, but where's the Incident? Georgewilliamherbert 06:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Elaragirl

By User:Firsfron. While I do not dispute - others may - that this is inappropriate, my understanding is that blocks are supposed to preventative, not punitive. The blocked user does not have a history of repeated similar behaviour and in my opinion a few harsh words would have been adequate to prevent reoccurence of such behaviour, or even deleting the page in question. A block was not required, and is in violation of the blocking policy.

I strongly request unblock for Elaragirl. Moreschi 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of the blocking policy. Perhaps I am misinterpreting it. riana_dzasta 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm perhaps flattered to be considered a "Good" admin, this kind of thing is unacceptable and it isn't an isolated instance of incivility. On the balance of things a 24 hour wikibreak is no hardship. I don't know that I would have made the block, but I won't overturn it. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I think that a warning (from an uninvolved party) would have sufficed, that's all. riana_dzasta 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Was she even warned to begin with, though? Also, it seems like she's getting it from some other areas, which may be part of the issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Given this exchange - which got pretty much laughed out of the house - I would also question the absolute appropriateness of Firsfron making this block. Moreschi 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. He's not in a dispute with her. I see no problem with an admin who previously warned someone over something blocking for same. Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people involved in the subsequent discussion thread on Firsfron's comment above, I have to say that I see no impropriety in this block as it may or may not relate to the comment. Plus, while my comments in that discussion thread might be seen in favor of "laughing out of the house", I would not characterize my position on Firsfron's comments in that way. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say the matter has come up (see [31] for a suggestive example). Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that the block on Elaragirl would not serve as a preventative measure, but I do think it is perhaps overkill (even though it's a mere 24 hours). While I have been bothered by the extremely acerbic nature of much of Elaragirl's commentary, she does generally keep it just this side of personal attacks and incivility (and I have to admit that often she puts people in their place). This edit was clearly over the line, though, and if such comments were made by some Joe Schmoe with fifty edits, I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. It's only because Elaragirl is so clearly visible on places like WP:AN (and has her fans), has, I think, there been a real issue with this block. But then, I might argue that being so visible causes the situation to actually be different than if it were a block of just some wanker. In closing (this comment sure ended up being a lot longer than I intended), I'm a wimp, so I'm not going to intervene. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How many times must a user be warned? This user was warned repeatedly by multiple users to refrain from making personal atttacks. See her talk page. This block is not in violation of the blocking policy, and as Mackensen says, it isn't an isolated instance of incivility. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the section in the admin criteria, and while I defend Elara's right to be sarcastic, I am frequently concerned by her comments, and how they affect both her and the person they are directed towards. However, given that there is an ongoing RfC regarding her behaviour, I'm not convinced as to whether a block was necessary. riana_dzasta 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While I hate to do it, I believe Elaragirl may have stepped over the line this time. As Firsfron indicated, she has been warned to be careful in the past. This 24-hour block amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist, and I don't believe Firsforn overstepped any bounds by imposing it. While I enjoy Elaragirl's enthusiasm and wit, I do think that there are limits. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As flattering as it is to be called an "excellent administrator", other parts of the diff in question are clearly unacceptable, and I wouldn't support any overturning of admin actions that have already been undertaken in this case. --Cyde Weys 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And I think that type of strong unwavering comment (exactly the opposite of mine!) is exactly why Elaragirl thinks you're an excellent admin (hope that doesn't mean I'm a crap one). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo what Cyde said. 24 hours is more than I'd've given, but not too much for an obviously unacceptable edit that I'd actually object to it. A mere warning would strike me as slightly ridiculous; I'm sure Elaragirl knows already that given her general demeanour she needs to be careful about crossing the line. Her general attitude I have no problem with, just with isolated mistakes like this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Elaragirl herself has said she won't contest the block, and from what (relatively little) I've gathered about her personality, I think it's because she knows that she's broken her own rules and is ready to take her lumps. This whole thing is pretty much moot. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the input, guys. riana_dzasta 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That edit was over the line. I wouldn't unblock. --Deskana talk 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Elaragirl's style and I think people frequently overreact and incorrectly label her wit, sarcasm and bluntness as WP:NPA violations. I also have some reservations on whether blocking was the best option at this point for the edit in question. However, I can't argue for overturning this block, at this time, for that edit. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Elaragirl often uses sarcasm, wit, and bluntness to good effect. I don't see how edits like "Geogre is a fucking idiot" or others can be mistaken for anything other than personal attacks. Thanks, though, everyone for the review. I think reviewing such blocks is important. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no great opinion on this but I would like to comment that I found there doesn't seem to be any process for a user to appeal a block on a third party. So I wrote my own template, User:Fys/3rdparty-unblock. Feel free to use if you so wish. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Elaragirl definitely overstepped the bounds here. She hasn't been on Wikipedia long enough to know enough about these admins and such, and I think she just based her opinions on that of other Wikipedians. Whatever, I think the block was justified. Nishkid64 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Elaragirl has been very helpful towards me. --SunStar Net^talk 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

...but the 24h block got nothing to do w/ your experience. Nothing wrong w/ having a list of "excellent" and "bad" admins but i'd not call anybody stupid. I dislike me being warned about something i could avoid, let alone being blocked 'cause of that afterwards. We have to be consistent and prove to some people we got no cabal in here. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption on Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 and Talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945

The article tagged as POV by users promoting unnacceptable, pro-Soviet POV (i.e claiming Baltic states were not occupied by the USSR). The whole talk page is full of sources, proving that world community generally regarded Soviet rule as occupation. Despite obvious sources and clear third party opinions [32], users Irpen, Ghirlandajo, Grafikm fr continue blogging the talk page with their own inventions and 'analysis' based on Soviet propaganda myths.

Probably violating Wikipedia policies:

• routinely Wikipedia:Disruption due to WP:OR 'counterarguments' [33]

and refusal to recognise established opnion of the world community/researchers: [34], [35] [36] (claiming Baltic states joined the USSR - this is not acceptable opinion) [37]

• WP:POINT or (Wikipedia:Spam): littering talk page by adding unsuitable Russian propaganda, with no relevance to the 'dispute' [38]. Constanz - Talk 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Constanz, you are fresh from a 3RR block and back to tendentious editing again? I did not add a single sentence to the article in question, therefore your accusations are both misleading and offensive. Please take a note that WP:ANI is not part of dispute resolution process, therefore your message will most likely be ignored here. I see that it was User:Piotrus who advised you to move your disputes to this page, and I think he should be reprimanded for doing so. His previous forum shopping activities are already under scrutiny here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk problem and block

As some may remember, I have been working recently on the problem of the Wikipedia:Reference desk, which as for some time been misused by a few users as a place for general discussion rather than its intended purpose. My first approach was to discuss the use of the reference desk, and appropriate ways of regulating it; these discussions (with some users) were extensive, and resulted in me writing out a personal plan for removing highly inappropriate comments and discussion from the reference desk: User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals. Applying this procedure worked fine until last night, when I removed an entirely off-topic joke discussion. I informed DirkvdM (talk • contribs • count) that I had done this, and he took exception. I spent a long period of time explaning why my actions follow from the spirit of Wikipedia policy and the purpose of the reference desk (see User talk:DirkvdM#Reference desk removal), but he repeatedly reverted my edits even after I made it clear that (in my best judgement) his reversions were disruptive. I therefore warned him that he would be blocked if he continued to disrupt the ref desk. He subsequently restored the comments, so I blocked him for 12 hours to prevent further disruption.

Thus I have failed in my original plan to improve the reference desk through discussion; several other admins have tried before me, and run out of patience rather faster than I did. In my best judgement, drawing a line in the sand and saying "some comments can be, and will be, removed to keep the page on topic" was the only remaining approach. When DirkvdM became stubborn on this point, I couldn't see a better option than to block for disruption. However, I have blocked a generally good contributor for restoring that he believes was legitimate content, and my actions should be reviewed. I would appreciate any comments. Thanks, SCZenz 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (SCZenz (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves))

I think the idea of removing comments by another editor is generally a bad thing, but in the case of the reference desk I would support your actions as it is very easy to get sidetracked with irrelevant things. In order to keep the place in order and useful, the desk must be kept on the point. Each question and topic on the desk should stay within its boundaries else people will not think the desk is actually any use.

In this case, removing DirkvdM's irrelevant and off-topic comment was appropriate and his trying to force it back on, regardless of the purpose of the page was disruptive. It is a case of using your common sense to prevent the page losing focus. -Localzuk^(talk) 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I also concur with the removal and the block. SCZenz made an extraordinary effort to communicate with the user and explain exactly why it wasn't appropriate for the reference desk. As the first place many new Wikipedians go, it is important for it to maintain focus. Dirk claims that we are taking the fun out of Wikipedia, but there is no way irrelevent penis jokes on the reference desk make the encyclopedia better and he does not have an inalienble right to post them as his comments seem to indicate. Thank you SCZenz for tackling this tough area with patience and wisdom. pschemp | talk 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LCs retorts

Surprise surprise! 8-( But Dirk saw it as relevant as he (and I) found ithe Q unclear.--Light current 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, how are the RDs supposed to make WP better? Anyone know?--Light current 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Things that should be removed would include death threats and racial slurs. Bad jokes, while they perhaps shouldn't be made in the first place, certainly do not rise to the level of something to be removed, and blocking a user over such an issue is absurd. StuRat 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree! 8-)--Light current 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCZ has written, and is operating by, his own guidelines on which he has failed to obtain consensus for acceptance. He is acting autocratically and is guilty of harrassment. SCZ makes up the rules as he goes along. Is that how WP works?--Light current 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He is using common sense and a interpretation of our existing policies in order to keep an important area of the encyclopedia on task and focussed. Also, the user was blocked for edit warring with an admin - ok, this block should have been done by a seperate admin and the issue discussed in more detail elsewhere first, but the block did what it was supposed to do - stopped the edit war.

Remember, wikipedia is not a discussion forum - jokes do not come within the purpose of the site. The reference desk is one of the first points of contact for many users of this site and as such should be kept focussed - if it is not, then the site may lose some credibility due to what is in essence silly banter.

I think this is an issue that needs further discussion, maybe on the talk page of SCZenz's proposed guideline page?-Localzuk^(talk) 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on! Thats not a proposed Guideline! Its not been presented as such. Its been presenteted as SCZs Law!. I proposed guidelines weeks ago! SCZ said my guidelines were uneccessary and common sense would do!. So why has he suddenly changed his mind?--Light current 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened is that I wrote out my common-sense conclusions for the benefit of people who wanted to know what I was doing and why. My page is nothing but an explanation of how existing Wikipedia policy (plus a bit of common sense) already covers appropriate use of the reference desk, and what to do about inappropriate use. -- SCZenz 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As I ve said so many times (but you were obviously not listening) Your common sense is NOT necessarily the same as other peoples. Get it yet? So you need to get consensus to ensure that a common sense of common sense is achielved!. Understand it yet?--Light current 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind WP:CIVIL, theres no reason to shout. semper fi — Moe 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bold text is emphasis. THIS is shouting 8-)--Light current 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samir

Guys, it's okay to have fun on the reference desk, as it's okay (and recommended!) to have fun elsewhere on Wikipedia, but please keep the conversations close to the topic at hand. A lot of users turn to the reference desk for answers to legitimate questions; it undermines the role of the desk somewhat if they end up with an irrelevant commentary in an attempt to be funny. I wholeheartedly support the intent of SCZenz's actions -- Samir धर्म 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do feel bad that DirkvdM was blocked, though. He helped me immensely on the reference desk a couple of months ago, and I've noticed that he's given some exceptional RD answers to other questions -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad about it too. -- SCZenz 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the next time this comes up I might be tempted to file an arbitration request to settle this damn issue once and for all. Do you imagine a real reference library would staff its front desk with children (or child-minded adults) making potty jokes? Thatcher131 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I once encountered at a large and famous public library, a pair of reference desk librarians, middle aged ladies, who chortled to each other with off-color remarks about a serious info request. It was pretty disgusting and I have not been back. Edison 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a valid comparison. If Wikipedia was paying us, we might be willing to put up with a humorless and autocratic environment, but they are not. StuRat 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pay peanuts... Actually I think the RDs get a damn good deal from the RD editors. THe only payment we get is a few jokes (not many of them now)--Light current 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem. What we see as a plea for simple decency you see as humorless and autocratic. Do you see a way to address this without handing it off to arbcom? Thatcher131 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the solution is to bring such issues up at the Ref Desk talk page, discuss them there, then come up with a consensus for a solution. This is the method which was working, with a few bumps here and there. But, since SCZenz didn't like how we were handling things, they chose to decide, without consensus, both what is appropriate and when an inappropriate comment rises to the level of requiring removal. I don't consider having any one person deciding such things to be appropriate, whether they are an Admin or not. StuRat 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. What do you mean by simple decency? Whose standards would you be using? Yours, mine or someone eleses?--Light current 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole consensus discussion is a red herring. I'm not in favour of removing content from the RD, but IMO it's come to this because people have been so stubborn about defending indefensible contributions. IT'S A WIKI. Every single page belongs to the WikiMedia Foundation, and we release every single character we type to the GFDL. This means articles, talk pages, userpages, and the RD. Users generally have dominion over our userpages out of courtesy, not because we own them. But anyone can edit them. The editing or removal of on-topic talk page contributions is frowned upon because it defeats the purpose of the article talk page, which is to achieve consensus on the content of the article. The RD is not a talk page. Our every contribution is not sacrosanct. We are working towards solutions to individual problems posed as questions by individual posters, and as such, off-topic contributions are subject to removal. They haven't been up to now, but now they are. It doesn't need a change in policy, and it doesn't need consensus. It's as simple as that. IT'S A WIKI. Anchoress 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Im very sorry to have to say this, and its not an attack, but I find Anchoresss comment totally neutral and unhelpful in every way! It does not advance the discussion 8-( Really sorry! No offence! 8-( --Light current 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is a talk page. Let's look at some of the differences and decide where the Ref Desk falls:

ARTICLE RULES
===================================================
Don't sign posts.
Make any changes you think improves the article.
Rigid format rules (ie, for "References" section).
Length is limited by deleting redundant info.

TALK PAGE
==================================================
Sign all posts.
Only add to the talk page, except for archiving 
 and removing abusive language.
Lax format rules.
Length is limited by archiving.

StuRat 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with arbitration for this; I think this can be handled at the admin level, which is what I've been trying to do. Unless other admins have concerns about my approach, I'm perfectly happy willing to continue removing inappropriate comments and (if necessary, and after due warning) blocking those who restore them. I don't think what I'm doing needs to be endorsed by ArbCom to be valid—but if other admins think having a statement from authority is preferable to my current approach, then I'll go along with that. -- SCZenz 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely support what you are doing, without arbcom endorsement. I might suggest an intermediate step of banning a problem user from the reference desk for a period of time, under threat of block, so they can edit elsewhere for a while. But if bans are the only way to get the point across that this is the community consensus (or at least admin consensus) then so be it. Thatcher131 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins deciding unilaterally to block people is not community consensus, and should only be used for severe abuse of the Ref Desk, not for telling a bad joke. StuRat 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The block was for the repeated and disruptive restoration of the irrelevant discussion, despite a clear warning. There was no consequence for making the joke except removal with a polite note—as indeed there should not be. -- SCZenz 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a direct consequence of removing the comment, as no block would have occurred if you hadn't started the revert war then escalated to a block when you were unable to convince the user of your POV. StuRat 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCzenz 's actions were not unilateral as so far they have been supported by every admin who has commented on the page. Obviously then, there are people who agree with him and he isn't acting in a vacuum. I don't think arbcom is needed here either. Nor does it have to be an admin who removes inappropriate comments. "You're taking the fun out of Wikipedia" is an immature argument for leaving irrelevant penis jokes on some of our most public pages. pschemp | talk 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's unilateral in that it was decided before asking for the opinions of others. And, frankly, I bet Admins would support one another against the user community except for extremely blatant and obvious abuses. This isn't exactly surprising, as the question boils down to giving Admins more power and Users less power. As for anybody being able to remove a comment, that would allow the original user to restore the comment if they disagreed. However, when an admin removes your comment and you put it back, you get blocked, this is the issue. Your comment that SCZenz's actions are "supported by every admin who has commented on the page" also contains the hidden assumption that only the opinions of Admins matter, and all comments from the general user community (including regular Ref Desk contributors) can be ignored. StuRat 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his explanation page has been there a while and other people have looked at it and agreed with it. You didn't know that, but it was discussed before action was taken. Therefore the actions was not unilateral. pschemp | talk 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The proper place for the discussion was the Ref Desk talk page, where it was discussed, and I don't believe there was any consensus reached that SCZenz should start deleting any comments he didn't like. And, in any case, each individual deletion is still unilateral, unless that specific deletion has been agreed to based on a consensus. For example, we might well all agree that death threats should be removed, but an Admin removing a statement that "bin Laden may be killed soon" would still be unilateral, because we have not agreed that this was a violation of the "no death threats" policy. StuRat 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

All opinions are important, but I think we especially value those from people who contribute to the Ref Desk regularly. After all, you guys are the ones actually doing the work of answering the questions. But don't you think some of the less-than-relevant commentary could be toned down a bit, StuRat? It's one of the things that personally turns me off the reference desk also. I see a lot of medical questions that I could answer, but they often devolve into joke-cracking threads that I feel somewhat silly adding to. -- Samir धर्म 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that irrelevant silliness should be limited. However, this is not the same as saying we should start censoring the contributions of others, and most definitely not the same as saying we should start blocking regular contributors. This type of overreaction is more of a problem than the irrelevant silliness ever was. StuRat 08:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying is, if a user adds content to the reference desk that's bad for Wikipedia, I have no right to take any action? -- SCZenz 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not unless it's really horrendous, and it wasn't, in this case. Put it this way, which is better, to have that joke removed and Dirk banned, or to leave both alone ? StuRat 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering just this one incident, it would be better to leave the joke. However, your argument will apply every single time the reference desk is used inappropriately. In the big picture, it's better to draw a line somewhere and insist that the reference desk not be misused. Dirk's decision to disrupt the reference desk to make a point about me being a despot was his own... and the consequences were what I warned they would be. -- SCZenz 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"It takes two to tango". That is, it was your decision to remove the comment, and yours to block him for restoring the rather innocuous comment. These actions seemed to be more about your pride than improving Wikipedia. StuRat 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gandalf61 comment

My I add a comment, as a non-admin but long standing Wikipedian and regular RD contributor ? SCZenz is acting on his honest belief that the RDs need to be regulated and cleaned up. He has put some thought into this and has written up the standards to which he thinks RD questions and answers should conform. He has started to enforce these standards by deleting responses, and sometimes whole threads. Unfortunately, he does not have time to patrol the RDs regularly, so his deletions have a sporadic and ad-hoc quality. His actions are also encouraging victimisation of certain RD contributors by others - see recent discussions on the RD talk page. If there is concensus that SCZenz is doing the right thing, then there should be no need for him to patrol the RDs on his own. Please help him set up a process to regulate the RDs properly by applying an agreed set of rules regularly, consistently and fairly. The current vigilante situation is very unsatisfactory. Gandalf61 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

Samir, note that if the deletion of inappropriate stuff becomes policy any medical questions would be removed, so any answer you gave would also be removed. Be carefull when judging something you haven't felt the full brunt of. For this reason who should decide ref desk policy should be determined by how active they are at the ref desk, not by whether they are an admin. DirkvdM 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the block is a minor issue (actually, I now notice the block has already ended). What's at stake here is the nature of the ref desk, and any discussions about that should take place at the talk page there. About SCZenz's behaviour, may an admin use his powers (in casu blocking me) in a discussion he is one of the original parties in? I thought that was not allowed. On my talk page I've split the issue in four subtopics: what should be allowed on the ref desk, whether that applies to me and LightCurrent, how should any misbehaviour (when that is defined) be dealt with and if SCZenz is allowed to decide that on his own (ignoring the fact that there is still a hefty discussion going on about this at the talk page).

Oh, and since that term was again used here, it was not a penis joke. It was an amusing misunderstanding followed by clarifying info. A joke is something you come up with and I didn't come up with it, it was something amusing that happened to me. But like I explained on my talk page, I wonder if SCZenz has a hidden agenda. He says he wants to remove off topic remarks. But he doesn't do that (consistently). In stead he seems to just remove stuff that doesnt' please him personally, in casu a subject that has to do with a reproductive organ. This is selective zero tolerance. Very dangerous. Rules should be applied systematically, not at someone's whim. And for that there should be rules in the first place. Let's first establish rules for the nature of the ref desk and how to deal with them. I'm rather tempted to start removing all off-topic remarks at the ref desk, to show how disruptive non-selective zero tolerance would be. But I won't be so childish (yet). :)

Btw, SCZenz, do you report all your deletions to all the people in the sub-thread? (And is that at all do-able?) If so, I'm surprised this is the first time you've deleted anything by me, considering I make loads of side-remarks and you claim to have been doing this for a long time already. (So you must have been doing it very selectively then.) DirkvdM 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and you don't always warn people that you removed their contributions. As would indeed be impossible, even with a bot. And that is rather a major issue here. DirkvdM 11:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding complaints that I'm selective... I'm one person doing my best. We're all volunteers here; articles with no references get improved when someone have time, hoax pages get deleted when people notice them, admins are promoted when bureaucrats get around to it. Doing the right thing is still the right thing, even if it can't be done consistently. I have been removing primarily the most egregious examples of off-topic remarks, not indeed in the hope of getting them all, but rather in the hope of illustrating by example what kinds of discussion is definitely outside the purpose of the reference desk. In the long term, I have no intention of being the official reference desk "censor." I'm trying to draw a line in the sand, in order to help bring things back under control. The reference desk is off course, and helping it come back is a matter of applying existing policies, not arguing about new ones. And the reason other people aren't joining me in doing this is, frankly, that I can handle it myself and they have other things to do.

Regarding my "hidden agenda"... Yes, the fact that it was a juvenile penis joke is an aggrivating factor in my view. Talk about all the sex organs you like if it answers a question, but if new users think they're going to randomly have crude jokes thrown at them when they ask something not related to sex, it will intimidate them and keep them from using the reference desk. That's not okay, and Wikipedia not being censored doesn't mean I have to pretend it is. We don't censor content... but we're not talking about content here, now are we? We're talking about a pointless joke.

Ok, that's it for me commenting in this section, unless something else goes wrong. A number of other administrators have reviewed my actions (more than have commented, almost certainly) and I have yet to receive any word from them that I'm taking the wrong approach... so for now, I'll keep at it. You can make pretty speeches here some more if you want, or ask for more general and organized feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment... but as that page says, it's not a step to take lightly. -- SCZenz 17:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoes input

As an admin who frequently posts on the Reference Desk, I think the deletions and the block were completely out of line. SCZenz does not own the RD, and it is not his/her responsbility to police it. The Reference Desk is, indeed, a fun place, where there are a lot of jokes, but it is also a serious place where lots of questions get answered. Dirk's comment was hardly over the line, and, in fact, was probably perfectly reasonable. I strongly oppose SCZenz's actions, and would suggest taking it to the RD's Talk pages before repeating them. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This surprises me. However, without administrative consensus, I will not continue as I have been. I've tried to clarify my actions and the reasons for them on your talk page. -- SCZenz 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk. SCZenz and I have had a discussion on our Talk pages, and we are looking for further consensus. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, that you would be selective was a bit too specific, but the point I was making is that unless this is done consistently there is the risk of unfair selectiveness. To avoid this, it would have to be done by a larger group of people. And to avoid people getting too upset about it, it would have to be done by consensus and we're a long way from that. So far you haven't done too much deleting (you're nowhere near deleting all the of-topic remarks), and you've already got LightCurrent, StuRat and me, three of the most active people on the ref desk, on your neck. Step it up and the ref desk will become one big edit war zone. Don't step it up and you're being selective. The deletion at hand here was one that was much less off-topic than a whole lot of other stuff, so why did you delete this specific one? If you keep this up I will be tempted to start a revolt by applying your rules (your rules!) consistently.

You talk about getting the ref desk back on course, but we've both started working on it just over a year ago, and it was the same then as it is now, which is part of the reason I liked it so much.

And for the last time, it wasn't a juvenile penis joke. It wasn't a joke. And the other half was informative. But you have now confessed that that was the (extra) reason for deleting it. And that is what I mean by 'selective'.

As for the opinion of admins, like I said, it's the opinion of people active at the ref desk that counts, irrespective of whether they're admins. People need to know what they are talking about. DirkvdM 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The only people here who know about the ref desk are LightCurrent, StuRat, Anchoress, me, and to a lesser extent Gandalf 61, Zoe and you. And between the seven of us, there is not quite a consensus. Actually, most agree with me. DirkvdM 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that people who don't edit the ref desk aren't fit to comment? You are bascially saying Samir and others don't know what they are talking about. If you are going to wield such accusations you may want to do so in the open. Personally I agree totally with SCZenz and just because you Stu and LightCurrent think irrelevent penis jokes are an appropriate thing does not make you correct. pschemp | talk 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't been paying attention. We all agree that certain Ref Desk content may be inappropriate. What we disagree with is that an individual Admin has the right to decide unilaterally which content that is, remove it, and block any user who happens to disagree. And yes, we do feel that people who actually contribute to a project should have more say on the rules for how that project is managed than those who never, or only rarely, contribute. This is because it's very easy to come up with strict rules for others, so long as those rules never apply to you. And, if you never contribute to the Ref Desk, then those rules don't apply to you. StuRat 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like to say, in the spirit of standing up and being counted, that I don't have any problems with penis jokes (relevant or otherwise) on the RDs either. And also to point out the SCZenz's proposed criteria for deletion are far wider than just jokes - his criteria for deletion include "comments that are off-topic, opinion, or argumentative". Gandalf61 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

AAAAAARGH!! There was no penis joke! DirkvdM 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't turn into that sort of pissing contest. I regularly work the reference desk, and I happen to agree with the practice of trimming out the really off-topic potty humour. You're welcome to be funny (within reason) if you're also being helpful. Otherwise, do try to remember that the Ref Desk is one place where a lot of new people may get their first exposure to Wikipedia, and that filling it with in-jokes and off-colour, off-topic humour is not exactly putting our best foot (or best face) forward.

On a related note, I think it's a really bad idea to edit war just to ensure that a stupid joke stays on the page. How, and who, does that help? What's the point of making that effort, exactly? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If nobody does anything to stop this sort of unilateral action by individual Admins, then they will continue with this obnoxious behavior. StuRat 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about if I say I agree with the action? It's no longer 'unilateral' – and how I hate to see that word dragged out every time someone makes a decision – now. Where does the edit warring over Dirk's foreskin (in answer to a fashion question, for goodness' sake!) fit in on your scale of 'obnoxious' behaviour? How does having that comment on the page make the Reference Desk more useful to anyone? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still unilateral in that he didn't ask anyone BEFORE deleting the comment and blocking the user. The most obnoxious part is the block, over what was a very minor issue, if even an issue at all. StuRat 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He did ask someone BEFORE he deleted it. You just didn't know about it. So no, it wasn't unilateral. pschemp | talk 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Really ? Who did he ask about the specific item before he deleted it ? Can you provide a link ? StuRat 06:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not every conversation about this has taken place on Wikipedia Stu. The is no link. 07:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there is no proof that any such conversation ever existed, is there ? Please sign your posts. StuRat 07:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I take strong exception to the suggestion that only those with substantial RD experience can comment on its purpose and direction. But to assuage that criticism, I'll weigh in. I have previously been a substantial contributor at the Science RD, not so much anymore. Besides all the in-jokes about bay-gulls and such, I have found myself turned off by the rather chauvinist tone, whose most extreme form was seen in the thread (previously discussed here) about how a man could force his girlfriend into a sex act she was not comfortable with. I would estimate that at least a third of the "medical" questions there concern male genitals. Let me be clear that I don't propose censoring the RD. I do propose that all RD contributors consider that people from a wide variety of backgrounds see it, and that they address topics with appropriate maturity. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's say this applied to you. We will say a new position is created, called Admin_Judge. They don't do anything but criticize the actions of Admins, delete and undo what Admins do, and threaten and/or block Admins. They make up their own rules for how Admins must behave, the Admins themselves no longer have any say. If they "discuss" things with Admins, it's only telling the Admins how it's going to be, they don't actually listen to anything an Admin says, no matter how thoroughly the actions of the Admin_Judges are shown to be bad for Wikipedia and a violation of policy. Is this something you would find pleasant ? Would you remain willing to work as an Admin ? StuRat 06:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thats a damn good idea Stu: an Admin behaviour review committee made up from non Admins only! Why not put it on the PumP?--Light current 06:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that I have been an editor for a long time, and an admin for a very short time. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you haven't yet been an Admin long enough to be corrupted by the power ? StuRat 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As for chauvinistic questions, we now have two feminists as Ref Desk regulars, one sexually liberal and one conservative, so that should provide balance there. I would suspect that most Ref Desk readers are young males, however, as surfing the web in general is mostly a young male thing. So, we would expect to get lots of questions relevant to young males, who would be uncomfortable asking them in an environment that wasn't anonymous. I think it's a good thing to be able to answer questions like "Is it unhealthy if a male doesn't ejaculate regularly". Note that this question might have been asked by a girl, who is being pressured by her b/f into sex using this argument. I have suggested a separate Sexuality Ref Desk, however, to shield the squeamish from such questions and answers. StuRat 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this question is appropriate for the RD, which is why I stated "Let me be clear that I don't propose censoring the RD." Rather, I asked that this type of question be approached in a mature fashion. And very often, they are handled appropriately already. Unfortunately, there are also occasions in which this does not seem to be the case. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think it's possible to get 100% compliance with any rule, however. This doesn't mean that we should start deleting comments and blocking users for those few "violations", however, as some Admins want to do. StuRat 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem of which would be that one doesn't know what might get deleted unless it's done consistently according to a clear set of rules about which some sort of consensus has been reached. One central problem is that it is difficult to keep track of what is being deleted. The histories of the ref desks are way too long to dig through. If some people start to delete stuff it might seem to others that that is normal behaviour. Including others who don't know or understand the rules (if any). And that will (not 'may' but 'will') result in people deleting stuff they don't like. Coming up with a way to keep tabs on deletions is something that should be done first. We need that at the ref desk anyway, because people probably do it already, considering how much vandalism there is on Wikipedia. Encouraging them by giving the wrong example is a very bad idea. DirkvdM 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder how one could technically track deletions, though. Perhaps any edit where the result is, say more than 100 bytes shorter than the starting length ? That wouldn't be perfect, but better than no check, I suppose. A "D" could appear in front of such edits in the history, where the "N" for new or "m" for minor edit goes now. We could also allow editors to self identify deletions as they do for minor edits. I wouldn't expect them to do so consistently, though, so the size change check would also be needed. StuRat 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justanother's input

I missed the bulk of this discussion but as a regular on the subject board I want to make my feelings known.

Most importantly: While I appreciate SCZenz' desire to improve wikipedia and his efforts to do so, I strongly oppose arbitrary censorship. I, personally, am more than willing to put up with a *possibly irrelevant* penis joke (though it actually did have some relevance) in order to protect my own right to make comments as I see fit (fit as being relevant to the discussion at hand although perhaps not popular with some wikipedians).

Other than that, I think that many, if not most, of the contributors are experienced wikipedians and are perfectly capable of policing the desk and dealing with disruptive influences. But it important to remember that one reason many of us like to hang out there is the jokes and banter. Only a part of the reason to be sure but part nonetheless. The intellectual stimulation and, often the tangents, have value to us. If they don't then we can ignore them.

Also, I think that article talk page rules are not analoguous and do not apply. The purpose of article talk pages is to develop an article that complies with wikipedia policy; it is important that they honor those policies. The purpose of the reference desk is to either answer a question or steer the questioner toward the answer. The postings there, especially on the misc. desk, will often consist of original research and may not cite their sources. That is entirely appropriate. The Reference Desks are their own beasts and perhaps need additional policy developed. If such policy needs developing it must be developed through the normal review process.

--Justanother 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishonen's proposal

I note that User:DirkvdM is down to ascribing a "hidden agenda" to SCZenz, and User:StuRat to assuring us that the views of admins are of no account, since admins "would support one another against the user community" anyway. (I don't think he can read ANI much.) Nevertheless I want to register my opinion that this is a matter suitable for handling at this board, and not the kind of thing Thatcher or SCZenz have any need to involve ArbCom in. And I support SCZenz's actions. It goes without saying that the "user community" involved must feel free to request arbitration if they see handling via ANI as inherently unjust. If everything has been said—and having just read the entire thread, I don't see how it could possibly have not been—is it perhaps time for somebody to put one of those snazzy colored frames and stop-talking headings on the thread? Bishonen | talk 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Geogre's view

On the strange wrestling over talk vs. article pages, the reference desk is a project page. Project pages are like AN, AN/I, AfD, RFA, etc., so that explains the mystery of how they can require signatures, allow some wobbling toward chat, and yet be subject to the rules of staying on topic. Ultimately, we're back to the problem of Internet discussion in general: it takes two people to go off topic. If no one answers, applauds, or condemns the silly jokes and chat, if no one tries to answer the troll questions, then it all stops. When, however, two or three people have the same interest in chat and/or play, then their habits can overwhelm the original purpose, and that's when it becomes appropriate for the other folks to show up and 1) urge, 2) cajole, 3) enforce topicality.

The RD pages have always been prone to "christians are stupid i think dont you" questions and "fags is going to hell" questions, as well as "I am taking a trivia test in a bar and I need to know who invented World War II." These questions invite smart aleck responses or adolescent banter. For the most part, the participants have an internal sense of when they're going off the beam, and therefore trolling questions tend to get no answers. However, because everyone is always new at Wikipedia, eventually those questions will find their own level, attract offended and amused and bored folks.

I agree with the rest of the site showing up to ask RD to stay on topic, but I think it's bad that we've gotten to the point where it becomes adversarial. Generally, RD has stopped chasing the bouncing balls without adversity when a gentle reminder comes in. Like chatter, belligerance takes two sides and bad timing. I think the intentions of David and SC are both pure. The way forward is for more folks to go to RD and keep an eye on when we start frolicking in the meadow and gently reminding each other that we need to stay on task. If it's fifty voices instead of a campaign, the chances of offense are lower. Geogre 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another late comment

My view is that there is a need to keep the Reference Desk from going off-topic and discussing irrelevant stuff. There should be a set of agreed guidelines put up for review to attain consensus, and then the opprobrium of those that don't like this won't fall on one user. If this feels too much like instruction creep, make it a general set of guidelines covering any 'desk' or 'noticeboard' (eg, WP:AN, WP:HD, WP:RD). I also think that any admins and users regularly involved at the RD should talk to each other to get changes in the culture of 'jokes' and such like stuff. But those admin regulars at the RD should not get involved in blocking to 'control' the RD. Instead, they should post a notice elsewhere (WP:ANI?), asking an uninvolved admin to judge when a block may be required. Carcharoth 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for additional help

Just want to echo the comments of those who've asked for additional experienced editors to help out at the RD. There's a bit of an ongoing clash there, with people arguing that it's more important to not have censorship than it is to keep the reference desk useful. A couple blocks have been given for people making junvenile sex jokes there, and these blocks have drawn considerable criticism from some reference desk regulars. . Let's all remember that the reference desk needs to be extra friendly to new editors and the general public. More help is appreciated. Friday (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, why are you posting here? We are discussing things quite nicely on Talk:Reference Desk. Do you feel you are losing the argument?--Light current 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that some unfortunate things are happening there. Some good things are happening there too, and I want to swing the balance toward the good. Friday (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We're already discusing a consensus to ban sex jokes. As for there being a clash, we are managing to build a consensus for what is and what is not allowed, quite quickly. I would say half of the issues have now been decided. At this rate, we should be done in under a week. And everyone wants to keep the Ref Desk useful, that's not an issue at all. StuRat 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, that's the first time I've seen anything close to:

"it's more important to not have censorship than it is to keep the reference desk useful"

I must say it looks a bit like you're framing a debate topic out of a discussion. Everyone involved in the discussion wants to keep the RD useful. The question is HOW to make it MORE useful. Once again I must say I'm disappointed, this new twist is polarizing. -THB 10:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Please don't let the talk over there spill over to here. If Friday wants experienced users, WP:ANI is not the right place to ask. I suggest the Village Pump. Carcharoth 10:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand- I only posted it here because it's somewhat related to the existing thread. Friday (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks, harassment, baiting and pestering by user:Oden

User Oden (talk • contribs) has been recently involved exclusive in a controversial activity of challenging selected by him users attacking their images. I put aside for now the issue of the interpretation of the WP:FU policy as good people obviously disagree in good faith on the policy interpretation as well as the policy itself. However, even if one chooses to take upon himself such a sensitive task as implementing a policy for the good of Wikipedia, such task can only be taken with utmost sensitivity to other editors. With a couple of other editors joining what many perceived as a disruptive crusade in whose process the worst attitudes were displayed, several editors opened a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali against one of such crusaders. Notably, the RfC is not about the policy or implementing an unpopular policy but about the unacceptable attitude and abusive Harassment.

Shortly after, user:Oden posted to the RfC this disgusting attack directed at all the involved editors bringing all sorts of unrelated issues that had no relation to what the RfC was about thus substituting tackling the issue with attacking the opponents. And hour or so ago Admin:Khoikhoi (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) who was not involved in the dispute in any way gave Oden a (rather soft IMO) warning reminding of WP:NPA and WP:Harassment policies. Reaction of user:Oden was this barrage of irregular stuff.

When I commented on his response as being lacking the substance, Oden responded by a series of entries [39][40][41] where he baits Khoikhoi and brings up another barrage of irrelevant stuff (see also WP:DFTT#Pestering).

Third party input is requested. --Irpen 07:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

In a RfC the topic of discussion is the editor who is subject to the RfC, but it is also relevant and sometimes even necessary to discuss the past contributions of the other editors contributing to the RfC.

• WP:NPA states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."

• WP:STALK states: "This does not include [..] reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."

• Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".

However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Wikipedia are provided in order to discuss improvements in an article (which might be why User:Khoikhoi reacted so strongly as to actually issue a warning).

Final note: User:Irpen's comment on my talk page (at 6:29 UTC) came after I left my first response and second response on User:Khoikhoi's talk page (4:29 UTC and 6:04 UTC). I must be very talented indeed to be able to see into the future!

User:Khoikhoi has as of yet not responded. I will leave a message on his talk page urging him to comment here. --Oden 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This "response" illustrates the user well on top of the original diffs above. Please check his "comments" at the RfC linked above and match them with his response (along with this protracted baiting of Khoikhoi who rightfully warned the user). It is easy to tell between trolling and proper discussions. --Irpen 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi (who is an admin/sysop) has as of yet not responded. From my first response at 4:29 UTC until now he has made almost 40 edits, so apparently he's online. I have stated on his talk page that his failure to respond stands in sharp contrast to the serious tone in his warning where he threatened me with "blocks with the length being increased each time" (diff). His first signal was that he was to busy to respond (diff), his second that he was too lazy (diff). --Oden 13:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Oden has asked me to provide a comment here. When I saw Oden mention my name in his list of monsters and vandalizers I was quite insulted. I agree with User:Irpen and User:khoikhoi that User:Oden's comments were highly inappropiate. Dionyseus 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I really can't see that Odin has done anything out of line here. He mentioned that we'd all been blocked before, and that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Not a particularly helpful comment, but not a "disgusting attack" either. Note that I was one of the editors mentioned by Odin in his so-called "disgusting attack", and I just can't find any way to be offended. This is really a tempest in a teacup. I guess Odin should doublecheck his comments in such a delicate situation to make sure he won't offend the thin-skinned. But really, Irpen's comments above seem at least as provocative as Odin's. I think all involved should take a deep breath, assume good faith, and get over it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asked to comment, but I shall. Oden has been contributing to the RfC noted above by Irpen, however his contributions haven't been especially helpful. While most editors involved in the discussion have been obviously frustrated with each other and the debate has been quite heated at times, Oden's comments haven't really been about the RfC at hand so much as about policy. For example, he posted a lengthy screed on the RfC talk page about how the RfC has turned into a policy debate, however pretty much the only comments he's made that aren't an attempt to "call out" Irpen have been repeated posts about policy. I don't know if it's intentional or not but he isn't really doing much except to stoke the flames. TheQuandry 03:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I find his comments on RfC to be offensive and incivil, bordering on trolling (comparing block logs, yeah that gives a true measure... <_<). It violated quite a few basic policies and should imho be dealt with accordingly. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:Grafikm_fr's comment:

• WP:NPA (policy) states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."

• WP:STALK (guideline) states: "This does not include [..] reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."

• Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".

--Oden 07:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there seems to be some misconception (User:Grafikm_fr, User:Irpen and User:Sebbeng) that an RfC can only bring scrutiny on the editor subject to the RfC. However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Wikipedia are provided in order to discuss improvements the articles.

On a more general note: the entire process of a Request for Comment regarding a user could be regarded as a violation of WP:NPA, WP:STALK, and also quite provocative. The fact that all editors can be subject to scrutiny only serves to ensure fairness in the process.

--Oden 07:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This so called "response" in which Oden merely pastes verbatim his earlier post is a perfect example of this user's trollish behavior, noted in the initial observation. Sadly, the user attitudes that prompted this complaint does not change. --Irpen 05:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Oden thinks this is acceptable. Wikipedia policy or not, it's painfully clear that some of his comments are down right rude and unnecessary. Nitpicking at the wording of guidelines and policy doesn't change that. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line: all editors participating in a RfC are subject to the same level of scrutiny (c.f. a level playing field). --Oden 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Diffs illustrate that Oden is unable to concentrate on content and constantly comes up with unnecessary, inflammatory ad hominems, which may be classified as harrassment of his opponents. This is no good. If his behavioural problems are well entrenched, they should be dicussed not here, but on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Oden. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The content of a RfC is all of the editors involved. If I interpret User:Ghirlandajo correctly it is OK to bring into question the contributions of a editor subject to a RfC, but not to discuss the other editors who are participating? --Oden 11:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you've got it right. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Update. Within two hours after I posted the above comment, Oden started mechanically tagging all the fairuse images uploaded by me within last two years with Template:RFU. I regard this as harrassing by way of revenge for my comment above. I see that he specifically targets those images that were uploaded by his opponents. While we should continue to eliminate unfree images, the selective and ad hominem approach practiced by Oden is totally unacceptable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note:

• I also tagged one image which was licensed as PD, but which apparently was a copyrighted image, and which User:Ghirlandajo amended (diff 1 diff 2).
• I also removed a fair use image from User:Ghirlandajo's user namespace (diff). Criterion 9 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." --Oden 15:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oden, I endorse these edits. Please don't make it personal, though. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since User:Ghirlandajo is aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding the use of images, I will leave it up to the user to review his upload log. Note: another editor (User:Bogdangiusca) has also tagged several images with {{rfu}}. This editors actions are outside of the scope of this discussion. --Oden 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-consensus page moves

Administrator intervention is requested to stop a few users who are engaging in non-consensus page moves of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of television episode articles. There has been a dispute at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) for a few weeks now. The page is marked as disputed[42], attempts at discussion have been ongoing [43][44][45][46], and the issue is now moving on to mediation. However, a few users, evidently frustrated with the slowness of the process, are declaring premature "consensus" and engaging in large quantities of page moves [47][48][49][50][51][52] [53]. I understand that anything that is moved can eventually be moved back, but we're talking a couple thousand pages here, plus redirects, plus many of these pages are at names which have already been the result of elaborate consensus-building discussions by various WikiProjects, so I think it would be better if we had a complete freeze on these kinds of naming changes for now. The situation has been exacerbated by extreme uncivility and uncooperative behavior: "respond to this crap" [54][55], "bad faith delay tactics" [56] "proposing a poll is uncivil and disruptive" [57][58]. Can I please get a neutral admin to pop in to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and simply say, "Stop with the moves, take it to WP:DR, don't move anything else until it's been worked out"? --Elonka 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Several admins have commented on the situation, but each time Elonka has deemed them "non neutral" because they disagreed with her. -- Ned Scott 09:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the poll were re-run and found in Elonka's favor, it would still require exceptions to be established at various places - either a Wikiproject or at an individual page. In fact, it would just require WP:RM to be run for pages which don't meet the current guideline - which is already advisable. The page moves would still be appropriate for ones that have not established exceptions - which is most all of them. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As a note, both Ned Scott and Wknight94 are active parties in this dispute, so don't really count as neutral opinions.

For a recent example of how this group of editors is steamrollering through various sections of Wikipedia, I point to Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987) episodes#Disambiguation, where an earlier naming convention has been attacked, with multiple controversial page moves being pushed through without discussion. The "normal" TMNT editors had earlier this year already gone through several iterations of article naming, finally deciding on a consistent system in February 2006[59]. Then, a couple days ago, as overflow from the dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), an editor from the dispute, in a violation of WP:POINT, jumped in to the TMNT category and started moving articles around, giving only about 24 hours notice that they were going to start [60], and then when no objections immediately surfaced, they proceeded. When the situation was noticed and objections were raised, the talk page has turned into a battleground, as other editors from the NC discussion have poured in. And the pages can't be moved back, because they're editing the redirects to "lock" them[61]. Please, this group of editors is working its way through multiple sections of Wikipedia, making a kangaroo court consensus, and moving many hundreds of articles. We need for these moves to stop, so that normal WP:DR procedures can be followed. --Elonka 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And again we have all tried to explain to Elonka that there is no problem. There was no previous consensus, just some guy went and named a bunch of articles that were a little out of line with WP:NC-TV. No big deal. We moved them, there are redirects all in place, no double redirects, and no rational reason whatsoever to use an article titling method that doesn't fit with WP:NC-TV and WP:D. In all honestly, the only issue here is the users who are making it an issue. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's sentence, The "normal" TMNT editors had earlier this year already gone through several iterations of article naming, finally deciding on a consistent system in February 2006 boils down to one editor who misplaced one note stating his sole preference. No evidence of either "TMNT editors" or "several iterations" has been given by Elonka. Just one guy with one iteration all by himself 9 months ago. This is the type of misrepresentation we've been dealing with for a month at WP:NC-TV. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, us normal TMNT editors did agree upon a naming convention that would dilineate the different series so that you could tell which series you were dealing with immediately. I for one agree with Elonka and I do not like the change to the TMNT pages, especially since we went through a process to get where we were until recently.

Inner City Blues 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka is asking for someone to say "take it to WP:DR" — however, dispute resolution is underway. An RfM has been filed, but is currently stalled after the RfM page itself was locked because of an edit war largely perpetrated by Elonka. (Incidentally, I believe that the RfM dispute is settled, and if a neutral party would like to unprotect the RfM page it would be greatly appreciated — the admins hoping to participate in the mediation have been asked not to unlock the page ourselves.)

What Elonka calls a "kangaroo court consensus" is the result of extensive discussion at WT:TV-NC. Elonka feels that due to some irregularities in an earlier straw poll, no consensus has been reached on the guideline; she is calling for a second poll. However, subsequent to that poll a supermajority of participating editors expressed support for the existing guideline, and the discussion following the poll showed a strong supermajority supporting the principle "disambiguate only when necessary". Most editors on the page consider this a consensus, but Elonka vocally disputes this.

Incidentally, at least five admins have examined and/or participated in the discussion at WT:TV-NC, and all five have agreed that a consensus exists for the current guideline. For the record these five admins are myself, Chuq[62], Steve Block[63], Radiant![64] and wknight94[65](along with many other comments on the subject). Any other participation in the discussion is, of course, welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is all users need to calm down, take two steps back and take a deep breath, all this moving helps nothing; Especially if mediation is to be successful, I advise that it stops until consensus can be achieved. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually "all this moving" is just the result of following a policy, making the naming of wikipedia pages more consistent and in line with WP:D, WP:NAME and WP:TV-NAME. On the other hand, I don't know what insisting that consensus doesn't exist when it clearly does, insisting that an active guideline should not be followed, and trying to change a guideline without consensus via revert warring helps. It's just disruptive. And it should be noted, the guideline is no longer marked as "disputed" (it never should have been in the first place as there wasn't consensus for that addition) and it looks like this issue is not going to mediation. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This thread is now being continued in the below section Requesting block for non-consensus page moves, where I would point out that ^demon (talk • contribs) has posted for MedCom, confirming that these moves do not have consensus, and that engaging in further moves is endangering a mediation.[66] --Elonka 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Elonka have finally found something we can agree on. I also think that both the current RM's should be speedily closed...and all pages moved per the clear consensus on each. As WP:RM says, "Page moves usually take place after five days, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged. Generally speaking, page move requests which have already reached consensus are processed quicker than those which have not." --Milo H Minderbinder 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the editor who did the initial page moves at TMNT 1987, which seems to have set off this thread. I went on an unplanned wikibreak after those moves and have just returned to find all this; I apologize for the delay in response.

I made the moves at TMNT 1987 in the following context:

• The use of unnecessary disambiguation was pointed out by tiZom three months previously, and he made a suggestion at that point that they be moved;
• No one voiced any opinions in those three months, indicating to me that there were no strong feelings one way or the other;
• A study of the talk page history revealed no reasons had been stated for the pages to be named using a non-standard naming convention;
• A further study of the issue revealed no apparent consensus either for or against using a non-standard naming convention for this series; indeed, no consensus-building discussion had ever been started on the issue, let alone completed.

Taking all this into consideration, and feeling like much of my wikienergy lately had been devoted only to talk pages, I took the opportunity to be bold and help improve Wikipedia in this small way.

I was not acting as a "representative from TV:NC," but as a Wikipedia editor. Had another editor, perhaps tiZom, made those page moves, would the present escalation have occurred? If my participation in the discussions at TV:NC precludes me from freely editing and attempting to improve Wikipedia, then how may I officially remove myself from that discussion?

I would like to point out that if any editors feel that the TMNT 1987 episodes should have their own specialized naming convention, why not present the argument at the TMNT 1987 page? If a consensus-building discussion resolves that a non-standard naming convention should be followed, I will be more than happy to go through and replace the suffixes myself. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaching of my privacy

User:-jkb- repeatedly breaches my privacy by revealing of my real name: [67], [68]. I warned him many times: [69] and User talk:-jkb-. I ask for his blocking. -- Zacheus 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... Is there any particular reason you disguised your edits as "fixing a link" or some such? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at [70] you find that before my fix it pointed to nowhere. -- Zacheus 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You created an account that was the same as your real name and someone has realized that the same person operates both accounts? It seems you let the cat out of the bag, not -jkb- Shell ^babelfish 15:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I exercised m:Right to Vanish. Revealing of my real name after I dropped it is breaching my privacy. -- Zacheus 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See pls here. As i do not have so much time as some sock puppets (I have to go on with the Czech Wikisource which is my primary goal, not this), I am preparing a brief report on the user V.Z. and his sockpuppets, but it will take some time. In the mean time: he (all his accounts) has no right to vanish, as he did not left Wikipedie, in the contrary, he is attacking other users again. Thx, -jkb- 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to Vanish is used for bad chosen accounts, not for people only. I wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia, but not under my real name which you use only to harass me, although I asked you to stop it. Many times, but to no avail. -- Zacheus 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

jkb, as Zacheus says, the right to vanish is used for poorly chosen accounts (amongst other things). Do not post personally identifiable information on the site - regardless of how right you think you are - it can lead to blocks. Zacheus, this sort of thing should be reported to WP:OVERSIGHT.

Shell, does the right to vanish not apply here? Regardless of the user's actions, they have a right not to have their personal information posted on the site.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I did not know that. -- Zacheus 07:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

When the personal information is relevant as an earlier account name of said person, that's questionable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Right to Vanish applies only is you wish to leave the project. Otherwise, contributions under your old username may indeed be relevant and worth referencing. --InShaneee 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Consulting the Right to Vanish page, "[t]he Wikipedia projects will delete personal contributors at their request, provided it is not needed for administrative purposes." If this person has abandoned his previous account, then he cannot be accused of sockpuppetry, and thus, there is no administrative reason to include his personal information (including the previous account), if Zacheus is a person notable to merit an encyclopedia article, then this situation is also moot. It is up to -jkb- to either make a case for sockpuppetry involving that previous account with his personal name, or that the person merits an encyclopedia article. Until such time as he is making this case, there is no real need to include that username in any talk page, or article. --Puellanivis 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep cool. @ Localzik: poorly coosen name - this is a joke, I guess. The user was an admin-bureaucrat on the czech wikipedia for two years, so I do not think he is that poor to judge what name he choose. And the accounts are notable, as there are dozens of attacks on meta pages, here and on czech wikipedia. The user announced, he wants to stay here ([71]), so I must assume, he will harrase here again as he did after some other annoucements of leaving. And ad Puellanivis: I it is noit up to me. I already showed where this user manipulated the community. The user mus show, that he will not. See e.g. his lies about my - as he says - deleted pages on the Czech wiki (here and some 5 next ones). Thx and follow this sock puppet better, it is your domain not mine, I have to do in mine. PLEASE. -jkb- 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If I understand your poor English correctly you claim that I cannot choose a login name poorly, since I was a long-term bureaucrat. Thank you for your appreciation but I really chosen the bad login name. Before you came to wiki I had no problems. But after you came I am in a deep trouble since you stalk me and ignore my supplications to stop it.

How can merely the accounts be notable?

I did not make any attacs here or at Meta. Please, stop lying about me and be civil. You accused me being a known vandal and this practice is especially incivil. I never heard a word of excuse for your behaviour so far. Now it's time to do that.

I did not harass anybody, especially not you. That's why I cannot continue to harass. So please, stop make such a silly accusations or I have to RfC of your behaviour.

I did not manipulate anybody. If somebody disagree with you, it does not mean he or she was manipulated.

I must not show nothing, here is not the Communist régime. I will resume to edit the articles if you stop breaching of my privacy.

You deleted your pages: "17:26, 27. 1. 2006 -jkb- (Diskuse | příspěvky) maže "Wikipedista:-jkb-" (smazat)" Who is the liar then?

Zacheus is not a sock puppet, since now it is my primary account. I left the account V. Z. altogether since I assume otherwise you would endlessly repeat its former name.

-- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. @-jkb-: your position appears well justified, I will not argue with that. Personal attacks are inappropriate, and expressing that he has done personal attacks before, and continues to do so under a new name is appropriate, even if that previous name is his full name. As an admin-bureaucrat, I certainly think it clear that he should have had sufficient knowledge to judge the quality of his name before he chose it. @Zacheus: Sorry, but it looks like the cat is out of the bag, you should have known what you were doing picking your real name to begin with. Envoking a pseudonym in order to evade people whom you have harassed, and continue to harass after envoking a right to vanish can easily be claimed as sock puppetry. Your Right to Vanish only applies if you lay low, drawing attention to yourself after changing your name and then claiming a violation of privacy due to the mentioning of your previous name is readily apparent as your fault, and I don't see any reason for giving you any remedy at all. --Puellanivis 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You were misinformed by -jkb-. You are the second victim of his behaviour as Mike Rosoft has apologized to me for believing him: "I would like to apologize for my suspicion. - Mike Rosoft 09:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)". I will no longer ask for an apology by victims -jkb-'s behaviour since this would create an endless list. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How was your current account first connected to your old account? If you are the one that said that account was you, then you waived your right to vanish. If he found out through some off-site means, then you might have a case against him, it would depend on the exact circumstances. --Tango 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was done on Meta by Datrio. I asked for his desysopping because there was no reason for checking me. I did not commit any wikicrime by either my old account, or by my new account. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression one part of the situation isn't properly understood by some people here. The identity between the two accounts as such is not at issue. This user did two things in order to gain anonymity: (1) he gave up his old account and started up a new one, Zacheus (talk • contribs); (2) in parallel, he had his old real-name account renamed to an anonymous abbreviation V. Z. (talk • contribs). All he seems to be asking now is that when people have to refer to this old account, they use its current, anonymous handle rather than the old real-name one. This request seems reasonable, as it doesn't prevent anybody of talking about the old account and its contributions. Also, Wikipedia:Harassment explicitly says that proliferation of real-name information should be avoided also in cases "of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives". Since under the current circumstances there's no factual need for anybody to refer to the old account under its old handle, I don't see why we shouldn't follow his request. Unless a refusal to do so were merely in retaliation for whatever disruptive he did earlier, but that really ought not to be the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly explained. Thank you. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Appropriately stated, and I have to agree that someone should be enabled to leave an account behind and start a new one without being claimed as a sockpuppet. But using a cloak of newly aquired anonymity to evade detection and continue harassment, should not be considered appropriate. But again, how was it determined that the two accounts were related? If Zacheus owned his previous contributions, then unfortunately, he has owned them, and those where his signature remained as his full name. There is a lot of difficulty dealing with this matter, as it's a big grey area where it has to be determined where the allowance of personal information that has already been released is appropriate or not. But if Zacheus owned his previous posts, then he linked himself to his old account, which had contained his full name, whether the account was changed to an anonymous initials or not.

This is why the Right to Vanish can be so tricky, because you have to literally vanish completely, or you will end up exposing yourself. I have the same problem in real life after a legal name change, I continue to be confronted with my old name all over my company, because the computer systems are insistant on maintaining a recorad of my previous name, which then shows up everywhere. While I entirely empathize with Zacheus and his inability to shed his previous identity, that contained his real name, I cannot see how blocking someone outright for exposing the previous name is justified. I can only imagine that counselling be sought for the person using the full name, and try and reach an agreement that he would refer afterwards to use only their initials, in order to protect the other person's personal name. After having an admin relate that such a disclosure is not necessary for administrative purposes, then continued pushing of his real name would warrant a block. But without notifying -jkb- that such action is inappropriate, it seems unjustified to block him, since he is dealing with prevously disclosed public information. --Puellanivis 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem of -jkb-'s behaviour lies in the fact that he uses now and intends to use in the future my real name, although the account with this name no longer exists. I have no problem that he used it in the past, but since he does not wish to stop this harassment I see no other solution than to block him. In my view if he wishes to refer to my now abandoned account he should refer by its present name, which is "V. Z."

I personally notified to -jkb- that his behaviour is inappropriate and bannable. But, if you think he should warned by the community as well, I see no problem with that. I don't ask his blocking if he stops his harassment by revealing my real name. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Future Perfect has this one correct, and I find -jkb-'s actions to be borderline harassment. Since all the contribs by User:Vxxxx Zxxxx have been reattributed to User:V. Z., there is no administrative or technical reason to keep the old name around. Pointing out that User:Zacheus formerly operated User:V. Z. is appropriate, and if a case can be made that V. Z./Zacheus has edited disruptively, then go ahead and make it. But there is no reason to refer to the individual's real name at this point and it begins to become harassment. Thatcher131 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just went deeply through the various pages of discussion on -jkb- and Zacheus's talk pages. There is a lot going on there, and it would seem that this was an argument on the cs: wikipedia, which has now spilled into en:, both sides claiming that the other is in the wrong, both having disclosed each other's personal information, and both claiming that it's not their job to do the admin's work of tracking down sockpuppets, etc. They both say that the history is well established in the cs: wikispace, and while I don't argue that it is, there is no reason to expect English wikipedians to be able to access that information easily. I see below someone is asking for a translation of Zacheus's user page, and I think that is appropriate. Having a trustworthy cs: sysop looped in for a neutral point of view that can follow issues on the cs: side of things may be a good idea. But over all, it looks like this is one big mess of a feud, and we don't have the capacity to easily enforce any issues here on en: unless it's in English. --Puellanivis 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, Zacheus released the personal information himself and after changing accounts linked himself to the old account. Because of that, we have no obligation to try and keep his personal information hidden. However, it would be nice to do so simply as an act of kindness, as it doesn't do any harm to use initials when referring to the old account. If -jkb- has a good reason to use the full name, he is entitled to, however it appears he's actually doing so simply to annoy Zacheus (I'm not going to even try and decide if Zacheus deserves it or not, I don't really care), which is not allowed under WP:HARASS. So, to summarise, there is no privacy violation here, but there might well be some harassment going on (possibly both ways). --Tango 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective at checkuser, where this first came up last week, Zacheus was never trying to hide the fact that the renamed account User:V. Z. used to be his real name and belongs to him. For example, he has used the Zacheus account to change his old signatures. Since his actions are obvious to even a cursory check of his contribs [72] [73], I think the main point here is to keep his real name off of google searches and so forth. In that context, I can't see any reason to continue using his real name except to keep the drama going. Thatcher131 23:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While he has never tried to hide the rename, he seems to have a practical misunderstanding of the ability to perform a Right to Vanish. I agree that avoiding his full name would be on good standing to avoid this whole issue, but Zacheus has made repeated edits to archived public information. After a sysop or someone corrects his edit, he then decries them as violating his Right to Vanish (after returning the archived information to the original state.) Zacheus would have us perform a massive system wide %s/User Name/U. N./g on every page, and remove his mistake of using his full real name in the first place. Rather than detract prying eyes from his relation to V. Z., he has made a concerted effort to bring those prying eyes to the issue, and would like to see the entire RtV policy rewritten to be a requirement, rather than a best-effort. The RtV policy page on metapedia says in fact itself that no one can really guarentee the RtV exists at all, it's simply asking for a best-effort from people to follow it. As such, people should avoid using the previous name in new content, and Zacheus should avoid damaging archived pages. Both should stop harassing each other, and just let the issue die. As such Zacheus has very few edits that are anything but a campaign against -jkd- and -jkd- has vew edits that are anything but a compaign against the other. If either insists on continuing this behavior, either should be banned temporarily, whether they are underlyingly justified or not. Neither is working towards a solution. --Puellanivis 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As Thatcher131 put it I have no problem now if somebody says Zacheus = V. Z., because Datrio has breached my privacy by revealing this fact and this can be no longer hidden. But I do have the problem if somebody says V. Z. is Vxxx Zxxx, since the account Vxxx Zxxx no longer exists and has no edits. Saying V. Z. is Vxxx Zxxx is thus the plain harassment.

I edited the archived pages because they pointed to nowhere and they used my old handle name. RtV says that people should correct broken links. And I did not harass -jkb-, but only very civilly asked him to stop using my real name. That's all.

I admit that the account Zacheus is one-purpose only, because after my experience with -jkb- I expected his behaviour. I use another account for ordinary work and I don't intend to provide it since it would target of another harassment. If you banned the account Zacheus (for what reason?) it would prevent me to use this another account legally. Thank you.

I really do wish the solution, but I don't know what else I should do. I asked him. To no avail. That's why I asked for his blocking. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about your interpretation of Right to Vanish. I think if he wants to change archives (merely to change his name Vxxxx Zxxxx to V. Z., that is fine. Of course, it leaves a trail a mile wide to his current name, but it would have the effect of making his name difficult to find on a casual google search. I helped him change the checkuser case archive with his name on it, and I don't particular care if he changes other archives, as long as he is only doing the name change. He should not be changing pages in other user's space, but I would also prefer that jkb not use his full name. He was kicked off the cs Wikipedia under his full name, but he has not done anything here to hide from or avoid so there is no reason to use his full name here.

On your other point I agree wholeheartedly. I have obtained a partial translation of his user page and he is replying, in Czech, to other users on cs with whom he can no longer converse since he is banned there. If Zacheus wants his right to vanish to be respected, he should stop importing drama from cs. Thatcher131 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to protect his privacy, but is there any reason we don't simply ban this troll as well? Zacheus clearly has no intention to contribute anything useful to the encyclopedia. Since his banning from cs, he's continued to troll here and on Meta, continuing uncivil language, wasting our time, and done nothing useful. And we already know he's a troll (banned by the cs arbcom). Any objections to blocking him? Dmcdevit·t 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add I have a personal problem with Dmcdevit·t, because I have criticised him off-wiki. His speedy intention to ban me may be affected by this reason.

Dmcdevit·t frequently accuses me being a troll, but did he have any proofs for that? I ask him for WP:CIV and to WP:AGF. I was always civil; if you don't wish to waste your time with problems of others, resing as a sysop. It is not a duty to be one. If 700 mainspace edits is not useful, what would you consider as useful? And please, if you refer to decision of two my enemies as decision of the ArbCom, consider as well that I was the bureaucrat for two years. It is too short period for you? -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm wishy-washy on it. On the one hand, if he stopped using his user page to carry on the drama from cs, I'd be willing to leave him alone to see if he will become a good contributor. His prior account V. Z. (talk • contribs) has over 700 mainspace edits, which is not a lot, but not chicken feed either. On the other hand, part of his arb case involved rather serious allegations of privacy violations on his part, and he hasn't done anything since he arrived here except carry on the cs drama. I certainly wouldn't stick my neck out to unban him if someone else banned him. Thatcher131 04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My response here: User talk:-jkb-, -jkb- 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take any decision of Czech ArbCom with a reservation as you would take any decision of Communist court. They routinely blocked my attorneys, they routinely blocked even me. They months did nothing and then suddenly gave a verdict. The accusation was so poorly written that I was not able to defend myself. I could continue very long time about actions of this exemplary kangaroo court, but I don't any reason since no one from here wishes to end reign of terror on cs:. Last but not least: the verdict was anonymous. -- Zacheus 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TerriNunn

User:TerriNunn is apparently completely oblivious to the concept of encyclopedias, and has repeatedly insisted on List of bisexual people that people who are allegedly bisexual should be included "to let the reader decide", that NNDB is a reliable source, and that the concept of Wikipedia as it stands is narrow minded, "There does seem to be a prevailing mindset on wiki that can't cope with grey areas, the elusive, complex, fugitive, difficult. Nothing can exist as it is, it has to be squeezed, mutilated, distorted, have parts lopped off, until it fits into neat compartments. We should be reflecting the complexity of human behaviour and desire, not developing a willed and distorting case of tunnel vision.".

She has refused to accept WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABLE, "Notability" is hardly an objective category. It is the expression of a particular set of power relations (read any theory of ideology since Marx). Verifiability (see article on Vienna Circle for the limits of that idea) - 98% of life is in the realm of the not-yet-verified, partially verified, tentatively put forward on partial evidence, partially falsified, as well as the unverifiable. What is to count as evidence? Is that decision verifiable? Who decides?).

Basically this user seems to want to turn Wikipedia into a dumping ground, and that all Wikipedians who think otherwise are stupid:"I am not saying that Wikipedia is narrow - I am saying it shouldn't be narrow. It's motto should be Here Comes Everybody. And I am saying "If your evidence is bona fide, then provide it, and let the reader decide" Treat people as grown-ups".

She has called me a bore for asking her to stick to policy (WP:NPA), and is being unpleasant to people for insisting on the same thing. She keeps screaming about people "policing" Wikipedia, and she's severely pissing both me off and every editor she has come into contact with so far. Can anything be done? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't do that do that per WP:BLP - nothing controversial. And if anything is controversial, being bisexual certainly fits the criteria. I wonder if the BLP board could handle this one. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see a separate issue here - if this isn't Terri Nunn, then we have a WP:USERNAME violation (in the prohibited section: Names of well-known living or recently deceased people, such as Chuck Norris or Ken Lay, unless you are that living person. ) I've posted a note on her talk page asking her about it. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My question was "answered" by the user blanking her talk page and replacing all content with the words "Welcome" and "No." I'm going to take that to mean she's not Terri Nunn, and have indef-blocked her per WP:USERNAME. Let us know if she resurfaces under another name. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Ewart

She protected my User page after she placed a sockpuppet accusation sign on my user page. She provided no evidence of sockpuppetry and blocked me as well. I asked others to remove the sockpuppet sign as seemed to have been my right but now they can not since she protected my user page. Sarah and I have had conflict ever since I started editing and it seems wrong that she was the one to block me and mean spirited of her to force this on my user page when I am blocked and can not edit anyway. She also protected my talk page after she got it the way she wanted it[74]. She seems to have manipulated the system in such a way as I can not even complain without being in breach of her block; a block which has no basis either. Canuckster

• Good for her. See Canuckster (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Ottawaman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Thatcher131 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sure looks like Canuckster (talk • contribs • logs) is the one trolling. Sarah's actions look entirely appropriate -- Samir धर्म 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Going to endorse Sarah's actions as well. You'll have to show me a lot more to convince me that Sarah has acted in a way not appropriate. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe Thatcher performed a CheckUser. So good for her. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since she thinks I am Ottawaman and he has been blocked indefinitely[75], where does that leave me? I'd like to see some proof that I am Ottawaman, especially since it's a lie; it's not right to make accusations without evidence. Canuckster

I said that based on the comments of the CheckUser clerck User:Thatcher131. Maybe you'll be needing to have a look at his report. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there. Clerks shuffle papers, I don't have access to the checkuser function. I made the same determination Sarah did, that Canuckster and Ottawaman are the same person, based on their single-minded focus on smearing Michael Ignatieff and style of edits and edit summaries. (AFAIK, JohnnyCanuck is VaughanWatch, a different banned user obsessed with a different Canadian politician.) Ottawaman was blocked for trolling and incivility, extended to indefinite when he created another sockpuppet account and used it to fraudulently certify an abusive RFC against Sarah. Canuckster is now banned for a week for more trolling. To Canuckster I suggest sitting out the rest of the week without editing from IP addresses to evade the block, which was well deserved. When the block expires, hopefully you can be a productive and cooperative editor. If you insist on continuing to try and smear Michael Ignatieff or harass admins who are just doing their job, you will quickly join the ranks of permanently banned editors. Thatcher131 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at CSD

Essjay suggested I mention this here so I am: the backlog at C:CSD is huge, and some admin help is needed. Anyone who can help would be appreciated. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

When isn't the backlog at C:CSD huge? :) I once gave a shout over at #wikipedia, which seemed to work a little... riana_dzasta 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I did all 90 or so of the images, but ten minutes later, a whole new bunch appeared. Blurgh. Proto::► 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sarah Basse off to a bad start on 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy

Hi, we have a new user who is off to a bad start. She appears to have signed up today so some of the 3RR diffs are from her IP. They are: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6. She has reinserted the same series of paragraphs into various places in the text and has been reverted by myself, User:Gadfium, and User:CharlotteWebb. She has also approached other editors on the talk page with a distinct lack of good faith (see "Third party campaigning" and below on talk) and has accused User:Gadfium of ...trying to obstruct the truth. There may be legal implications." I don't know if this is now some kind of legal threat, but her edits, and justifications are IMO POV-pushing and abusive. I've suggested, perhaps too soon, semi-protection of the page to Gadfium, however to his credit, he suggested compromise. I don't want to WP:BITE, but I think now there needs to be some intervention from an uninvolved admin to explain to her the need for NPOV and civility, and the 3RR rule. <<-armon->> 11:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• A warning or explanation on her Talk might have helped, I have now left one. If this continues she can be blocked briefly and if necessary the article semi-protected, but hopefully some calm discourse, combined with letting her know how Wikipedia works, will have the desired effect. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Puneetsquare blocked

I just blocked Puneetsquare (talk • contribs) for 24 hours for persistently adding a non-notable person to Stockdale High School despite warnings not to. For the next 72, I'll be sparse around here, so can I have a few others watch this article? The user was operating through IP addresses for a lot of yesterday (presumably while at school) so the block probably won't really hold in that sense. Also, the user's most recent action before the blocking was to install pop-ups and turn-on the ability to revert easily, so I would guess that the intention is to keep reverting any people who keep the person out of the article.

The person is the very definition of non-notable and probably is the user who keeps adding it. The section that keeps getting added is about a kid (Puneet Singh--note the relation to the user) who wrote a letter to the editor that was published in a local newspaper. If anyone wants to add any protection to the article, that's fine too, I didn't feel it was totally necessary for one user's actions right now. Metros232 11:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh good, he's added popups to his monobook page. Now he can revert with hardly a second thought. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TerriNunn again

Further to my point above, User:TerriNunn has started going into all-out personal attacks here - could someone please tell her about what an Encyclopedia's for, and/or block her? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the self-blanking of her talk page and her comments pointed out above, Terri is contemplating wikisuicide-by-cop.. Her response to a perfectly legitimate question about her suspected violation of WP:USERNAME was to blank her talk page, I'll defer to others to take action here but something has to be done. Deizio talk 13:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

She probably deserves an indef for the WP:USERNAME violation, but even beyond that, the diff Dev920 linked above show pretty clear contempt for the concept of an encyclopedia and earlier comments dismissing the concept of WP:V, as well as WP:RS, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:BLP suggests that Wikipedia is not the right place for this person.--Isotope23 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just discovered that she blanked her talkpage before calling me simple-minded - she seemingly does not intend to stop editing. List of bisexual people on which she has mainly argued is one thing, but it seems she has also got a habit of alleging people are bisexual in their articles - her edit summaries and consequent message on the talkpage was full of personal attacks and accusations of homophobia. Nunn appears to be a bisexual on a mission - bring as many into the fold as possible, even if it is kicking and screaming. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked her for the username violation. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

She has returned under the name NerriTunn, and it personally attacking me here, and here. Please, please, could an admin do something. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] admin

Take a look at this. --Striver 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with by JoshuaZ. Proto::► 13:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears JoshuaZ dealt with a previous problem a couple of days ago. I've blocked accordingly this time round. Striver, you could give a little more context when reporting on AN/I e.g. recent editing history and blocks incurred by this user. Deizio talk 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user

Per [76] I blocked User:Leonalewis, who seems to have no aims here other than self-promotion. I think we can do without her. Even if she is hot. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What a case! -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

She loves arson! El_C 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP vandalism - "page replaced with..." and "blanked the page" edit summaries

I've noticed a large number of very similar-looking edits recently (see [77], [78], [79], and [80] for several examples). Having been a bit out of the loop recently myself, I'm wonder if this is new, or has it been dealt with before? Does it strike anyone else as something co-ordinated, or am I seeing patterns where none exist? --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a new feature (I love it!!). Makes it easier to catch vandalism on RC patrol. And now I wish we had a "section blanked" feature as well. Antandrus (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Very nice, thanks for the quick response. I was wondering if maybe it was some vandalbot being flagrant about its activities. But the Wiki itself putting it in there, that's really quite neat. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably him. → Replaced page with 'GAY', Blanked the page, Replaced page with 'dick', Replacing page with 'POOP', etc... -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked User:D dude212 for just that. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)