Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive174

Autoblocked

I am using aol, and it states that my IP address is being blocked. My IP address is 207.200.122.44 . Please assist. CarmenBryan 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You sure that's your IP? It isn't coming up in the block list or anything. —Mets501 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried unblocking you. You can try and edit now. —Mets501 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Try using the secure gateway. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

that link doesnt work CarmenBryan 04:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can edit this page, you are not blocked. Simple as that. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your ip address probably rotated to one of the occasionally blocked AOL ip addresses, and then rotated back out again. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fadix (talk · contribs)

I previously warned this user for comments like these, and his response was "as long as this idiot slap his rhetoric of Armenian this and Armenian that, he'll be answered in kind as it is the only language he understand", for which he was blocked for 3 hours by Danny. Since then, he has made the following comment:

Look dude, what do you think readers will conclude? A user who slander an entire people in every given occasion and dump materials from a known racist website and use it as sole source in one side, and another user who slander that member in particular? Regardless of the policies here? As for personal attacks. Did you see me on this page slandering other Turks? I am even having good relations with Lutherian. Regarding Rauf Orbay, yes! I did not answer you, and for a simple reason, the guy was accused to destroy large junk of materials involving him in the massacres, his aubiography itself is full of praise of the Kemalistic regime and the accusations about him being a traitor have been cleaned up, including by the republic of Turkey. So him being a traitor and wanting to make up things allegedly said by Ataturk is your oppinion. You are not forced to believe him. But I fail to see why someone who was accused of destroying records of the destruction of the Armenians will make up thing to support a position which evidences bringing to it, he has destroyed? Comming back to neurobio? Someone who calls this article trash and hasn't any respect to the entire project which he calls in his namespace a made house, could only be here for a single reason, which he is so good at, that is, slinging here back and forth what he could use as immunition from the website tallarmeniantale. Fad (ix) 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [1]

Please give me advice as what I should do... Khoikhoi 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• If I were a sysop I'd give them a very very strong warning and then block them if they perist. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Senorpescado

I have indefinitely blocked Senorpescado (talk · contribs). I deleted his article, Fresh frozen seafood, as nothing but spam. Coming in as an anon, the user made this edit to my Talk page. I have blocked the anon for 24 hours, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you want other admins to review the block? Proto::► 09:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just reporting here in case anybody disagrees. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Beefjerky dot com spammer

(Moved from WP:AIV)

• 63.239.251.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- persistent beefjerky dot com spammer who's been warned repeatedly across the many accounts he's used. Back again today [2]. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Anon SPA link spamming of Jerky (food). Accounts used that are not shared: 63.239.248.36 (talk · contribs), 63.239.251.86 (talk · contribs), 63.239.248.88 (talk · contribs), 63.239.249.35 (talk · contribs), 63.239.248.90 (talk · contribs), 64.173.197.166 (talk · contribs), 67.120.131.170 (talk · contribs), 67.118.44.102 (talk · contribs), 65.102.75.12 (talk · contribs), 76.210.28.83 (talk · contribs). Potentially shared account: 63.239.248.1 (talk · contribs). Spam blacklisting unlikley -- Meta admins normally require any spamming be widespread across many articles. If you can't block the shared accounts, can you at least semi-protect Jerky (food)?This guy will keep at it as long as Wikipedia links make him money and good Google page-ranking. I've spent hours on this one and I need an admin's help. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I goofed in making this report (see strikethrough); for once -- just once -- this person added a legit link. Nevertheless, I encourage admins to consider blocking these accounts (except the shared one) and/or semi-protecting the article. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I bet we could make a good case for spam blacklisting it. Thats less disruptive than blocking all those various ips or semiprotecting Jerky (food). I'm willing to be the one asking for the blacklist if you'd like. Syrthiss 15:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you -- I would appreciate it. Also see the WP:SPAM link above -- there are other beef jerky spammers you may or may not want to add (this guy is far and away the most persistent). --A. B. ^(talk) 15:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If possible, blacklisting the site would be the best fix. It's been repeatedly added to this article over the last four months, and it's clearly a retail sales site with no real value. Thanks in advance to Syrthiss for taking this up over at meta. -- Satori Son 16:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another block

HowardWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who added Jerusalem Post Radio (a web radio station run from the JP building) and an article on its webmaster, Howard Shroot, plus loads of links to interviews on jpostradio.com into multiple articles. I rolled them back and that left pretty much no links to the site, so it's evidently not one that other editors find worth linking. Anyway, I've blocked him and left a message on Talk, anyone is free to unblock as long as he's indicated he understands the problems and has given a credible undertaking not to start up again. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Elnurso/Babek777

Elnurso recently got blocked for breaking 3rr, however, he just created another account, Babek777, just so he can continue starting an edit war.Here are Elnurso's contrib's: [3] and here is Babek777: [4] As you can see, they are the same person, and Elnurso just created Babek777 so that he could continue blanking out a section of that article. Please deal with him accordingly.Azerbaijani 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on Talk:Dravidian_people and on my talk page User talk:Wiki Raja

• I took this to User talk:Wiki Raja/ARYAN818, and there it stays. This is not the forum for lengthy discourse whihc belongs in dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we allowing a User with an unacceptable User name to edit? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Aryan is a common name meaning "noble". Just because a bunch of nutjobs hijacked the use of the word, doesnt make it "unacceptable". Unacceptable would be like "aryan nation" or "white power" or "black panther".Bakaman 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"818" is Nazi-speak for "Heil Adolf Hitler" (HAH). The combination of the two is not coincidental. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zoel on this. The user name is not only offensive, but promotes an offensive POV. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for coded references to White Power. I note that a check of his user page history shows him as being blocked once already for it. Why it was reversed I have no idea. See here and here for just two examples of the use of 818. Jeffpw 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - You call those reliable sources? A White supremacist site and urban dictionary hardly attest to some sort of racism.Bakaman 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

??? This is getting more weird and eerier... Wiki Raja 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Aryan may be a common name in India, but the user is behaving very intolerant and abusive of other people's ethnicities and heritage. Regardless of whether Dravidians and Ino-Aryans are from the same country or not, does not give one the right to put down the others ethnicity and harrass them. A combination of user:ARYAN818's user name and his attitude is not helping either. This is wikipedia, and we all should respect each other's culture, religous, and ethnic background. That's all I ask. Wiki Raja 23:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for an explanation of the 818 portion of the name on the User's Talk page. If the explanation is not forthcoming, or is not believable, he will be blocked. I personally think he should be blocked anyway for an unacceptable username even if he has a logical explanation, because the name is offensive to other people, whatever the reason he uses it. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I follow this page. Maybe these will help Area code 818 [5]. Prometheus^-X303- 00:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I live in Southern California. I know the 818 area code. I am not asking you or any other person why the user is using 818, I am asking ARYAN818. Please stop giving this user a chance to come up with excuses. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at his talk page you will see that he has already stated that 818 is his area code. Now personally I don't believe him but there is no reason to be short with PrometheusX303 Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. One more point, then I'll go back and sit in the corner. If this is the same person that has the MySpace profile, as evidenced by name, location, and aliases, then his story is set in stone. True or not, I don't see it changing just because he's questioned every other week. PrometheusX30314:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username clearly says Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name.. ARYAN818 has been counseled for more than six months to come up with a new user name. I have given him a week, and then I will block the account. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have difficulty understanding the user's stance here. If someone told me that the combination of my name and my postcode could be interpreted as a racist remark, I'd ask a 'crat to change it straight away. It wouldn't matter that its my name and postcope and I meant no offense. I just wouldn't want to take then risk of people thinking I was trying to be offensive. There seems to be a view that objecting to a username is equivalent to violating WP:AGF, it isn't. The 'oh, it means something in another language' shouldn't be a valid response. If my name meant 'kill all ginger haired people' in another language, it would be inappropriate to use in an international project. That I didn't know that doesn't matter; that there is a real risk of its being taken as offensive does. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Here are some shocking articles I have found in regards to this topic. [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]]

Wiki Raja 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

flaw in anti-vandalism bot

I've already deleted twice an article I wrote. The bot has already undeleted it once. It's obvious that the bot can't tell when an author deletes his own work. The article is Analisis de imagenes=Imagery analysis. I made the mistake of writing the article in the wrong version of wikipedia, and have already started the process of translating and introducing the article into the spanish edition.Radical man 7 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's not a flaw. It's quite deliberate. You did not delete the article, you just blanked it, which leaves an empty shell. We do not want empty, blank articles left lying around. The proper method for what you want to do is add a tag at the top of the article that says {{db-author}}. This is the code for "Author requests deletion" so an admin can actually delete the article properly. Fan-1967 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Just a quick comment - this sort of thing would be far less frequent if the current definition of G7 on WP:CSD were brought up to date. As it stands, it implies that an author only has to blank a page to request deletion. I feel that this needs to be changed to make it clear that authors must use {{db-author}} to get an article G7'd. Tevildo 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thats not always the way it is used though. Fairly reguarly an author blanks and someone else comes along and adds the speedy notice. Viridae^Talk 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• IME pages are usually blanked by new editors with no knowledge whatsoever of deletion criteria, like the one above who thought blanking and deleting were the same. The wording at WP:CSD#G7 does primarily say the author should request deletion. The note at the end simply says we can interpret blanking as a deletion request. Fan-1967 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The bot reverted an Article that I feel was a legit edit. Lenzar 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. It might be better to discuss that further on that article's Talk page, but I suspect a "See also" directed to Indoor Soccer would be more appropriate than removing a large section of this article. I see you've already created a seperate article for Indoor American Football (note improper capitalization) as well. I would suggest putting a {{db-author}} tag on that article for now, and discuss the changes on the Talk page first. -- Kesh 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Javascript alert on blanking?

It shouldn't be too hard to add some code to MediaWiki:Common.js that would detect if a user is blanking an article and pop up a confirmation dialog saying something like:

"You are about to blank the whole page. If you created this page by mistake and want it deleted, please add the "{{db-author}}" tag to the page instead. Are you sure you want to blank the page anyway?"   (OK / Cancel)

Do you think this would be a good idea? -Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It will just get vandals to put the db-author tag on articles they didn't write, and force Recent Changes patrollers to have to dig thru the article history to find out how actually wrote it, and then you'll get somebody arguing, "I was logged in as User:XXX when I wrote it and I forgot to re-log in when I put the db-author tag on it as an anon", or even worse, "I wasn't logged in when I created it, now I have an account". User:Zoe|(talk) 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Worse: if you warn potential vandals against blanking articles, they may engage in less detectable vandalism. The vast majority of page blankings are vandalism, and dealing with the much smaller number of authors wanting deletion is manageable. Fan-1967 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone about to delete as page tagged with {{db-author}} needs to check the history anyway; it's not as it people haven't been placing the tag on pages they didn't create — or on pages they did create but which have since been edited by others, or on pages they did create alone but which are nonetheless encyclopedic and worth keeping — before. You may, however, have a point about the possibility that explicitly mentioning it so prominently might make it a more popular vandalism tool; but we still need to make it prominent enough that legitimate contributors will find it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe more explanitory, such as "You are about to blank a page. Note that this is almost always considered Wikipedia:Vandalism. If you want it deleted, please see Wikipedia:Deletion." 68.39.174.238 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User DXRAW

Would someone versed in the vandalism patterns of User:Dick Witham please check DXRAW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am blocking, because I am pretty sure it is him. Thanks Guy (Help!) 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Dick Witham was blocked only for an inappropriate username, and there's no "suspected/confirmed sockpuppets" list, so I can't see if this editor has already used abusive socks. By the way, there's something fishy going on between this guy and User: The Mob Rules (very probable sock of User: Chadbryant, which would explain why he's so eager to get at what he thinks is a sock of Chad's No1 enemy User:Dick Witham). yandman 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DXRAW is nothing to do with Dick Witham. If you check the edit history of DXRAW you'll see plenty of productive edits. Like many editors on here, he then had the misfortune to encounter Chadbryant who levelled sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet allegations against any editors who disagreed with him over content. If anything The Mob Rules is a clear sockpuppet of Chadbryant. One Night In Hackney 14:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, User:Dick Witham was not blocked solely for his username. It was one of a number of abusive sock puppets being manipulated by the same person. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the history, I only saw the block log. yandman 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits like these make me suspect DXRAW is an ozzie, whereas this looks more like the work of one of our apple-pie eating friends (the Waltons haven't invaded Australia yet). yandman 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Unblocked and apologised. Clearly I got trolled, so anyone who wants to wield the banhammer on the Chadbryant sock has my blessing. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would block The Mob Rules as a fairly obvious sock or impersonator of Chadbryant (if impersonator, it would likely be a DickWitham sock), except I could be accused of a conflict of interest since he nominated an article for AfD for which I !voted "Keep". --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no such compunction. Indefinitely blocked as a blatant sock of a banned user. Proto::► 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

evasion by indef-blocked User:EccentricRichard

Vox Humana 8' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not very sneaky is he? Anyway I was wondering if his edits should be summarily reverted or just his page-moves. — CharlotteWebb 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has just equated my edits to "pelican shit", which isn't surprising, considering he was blocked in 2006 for insisting that "Wikipedia is Communism". — CharlotteWebb 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User is an obvious sockpuppet of indef blocked EccentricRichard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and should be blocked accordingly which will solve the problem. ju66l3r 17:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha...maybe I should read the headline I'm posting under occasionally... /blush. ju66l3r 17:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely. This user is a clear sockpuppet. I invite review of my action. —bbatsell ¿? 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lx

Hi folks! Not sure if this is the right place to report it, but this template needs fixing. It's just a matter of repositioning a couple of braces, but it appears that an admin needs to do it. Tevildo 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed (I think...). Btw, it wasn't protected, so an admin wasn't required. —bbatsell ¿? 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks OK now. I tried to edit it myself and failed; probably just a transient server problem. Tevildo 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Death threat made by 209.7.118.199

This anon user has left a death threat (WHOEVER RE-WROTE MY TALK PAGE WILL DIE A BLOODY DEATH!) on his talk page. Please deal with it ASAP. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Page is now protected per Borg Queen. Syrthiss 18:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

4.21.129.195 five instances of vandalism in one day

I've had to revert Cameron Indoor Stadium repeatedly today because user 4.21.129.195, who seems to be a serial vandal[10], keeps inserting snide references to Saturday's game where Virginia Tech beat Duke. I know the Hokies are excited, but this isn't the place for it, and his(?) talk page indicates that he's been blocked before for vandalism. Perhaps a stronger sanction is needed here? 1995hoo 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. In the future you can take this to WP:AIV. —bbatsell ¿? 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The vandalism policies seemed to point here. I'll bookmark the other. Appreciate the quick help. While I was requesting the block, he edited the ARTICLE to tell me that their win was a milestone. SIGH..... 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks to prevent vandalism to WP:ANI

Just thought I'd inform everyone that I've placed a rangeblock on 67.34.0.0/16 to prevent vandalism to WP:ANI. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just had to block 68.223.0.0/16 too. This is tiresome. I really wonder why people seem to spend so much time trying to ruin Wikipedia. I do hope one day they'll try to use Wikipedia as a source and find their article vandalised. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a short (4 hours or so) Semi-Protection to discourage the IP addresses from continuing their actions? SirFozzie 21:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A prudent suggestion, but this has been going on for over 24 hours now, I had to place rangeblocks last night too. I don't think it'd work unless it was maintained for some time... I don't think we're quite at that stage of vandalism yet. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And now 68.211.0.0/16. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranges blocked for 24 hours to prevent vandalism here

• 67.34.0.0/16
• 68.223.0.0/16
• 68.211.0.0/16

129.33.49.251

Someone from the IP address 129.33.49.251 repeatedly adds the following notice to Patriarch Alexius II and doesn't provide references to his/her statements:

It is necessary, however, to mention that both of these individuals are very politicized liberal figures in Russia (Gleb Yakunin being a defrocked priest in view of his political activity, forbidden for Orthodox clergy, and Evgenia Albats being a prominent critic of all things that are traditionally Russian.) Therefore, there is no credibility to their "reports" as they are not independent observers but in fact are quite strongly agitated ideologically against Russia and, unfortunately, the Orthodox Church.

Given these facts, it is safe to conclude that there is no credible evidence to back up this allegation.

Note: This is a gentle reminder to Wikipedia that this article in its present form contains material slanderous without any proof of a public and very respected persona. It is advised that Wikipedia remove the "Controversy" piece altogether as being without any proof, merit or verifiability (it thus goes against Wikipedia's own guidelines). Wikipedia is gently but firmly reminded that any unproven negative statement about a public persona is slanderous and that the legal definition for this sort of posting is slander. Wikipedia is encouraged to use the Russian version of the article about Patriarch Alexy II as a template for accurate and non-slanderous information.

It seems to go against Wikipedia policy. As (s)he added this twice and the talk page of this user indicates that (s)he used to vandalize Wikipedia earlier, I would like to ask you to block the address once again.Colchicum 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:X9

A new user recently moved Template:X9 into the mainspace and created an article on top of it. Does this go on WP:RM or should this be reported here? I'm unable to move it back as someone edited the redirect after the page move. --- RockMFR 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the correct location. Naconkantari 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

JzG's personal attack

Revision as of 15:54, January 4, 2007 (edit) JzG (Talk | contribs) (->Deep breaths :) - Um, right.) <- Older edit Revision as of 19:20, January 4, 2007 (edit) (undo) JzG (Talk | contribs) (->Deep breaths :) - update) Newer edit -> Line 26: Line 26:

--> Also, you are not hated; everyone is welcome on Wikipedia, and so long as you go about it civilly, we can have these users answer for their actions. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)  :--> Also, you are not hated; everyone is welcome on Wikipedia, and so long as you go about it civilly, we can have these users answer for their actions. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- * Your hysterical outpourings on WP:PAIN are likely to achieve very little other than to ensure that you are dismissed as a crank. Would you like to go back and try again, citing diffs and without the capitalisation? Guy (Help!) 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC) + * I removed your reports from WP:PAIN since there is no evidence of attacks provided. In future please bear in mind that we need, at the very least, information as to where the supposed attacks occurred. I did spend some time looking into it but the only aggression I could find was from you. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

-The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk o contribs).

...Are you asking a question, or what? --Masamage 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Yrgh believes that JzG's comments above are a personal attack and he wants to rant about it! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh yeah. The top of this page says "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department" for a reason. Apparently you know about WP:PAIN to report personal attacks, you can take this there but if all he did was call you a crank, I seriously doubt any uninvolved admins will care enough to block him or whatever. --W.marsh 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this user has made a habit out of accusing... everyone... of personally attacking him (and in a rather disruptive way at that) after he was confronted by multiple editors about a series of dubious edits. He has previously been mentioned on AN/I here. -bbatsell ?? 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And why wasn't anything done about it then? D: And at what point is the community's patience exhausted with Mr. Yrgh?-Ryulong (竜龍) 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also wonderful.-Ryulong (竜龍) 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just marvelling at that myself. --Masamage 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef per that latest ... marvel. Can't say I've ever seen anything quite like that. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, 100% speedy endorse blocking this worthless twat. I wasted Actual Time checking out his baseless report. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Calm down. Of course, I support blocking this user, but it is a personal attack to call someone a "worthless twat". There's no need to start calling people names, even though they are incredibly frustrating. Yuser31415 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've already posted to Guy's user talk page. It seems out of character and I hope that was a typo for twit. Durova^Charge 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • But in reality, it's not out of character at all. [11][12][13][14][15][16] ATren 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yup. --Masamage 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hell freezes over

I'd better put this under a new section. Based on Guy's post above and the subsequent diffs, which do check out, I've left him an imminent block warning for incivility. It's the dead of night in his part of the world right now and he hasn't edited since, so I'll wait for him to log on and respond, but basically what I've said is that I'll block him for uncivil statements he's already posted unless he strikes through certain comments or pledges to clean up his language. I've never blocked an admin before - much less one I respect as much as him - but it would be a double standard if I overlooked this evidence. I welcome the feedback of other users regarding this decision.[17] Durova^Charge 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll support that even, though I feel sheepish doing so. Guy seems like a very good editor, but I read the above evidence the same way you do, especially in light of this. Can't be allowed, even (especially?) from a respected admin. --Masamage 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't support such an action. While I am strongly opposed to editors (especially admins) making uncivil comments, I don't think that blocking is the right way to go about this; all it's going to do is create bad feelings. In this case, an apology from Guy would be suffice, provided he does not repeat his behavior. Yuser31415 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I interpreted Durova's actions as asking for apology and change in behavior first and foremost. The block would only be if he refuses, which would be kind of surprising. --Masamage 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly accept an apology. Durova^Charge 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to an admin blocking another admin. Always have been opposed to this, always will. It's just not ... done. Take it to RfC, even ArbCom, but don't directly block another fellow admin. Yuser31415 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see how a civility block would be anything other than punitive in Guy's case. Guy has had a sharp tongue as long as I've known him, and (1) he isn't particularly more likely to be uncivil in the next x hours than he is in the n hours after that, and (2) I seriously doubt that a block will cause him to change his manner of interaction. IMHO, if people are really concerned about his behavior, engaging on his talk page or an RFC would be the way to go. TheronJ 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can gather consensus at WP:CIV for the exception if you're uncivil and get away with it this policy doesn't apply anymore then I'll strikethrough my warning. The problem editors habitually claim that sysops are a clubby little bunch who violate policy with impunity. Well if none of us get blocked except by ArbCom, then to quote George Orwell All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. If I ever make the same mistake then by all means give me a block warning too, and an actual block if I don't back down. Durova^Charge 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are these editors? I've seen people complain that a few admins get away with too much, but I've never heard anyone but User:Cplot style conspiracy theorists claim admins as a whole are a priveleged elite. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot never made any such claims about administrators being a privileged elite. Cplot complained about federal propagandists on the wiki, many of whom are not admins (for example, MONGO thankfully). Why not try to provide a diff showing something Cplot did wrong. That would be an interesting exercise. --SeePlot 11:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, a WP:SOCK.--Isotope23 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins has no special authority or exemption. The blocking policy applies to them too. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Someone has a bit of a meltdown from dealing with crap, and you threaten to block him? Instead of saying "what's going on, can I help", you threaten him? Instead of providing a support system for the people who end up having to deal with the flood of bullshit that comes their way, we use ultimatums? Sounds great - when someone is buckling under the strain, let's kick them? Durova, I must say, I am deeply disappointed in you. I most certainly oppose your use of ultimatums and threats against one of our hardest-working admins. Guettarda 04:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem ... calm down, please. Yuser31415 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When I saw it in one post I presumed it was a typing error. After I saw it in six more over several different days and conversations I acted. An eighth example has surfaced since then. Durova^Charge 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's an insane thought process, and one that has caused major problems. "I'm dealing with trolls, so I'm above policies!" is the worst thing an admin can possibly say, short of maybe "**** off you ****ing ****er I'm ****ing blocking everyone because I ****ing feel like it". Nothing, at all, should cause you to be placed above policies. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Really. If "inability to deal with stress without calling people names and swearing at them" came up in an RFA, most of us would vote "oppose". And I don't think that of Guy; I think he's a lot saner than the wacko you're describing. --Masamage 04:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. Not sure if I'm even allowed to post here but I found ANI to be a reasonable place so far. From the purely linguistic perspective - twit twat and twot are about the same in the context of heated discussion and certainly in common usage. But I learned English in Northumbria if you can call it English:) I do have to apologise for that in daily life quite often. Whether heated discussion or common usage are allowed from anyone on Wikipedia is still uncertain to me. I deal with it by trying to write really flat and boring in discussion. AlanBarnet 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Howay, man, it's nee big deal, like :o) Guy (Help!) 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with JzG's comments, but ... haven't we learned recently that blocks aren't a good way to deal with personal attacks made by established users? --Cyde Weys 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, we're you're in a little pickle here. We You get blasted for admin cabaling if we don't, and we get into that situation if we do. I'd also like to say that I am utterly confused as to why "twat" is offensive; that's a nickname my mom uses for my sister, and I don't see any offensiveness. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's anatomical slang. According to its article it can also be a form of twit, but I've never heard it used that way. --Masamage 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... okay, that was more than I really needed to know. Just keep in mind that he may very well be using my definition, not an obscene one. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. I expected you to just mouse over that link; it didn't occur to me until just now that you might just click the thing. That's really embarrassing and I'm sorry. --Masamage 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops, I didn't make it clear that I didn't actually click it. I actually caught it in the diff. But I still know what the word means. Don't be embarassd. Have a smiley face. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't include me, because I'm not an admin, meaning I'm somewhat insulated from whatever happens. Yay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda has it right. I realise that it is now all the rage for admins to be the manners police, but while we're going through this phase, it would be nice to remember that blocking people who are not a threat to the project hasn't always been something we expected admins to do, and especially to do casually. I really do appreciate the fact that we're a lot quicker to block trolls and lunatics these days, but we do have a whole dispute resolution process designed for facilitating community input on the behaviour of valued contributors. Jkelly 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more than that. Most of us don't spend much time dealing with troublesome editors. Dealing with them on the scale that Guy (and many others) do is very stressful. If someone has a few meltdowns over a couple months, then maybe it's a sign that we, as a community should be more supportive of them; seeing stuff like that the correct reaction is to say "what's wrong, how can we help" or maybe "take a break from that stuff and concentrate on what's fun". As long as our aim is to retain hardworking volunteers, the correct action is never to approach a good editor like a disruptive troll. If they are feeling the strain, all it does is say to them "your contribution isn't worth shit". It's most likely to exacerbate the problem. The last thing you want to do is come at someone with threats and ultimatums. It will almost certainly fail to produce the desired result. In addition, in general we cut trolls more slack than Durova cut Guy. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. The threats were totally out of line. Guettarda 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He violated WP:CIVIL, and if most of the words I've never heard are similar in definition to his word "twat" (assuming he meant them that way, of course) , he violated it pretty badly. Even then, if I told people to "fuck off", I would most certainly be told to stop in a heartbeat. While admins should not be approached like trolls, they should also not get preferential treatment over everyone else in that respect. And dealing with trolls does NOT justify swearing at people. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he didn't. You violated AGF - maybe you should be blocked for that?? There are seven links provided above. The first one shows no incivility - he says to someone "you have the brass neck to come here making demands? The short answer is: go away". No one says we have to suffer fools. In the second case, there's nothing there that isn't calling a spade a spade. In the third he says "what the fuck"...oooh, my ears are burning, he used a swear word. Hmm - maybe I need to be threatened with a block for my "WFT" higher up the page. In the fourth case, he says to Fys "and I want you to fuck off". Fys has been behaving like an idiot ever since he played chicken with the arbcomm and got them to blink. He's saying "quit bugging me". Not incivil, and it's totally wrong to take it out of context. In the fifth case, again, he is using "fuck off", but seriously, calling that incivil is nothing but prudery about "the f-word". Did you miss the bit about Wikipedia not being censored for minors? And the sixth example isn't incivil, and it isn't aimed at anyone in particular so how can it be taken as anything serious? As for the word "twat" - that tempest in a teapot is nothing more than a collective failure to assume good faith. Maybe you should just block yourselves for violating AGF and be done with it. Guettarda 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... In case you didn't notice, I'm the first one who brought up that "twat" might mean something else. And you are not in any way explaining why what he did was civil, you're explaining why it was justified. Which is good, except that glosses over what I said, that incivility isn't justified, just by the fact that the point of the incivil comment is correct. You can say things which are right in an incivil way. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit summary of the first diff. Anchoress 05:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guys and gals, we are not policing words (Wikipedia is not censored) we are policing personal attacks having significant venom to hurt people. For the Fuck's sake it is absolutely fuckingly acceptable to use the bloody old-English word fuck to emphasize an idea or an emotion. On the other hand it is absolutely unacceptable for an admin to engineer a phrase that would unnecessary hurt people even if the phrase has no colorful words and even if it does not formally violate the principle to comment on contributions not the contributors. I would dare say that in the phrase "useless twat" I am much more concerned with the word useless than with the word twat. Most of the Guy's replies here are examples of using colorful words but not personal attacks. Some might be (although I guess calling a person who delibeartely choose to behave as troll useless should not hurt his emotions. I guess we are better off by examining the situation more careful with Guy present rather than issuing blocks. I trust Durova to discuss it with Guy and to make a right decision. Alex Bakharev 05:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are different from incivility. For instance, while dismissing all ideas someone comes up with saying "**** those ideas" is not a personal attack, it's certainly incivil. Similarly, I wouldn't quite say anything he did constitutes a personal attack, but it does constitute incivility. Enough to block? I don't know. But personal attacks should be cause for aggressive blocking, period. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's space between "friendly and polite" and block-worthy incivility. If we couldn't tell someone "leave me alone" (viz., "fuck off") without the thought police breathing down our necks, then I for one would be out of here long ago. Guettarda 06:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Leave me alone" is substantially different from "**** off". Just because Wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean swearing at someone is less offensive. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't "substantially different". Guettarda 06:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV's "Serious examples" includes "Profanity directed at another contributor." --Masamage 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, which would be "fuck you", not "fuck off". Quit Wiki-Lawyering. This is nonsense. Guettarda 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me some folks need to get a fucking life. Wiki isn't a fucking haven for the fucking language Nazi's and this fucking inane proccupation with "so and so huwt my poow widdle feelings" just shows how utterly divorced from fucking reality Wiki is. Personally, I think Wiki could use a nice case of occassional whoop-ass rather than concern over whether a troll's feelings are hurt, and a nice case of reality when ideas are simply baltently fucking stupid. So, that being said, I suppose Durova will want to block me next for actually speaking my mind. Go for it, I really don't care. Wiki at its worst is simply a nattering bunch of officious, pietistic (Wiki as religion) people worried far less about the declining content of the encylopedia and worried far more about creating the equivalent of a Utopian dictatorship. Just remember, Utopia means "nowhere" and Wiki in many cases exists in a netherworld far removed from the real world. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the aggression, but I'm not wiki-lawyering. I was offering a piece of information to see whether it had any bearing on the discussion; I think your point about the meaning of "directed at" is a good one, so now I'm satisfied. Go back to insulting people who don't agree with you. --Masamage 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To whom are you responding? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda. --Masamage 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is the most useless policy on wikipedia. A little incivility doesnt hurt Wikipedia. Guy's comments were just an outburst of anger, and I've seen good users blocked for even less by the thought police. I myself deal with trolls on a daily basis. On my first month on wiki I was booked by the thought police four times in cases all brought by banned users (arbcom ruling "Hkelkar"). Admins that spend all day threatening wikipedians instead of trolls are usually hated by users that deal with trolls and shouldn't have the "holier than thou" attitude when looking at a situation.Bakaman 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

If admins are to have any authority in preventing the increasing coarseness of discourse here, we must begin with ourselves. However, as much as I respect Durova's opinion on nearly everything else, it's far too early to think about blocking. Some supportive conversation would be very nice, as would offering to shoulder some of Guy's burdens. I'd guess most admins become experts in recognizing and dealing with one or two particular trolls and/or disruptive editors (I have my share for sure). Eventually it wears you down, and I think Guy has taken on more than his share already, so maybe we should let Guy pass the baton on some of his least favorite. We should support him and lighten his load, as we should have done for MONGO months ago. Thatcher131 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all agree admins should not be blocked as they have been chosen by the community to be above Wikipedia's policies. This is the universal view. KazakhPol 06:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody likes a smartass. As a matter of interest, I started an admin misconduct RFC a while ago over violations of block policy that resulted in the admin voluntarily desysopping himself after a wave of negative responses to his behavior. I'm perfectly willing to take strong action at the appropriate time. This is not yet the time for strong action. Thatcher131 06:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the result of the long, drawn out, and heated () debate is that we will wait to see how Guy reacts, and I am 99.999% sure he will make an apology. And then, let's just drop the whole matter, hmmm? (BTW, for the record, this is my 3000th edit.) Yuser31415 06:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen. --Masamage 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, "Nobody likes a smartass." If I had a dollar for every time my dad said that to me... anyway, It's a pretty simple thing, really:

1. Does ZisGuy sometimes shoot his mouth off? Well, prety much yes.
2. Does ZisGuy also work his arse off? Definately yes.
3. Does #2 make #1 ok? Anyone wanting to come right out and say that the rules are different for admins/hard workers/FAC writers? No, I thought not.

I've not seen the bordeline tetchyness JZ has demonstrated amount to any serious problem. Yet. Durova's heavy-handedcomments had the correct idea but were woefully handled. Can we all get back to work now, and deal with this iff it turns into a problem?

brenneman 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it. The rules are different for established contributors, not because they have a license to offend, but because we expect them to revert to form and because we know they're worth investing effort in.

Congrats to Durova for being bold, and for coming here for a san-check before acting. And agree with most of the above, blocks should be preventative, not punative. JDZ made a mistake. I'm confident he'll realise that and lower the temperature in future. If not, then maybe he should hand back his bit. But a punative block is the wrong way to express an opinion. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• If I understand what you're saying, does that mean that we don't accept bad behavior from these contributors, just that we (perhaps) handle it differently? - brenneman 07:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well put. Where a user's only contributions are negative, a perma-block solves the problem and doesn't cost us anything. Where a user is mostly good with some bad, a perma-block solves the problem, at great cost. A temporary block applied to halt a rampage is a thing of beauty. But a punative block doesn't solve anything, and probably costs us dearly. In this case, I expect him to be sensible. If not, well, there are other options. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also one of the admins who puts myself on the front line in terms of dealing with difficult editors. I wouldn't retain much credibility in asking them to be civil if I were uncivil myself or if I countenanced obscene put-downs from another administrator. The strongest thing I have going for me when I handle a hard case isn't the sysop tools: it's integrity. The central question I asked myself is If I saw exactly these words from an editor of equal value to the project who wasn't a sysop, what would I do? It's a tough call - some of you may disagree with it - and I trust that when Guy logs on he will quickly demonstrate through his inherent good sense that most of our worries are needless. And I have to add that the accusation I've acted punitively is a bit of an AGF foul. I thought people knew me better than that. Durova^Charge 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am loving the argument that it's not really rude to tell someone to fuck off. I'll remember that next time someone gets on my nerves. And by the way, Guy is southern English, as I am, and we don't really use "twat" for "vulva" much. It would translate into American as a slightly milder "asshole", I suppose. It wouldn't be very offensive. It has more of a flavour of silliness.

Durova should though be supported here (although no surprises that there is practically a queue forming not to). It's not acceptable for admins to display behaviour that others would be blocked for. They're not above the law. And if you can't deal with twats without telling them to fuck off, maybe giving up dealing with twats would be the best approach. Grace Note 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are punative blocks a useful way to deal with past incivility by anyone, admin or otherwise? I suspect it's like rubbing a puppies nose in 'it', useful if you can do it at the time but harmful if you do it long after the event. The message we want to send is "what you did was not acceptable." A bonus block doesn't help get that message through, IMHO, it distracts. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolitely. Did anyone notice the earlier discussion here and the open case at WP:PAIN? How many times are we going to discuss these issues? Double Jeopardy anyone? If we do it again and again maybe we can make a case for an indefinate block! Sheesh, Guy is clearly feeling it - he was highly active over the holidays and needs some support. Should he swear? No. Will Blocking him after he has left when the diffs have already been raised discussed and dismissed help? Hell no. Does he need some more support from his colleagues? Hell Yes. --Spartaz 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it that the bit of bad faith mud slung at me about punitive blocking still sticks after I already disavowed it? In the unlikely event that Guy logs on and claims he's perfectly right about telling people to fuck off and intends to continue...well then wouldn't it fall within the bounds of reason to impose a block preventatively before he actually does so again? Durova^Charge 07:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what in my edit was slinging mud? Do you really think that we need to discuss this three times? Would it be fair for a start? There are plenty of dispute resolution options available if Guy doesn't heed the request to cool the language down. But a block hours after the event when he isn't even logged in? Will that really help? I doubt it and I don't think that it would calm the situation down. Quite the opposite - we would have carnage if we went down that route without trying our very best to discuss the situation. You know how it works - wheelwarring, RFCs, RFArs everywhere. *Shudder* Spartaz 07:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The diffs date as far back as December 1 and happened mostly within the last week or so. Most of them either use the word fuck or call some specific editor an idiot. If anyone other than an administrator had posted the statements it would be uncontroversial to characterize this as an escalating pattern of incivility. Normally in such cases I would block shortly after verifying the evidence. I have not done so in this instance, nor is it appropriate to introduce wheel warring to this very hypothetical discussion. Your participation in this thread and at my user page has demonstrated very persistent bad faith against me and mischaracterized my actions to the extent that yes I do think it amounts to mudslinging. WP:AGF does not mean that my motives and methods are bad until proven legitimate. I made a tough call tonight regarding a sysop I admire and like, couched it in the most respectful terms I could muster, and disclosed the situation here immediately. Durova^Charge 08:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never posted on your talk page as far as I can remember and its not on my watchlist. Since you are throwing TLAs at me can I ask you where you have AGF with me? Making unfounded allegations of persistant bad faith against you by an editor is far more of a personal attack than what you charactarise as my mudslinging. Please review your post and check you have the right editor. You are completely overeacting to a comment that I don't think is wholly out of line with a significant pov posted in this thread. Blocking anyone without discussing the problem with them is inappropriate in pretty much every circumstance. If you asked Guy to tone it down and he told you fuck off then fair enough but not this so far. I think you are taking this far too personally. Its allowed to disagree - there is no need to get all offended. --Spartaz 08:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I posted that shortly before I went to bed and must have been more tired than I realized by that point. Durova^Charge 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough! This is completely out of line. Not only do we have a huge section of people now trying to get even with Guy but he hasn't yet had a chance to defend himself. Also, before all this biting at Guy began did you for one second consider the rampant bad faith of bringing this issue forward and the blatant disruption that this has caused by now? Those comments that Guy reacted to were completely out of line and he did the right thing. Showing up at WP:PAIN and launching a personal attack of the magnitude that this editor did should be more than enough reason for a good long block at least. End of story, nothing more to see here people. MartinDK 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My God... JzG remarked that someone may be "dismissed as a crank" and it spawned a giant thread started by a mildly offensive body part of a user that turned into a hunt through Guy's contributions for any other past transgressions. Amazing. Somebody has to deal with our twats. Wouldn't a message on JzG's talkpage to tone it down a little have sufficed? I find him quite reasonable. Grandmasterka 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I am appaled at the way things seem to be working here lately. As soon as a grup of disgruntled editors smell blood they hurl accusations and threats at an admin that works his fucking ass off around here. WP:JERRYSPRINGER MartinDK 07:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry everyone, I know that learning to deal with people you consider to be idiots is not optional but somewhere between the nth deletion of tenorically and fielding my fourth angry email from a spammer DEMANDING that he be allowed to continue adding links and articles about his company WHICH IS NOT SPAMMING AT ALL, I think I went over my personal threshold for the number of people-I-consider-to-be-idiots that I can handle simultaneously. My own fault for visiting the firehose of crap. Mind you, I'm not sure I can or should bowdlerise things - if someone does something as stupid as slapping a warning on an admin's talk page not do disrupt Wikipedia by disrupting their disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point to prove a point, I am almost certainly going to continue to say what I think. As anybody who knows me personally will readily tell you, that's my standard response to crass idiocy, even from my friends. Perhaps I should start ROT13ing things, like they do on Ye Shedde (uk.rec.sheds). I'm not going to address the diffs posted above, because I suspect that anybody who cares is not going to accept my version anyway. What was it that Cryptic said? Deals badly with trolls. Plus c,a change, I guess.

All of which brings me back to a comment I made some days ago: we need, I think, a place where we can get peer support without the intervention of people trying to escalate or resurrect thier own disputes. Barberio, for example, had absolutely no call to stick his oar in to the situation with SlamDiego, all that did was to make a tense situation worse and distract people away from helping with that problem (where I could have used a bit of help, and fortunately Hipocrite came along to provide it) and into yet more low-grade Wikidrama. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point about past disputes. What is the correct procedure for handling things when you see an admin (not you in this case) several times over a few months step over the line, generating complaints, but each time managing to avoid showing genuine contrition, but responding in an aggressive "move on" style that discourages people from actually starting proceedings ("oh, it's not worth the hassle"-sort of thing), leading to things going quiet again until the next time?

There will always be a tension between letting sleeping dogs lie (not bringing up past disputes) and wanting to express concerns about a long-term pattern of behaviour that shows no signs of changing. What do you think is the best thing to do in cases like this? Carcharoth 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose RFC would be the correct procedure. ANI threads such as this are far too easily abused by people with an axe to grind, who simply repeat earlier disputes with the person in question even if they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. >Radiant< 11:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and well said. I love these kind of summaries which use no citations as they are cristal clear. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up (R)} 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reaction to SlamDiego, as I had an encounter with him in which I was sorely tempted to block him. I think it is ridiculous that all this fuss is being made about how you handled a troll combative and disruptive editor. -- Donald Albury 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would, in fact, be perfectly happy to accept an apology for bad behaviour and a promise not to do it again. I have no vendetta against JzG, and he does do fine work, but he needs to know when to back off and go have a cup of tea. If you're worked up into a state where you're using foul language and ranting, you need to put down the keyboard. Unfortunately, comments to such were ignored, and my only recourse left was to file it on WP:PAIN and bring it to general attention.

I'm upset that he (And some others) seems to have decided I'm his enemy, I'm not. I was trying to get him to stop attacking people and escalating issues that could be resolved calmly. I'm sure he can so, and just needs to find that admin zen again.

I'm sure that it's all been impressed on JzG now, and if we can settle this with a simple agreement not to use foul language against editors, it's something we can all drop and walk away from. I mean JzG no harm, and don't want any putative actions taken on him, I just want us to be able to get on with editing the wiki in a calm civil way. --Barberio 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 nails it. This is MONGO all over again. The clear message is: take the crap, deal with the trolls and cranks, and if you ever, ever, speak out bluntly or profanely at the shit being shoveled, someone will scream "foul" and either block you or threaten to do so as a punitive measure - or in the case of MONGO, desysop you as a reward for having done so much, so long for Wikipedia that you are at the breaking point. Here's the bottom line: I call a troll a troll. I call a POV pusher a POV pusher. Accuracy is not incivility. Incredibly hard working admins who fight these idiots (Yes, I said idiots, I stand by that) who (the admins, not the idiots) occasionally slip under the strain should have a weighted response. If they have a ratio of 2,000 edits and actions which are civil and helpful to the encyclopedia, and 1 or 2 which are uncivil, to people who are of no or extremely little value to the encyclopedia, then reacting to that as though it were some kind of horror movie scene is Undue Weight. Hear me clearly: between the Giano situation, which is a case of one of the best writers here being driven to what appears to be a defensive running battle, by ADMINS no less - and the MONGO and now JzG situations, where admins have been driven to minor incivility by the sheer volume of crap they have to fight, and the response of a large portion of the community to respond with torches and stakes to the people who are driven to that point not the people who drove them there, I am beginning to doubt the basic common sense of some of the general Wikipedia population. What are you people thinking? Oh My God, someone said a BAD WORD to a vandal, troll, or POV pusher. Well, fuck, I guess we'll all have to go to Time Out and not get cookies. Apparently it is more important to Be Civil at all times than to work your ass off completely uncompensated and have the random moment where it gets to you. Focus, anyone? Perspective? I am not here to promote "Wiki-Love". I am not here to get my narrow, judgmental mind in a tizzy because someone used a Naughty Word. I am here to help with the enormous, challanging, exceptionally special group effort of creating the most amazing knowledge resouce since the Library of Alexandria. Ask yourself, Why the hell are you here? Perhaps you'd be happier on some online community preaching some kind of feel-good pretend pablum than here. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Then let's make it official and put this into policy. If there truly is an exemption for valued users, it should be documented on the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policy pages. I'm being totally serious here - those policy pages are unambiguous in their condemnation of incivility, but the reality is: incivility is justified for certain editors, and that fact should be properly represented in policy. ATren 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? Then either you need to read again, or I was unclear. Punitive blocks for incivility are bullshit, and discussing matters with the editor is always preferred. Consistant crap will get one indef blocked, but occiasional crap does not. This is not a "special rule" this is applying the rules as they are currently written. What is so hard to understand about that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...and if that editor continues to act incivilly, then what? ATren 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Then there's still no call for someone to loudly and repeatedly pointing out the incivility, and spend an order of magnitude more text on that than the size of the actual incivility itself. We shouldn't go around blocking people who are beneficial to the 'pedia. >Radiant< 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But this is my point exactly: this sentiment (that some users should not be blocked for incivility) should be expressed in policy. The current uncompromising text of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA does not allow for exceptions, but that doesn't reflect the reality - which is that a casual editor would be indef blocked for habitual incivility, whereas valued contributors are given a pass. Note: I am not arguing for or against the practice here, only that the practice is in conflict with the stated policy. If the consensus is that there are exceptions to these policies, then those exceptions should be documented somewhere. ATren 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I actually find very little reference to blocking on either page. NPA refers to blocking for legal/death threats, and "in extreme cases" it is "controversial" for users to be blocked for disruption. CIV lists a few suggestions to prevent incivility, several of which are widely impractical and several of which involve blocking (now reworded). I'm not sure where the idea comes from that incivility/personal attacks must in all or most cases be dealt with by blocking, because neither page says so. >Radiant< 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, it's covered by ignore all rules. If the rules hamper the work of building the encyclopaedia (for example by preventing Giano from contributing good content), then we can safely ignore them. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Anyway, it's covered by ignore all rules. If the rules hamper the work of building the encyclopaedia (for example by preventing Giano from contributing good content), then we can safely ignore them. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like your way of thinking because it seems to presume that Guy and MONGO are somehow incapable of self-restraint. Granted they do a lot of good work dealing with editors who frustrate and annoy and attack them. Why does this cause them to use pointlessly inflammatory language like "fuck off" and "useless twat"? If you've ever worked retail then you've stood at a similar "firehose of crap" and probably not told anyone to "fuck off" (which would get you fired). In my view any normal person is capable of this sort of self-restraint. And it would be nice to see everyone use it. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point here to all the people getting upset about "idiots" and "trolls". Why let "idiots" and "trolls" upset you so much? They are, as you say, idiots and trolls. Trolls will be pleased that you are getting upset, and idiots will, well, not really care or understand. Pity the idiots and trolls and dispassionately and calmly block them, rather than ranting and raving at them. POV pushers are another matter, and, in my opinion, a greater threat to Wikipedia, but they are being serious, so treat them seriously and civilly and defend balanced, well-written articles. Carcharoth 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruption is disruption and is just as detrimental to writing an encyclopedia as POV pushers are. Everyone should remain civil as much as possible but we are only human, and if someone is being trolled to death, Wikipedia then becomes just a battleground for them. I am not aware of all JzG has been dealing with, but no doubt, it is not very difficult to understand how disruptive editors can make almost anyone become a bit off center in their remarks. If one doesn't experience it firsthand, they don't really know how crappy this place can be, but the only way to defeat it without laying down the law and sometimes being rude, is to walk away...and that is what the trolls want. I don't condone incivility, but in examining it should be noted that, Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action. Now, again, what JzG needs is polite reminders to remain civil...and he also needs opur support if he is indeed dealing with a constant barrage of harassment...or even if he is simply dealing with a little harassment.--MONGO 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good in theory, difficult in practice. People screaming at you, taunting, mocking...the reason people do it is because it works. Guettarda 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just have to say something here (speaking in general and not in direct response to this thread), I don't see what place swearing at someone has in a serious effort to write and maintain an encyclopedia. Swearing at someone (even someone whose sole purpose is to troll) just enflames the person and gives at least some onlookers the impression that that's an acceptable way to interact with people. It's unproductive all the way around. Blockable? No, but admins have all the tools they need to deal with disruptive editors, how is being aggressively hostile to a disruptive editor going to make them less disruptive? And in the meantime, borderline editors and newcomers will see that there's a place for hostile incivility here, which is a message I don't think we want to send. Rx StrangeLove 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I said it as a reviewer on PAIN, and I'll say it here: JzG's conduct was unacceptable for a sysop, and he needs to be reminded to maintain the decorum expected of the Wikipedia administration. If he cannot conduct himself appropriately, he is negatively affecting the environment here on Wikipedia, and should surrender his status. If he can, well then all's well that ends well. Cheers, * Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'll say it plainly - people who are discussing blocking, or desysoping JzG for calling a disruptive and worthless contributor a twat are busybodies who should review Matthew 7:5. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about being part of the problem, you try being part of the solution? Incivility, especially towards those trying to resolve a situation, is divisive and unnecessary. Cheers, * Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough, that was where we came in. Do you honestly think I react like that when not provoked? It takes a fair bit of effort to get me angry, but one or two individuals seem to have made it a project to see how rude and aggressive they can be before I bite back. As games go it's not a particularly constructive one. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Try to decrease the "temperature" of a situation - not increase it. Sysops should be examples of expected conduct on Wikipedia, and as such, breaches of policy by a sysop are more concerning than those of a normal editor. As such, I feel that you should be reminded to keep such decorum. Do I think you should be desysopped or blocked, or, oh I don't know, tarred and feathered? No. You made a mistake when provoked, all I'm asking is you learn from it :) Cheers, * Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to respond to Chihuahua. If an editor, any editor, is taking shit from another, there are means to deal with it. There is always a cavalry. You don't have to feel you are fighting a lone battle against a "twat". Someone else can come along and knock some sense into them, or help you conclude that said "twat" and sense can never be on speaking terms. No one gets "driven" to it. You don't have to fight a crusade against people who don't get it. You have the machinery to deal with it.

And yes, sorry, if there are punitive blocks for ordinary users who feel put upon by admins and snap, there are punitive blocks for admins who feel put upon by ordinary users and snap. It's better to have the rule of law than the law of the jungle. It's better in my view not to block punitively unless it is a matter of giving someone a bit of thinking space to correct how they see things though. If Guy thinks that the pressure is so much that he needs to abuse other people, maybe a day off to think about it wouldn't hurt. Maybe Guy needs some time away from areas in which he feels pressured. A bit of low-grade typochasing might help him get back on an even keel (I almost wrote "evil kin", which is a worry). He doesn't need blocking to give himself a bit of chilling-out time though. He just needs to figure out that he's let things get on top of him a bit, which I think he's probably well aware of.

And I think Peter also has it right. It doesn't actually resolve the problem with "twats" if you yell at them to fuck off! A bit of fuckoffery could probably be more readily forgiven if it didn't seem to be the first line of defence against editors who upset you but yes, I think we do need stakes and torches for those who aren't willing to try other methods of managing conflicts than simply escalating them. Grace Note 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First there was "Pity the idiots and trolls", now there's the Spanish Inquisition with its stakes and torches. Bah. Like Guy, I have a very limited capacity for suffering fools, and like KC I believe in accuracy. A troll is a troll, an idiot is an idiot, a POV pusher is a POV pusher. Period. In fact this motley collection of trolls, idiots and POV pushers that so many are defending in the guise of "civility" are hurting Wikipedia's reputation. Several of my wife's friends have contacted me asking if there wasn't something that could be done about the banal and inane objections raised by the trolls, idiots and POV pushers, as reading their comments on the discussion pages has turned them against using Wikipedia as a reliable source. None of them, however, had any gripes about trolls, idiots and POV pushers being treated in an uncivil manner, in fact they noted that these clowns are tolerated far more than they should be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And that kind of attitude just gives them an excuse to act the way they do. Just H 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy Chapman needs to get gone from Wikipedia. He has a distinct anti-Catholic animus, inserts his opinions into matters he shouldn't as ad admin (matters about which he knows nothing in the first place), and has trashed the Fish Eaters website, getting it blacklisted for no good reason, and treating its owner like crap in the process. He is rude, illogical, arrogant, unreasonably punitive, hypocritical, unforgiving, and mean. He makes editing Wiki pages a little bit like touring Hell. 75.46.79.200 03:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a Fish Eaters troll. Very nice. Was wondering when they were going to pop up. -bbatsell ?? 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm-hmm... and you think this because of what Chapman says, right? Right. Someone defending her website against accusations of "spamming" isn't "trolling." 75.46.69.90 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Atren

So, as I read this thread, it seems there is consensus that a certain amount of incivility is permitted as long as (a) you have a lot of edits to your credit and (b) you were provoked. Can we make it more clear in policy that incivility is permitted under these circumstances? Because the policy pages seem very clear that it is not permitted under any circumstances, and the reality seems to be not so clear cut. All I'm saying is when an editor visits WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and sees these idealistic, uncompromising statements about personal attacks and civility, they get the impression that these are inviolable rules that can never be broken, when it's clear that WP:IAR applies to civility. I think we should qualify those policies to soften the stance somewhat (especially WP:NPA which is especially uncompromising) to reflect the reality not promote the false ideal. ATren 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have told ATren in no uncertain terms that he was to stop needling JzG over this issue. As you may or may not know, ATren is in a protracted dispute with JzG over the article on Personal Rapid Transit, and is transparently using this time of high Wikistress for JzG to attempt to make his experience here worse. I told ATren in no uncertain terms to stop this reprehensible behavior twice -> [18], and [19]. As demonstrated directly above, he has decided to ignore my strongly worded advice. I suggest an adminstrator take appropriate corrective action to protect one of our most valuable editors and adminstrators in his time of need from ATren's desire to hurt people he has had disputes with. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to hurt anybody. I simply presented evidence on a user with which I have a contentious history. Durova clearly stated that she thought this was an isolated incident, and I replied that it was not, with diffs. Is that stalking?

And now I've made comments that the policy is at odds with consensus here. Policy is unswerving in condemning incivility, but consensus is obviously not so clear. It's clear that a certain amount of incivility is permitted for valuble contributors. So the policy is at odds with practice, and that should be resolved. That's it.

Frankly, I would find it quite ironic if I were blocked for simply reporting incivility here. I'm sure if I were involved in a conflict with another editor, JzG would not hesitate to chime in with his views. Why am I called a stalker for simply presenting evidence? I should point out that I'm not the first to question JzG's incivility, and in fact I didn't even start any of the recent threads. Why am I being singled out? ATren 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

May I address that? In general, the more positive an editor's contribution history is the less intervention is necessary to get them to self-correct. I don't construe that as a license to be rude. Durova^Charge 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Incivility isn't permissable. But it is forgivable. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What does JzG know of forgiveness? Nothing. 75.46.69.90

More than you can possibly imagine. I managed to forgive User:ParalelUni, bit that sure as hell doesn't mean I'm going to let him back in to the project. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

2nd arbitrary section break

If your history consists mostly of vandalism or disruption, then calling someone a "twat" or telling them to "fuck off" should earn a well-deserved block. On the other hand, if you're a hard-working, productive contributor who makes the same comment in a moment of weakness when the Wikistress level hits DefCon 1, then a gentle word-to-the-wise should suffice. Actions should be viewed in context - why else are edit histories public? This is not a "double standard"; it's common sense. Policies actually reflect this - neither WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL specify a punishment (except for egregious cases), but leave that to the discretion of the community. By the same token, Durova is a valued, hard-working, and scrupulously fair editor who's trying to do what s/he thinks is right, by bringing the issue here; going after Durova is also uncalled for. Let's give Guy a chance to cool off; based on his history here, he's earned it, and will learn from this incident. Just my 2-c-. MastCell 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Meh. I'm cool enough now, although I nearly went ballistic after reading Barbiero's sanctimonious bullshit about me having decided he's my enemy - I don't think I'm the one following someone around and stirring up trouble in his interactions with others. He's attacked Nick, Dmcdevit, me and now Radiant - if that carries on he's set to attack one admin too many, and we know where that will end up. I updated the disclaimer on my Talk page anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*shrug* I'm not attacking you, Nick, Dmcdevit or Radiant. I'm asking for some civil behaviour and responsibility, and I hope we can try to get along. I'm trying not to act in a hostile way to you, but making accusations of stalking and using phrases like "sanctimonious bull" make it hard to.

It should not be such a big thing for a well intentioned established editor to ask an admin to moderate their language, or check potentially controversial actions with others before proceeding. Constant review by others is the way the wiki works, this includes admin actions and behaviours. Frankly, I'm confused by some of the admin who are professing otherwise. --Barberio 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reads to me like JzG has decided to ignore you and you're desperate for acceptance. I reccomended you walk away before - I triple reccomend that now. Trust me, you are earning nothing but poop. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I made a tough decision. Guy doesn't hold it against me[20] so I'll respond to the people who do. Quite a few of the negative comments appear to reflect unfamiliarity with my contributions. My respect for longstanding contributors is demonstrated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova and ArbCom has deferred its case to User:Durova/Mediation. Yet I ask the people who wax about Guy's value at this project to consider this[21] and this[22] and this[23] and this.[24] Guy hasn't threatened to leave the site but I'm beginning to worry about Ghirla whose contributions are about equally valuable but Ghirla's not a sysop and considerably less popular. Down in the trenches I'm also struggling to retain another good editor.[25][26] His frustration might not have reached the breaking point if other admins had responded to either of the two reports that got filed here about a very persistent vandal.[27][28]

I happen to believe in Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_diplomatic_immunity and I walk the walk. Over at another arbitration case I apologized and struck through one very mild statement to a troublesome editor I had presented evidence against. [29] Look at how much goodwill that simple action purchased: the same editor is branching out from a single purpose account to become more of a productive Wikipedian and I've offered to give the Barnstar of Resilience when one of her pages gets onto Template:Did you know.[30] I get hounded too (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors) and some editors try to exploit my goodwill.[31][32] Yet I don't deliver a kick in the pants when I show someone the door. That kind of action validates the folks at Wikipedia Review. I shouldn't have to state this matter a third time, but my block warning to Guy was not punitive: it would have prevented him from dropping more f-bombs in the unlikely event he thought that was a-okay. I handled the situation exactly the same way I would have handled habitual profanity from an unsysopped editor of equal merit. Maybe that was wrong, but so many of the criticisms have misrepresented the basic facts of my actions that I find it hard to weigh the resulting analysis. I hope the administrators who want to ease the burden on folks like Guy and MONGO (and me!) will help out with more tough cases and investigations - not just pile onto stuff that's already high profile but look around the way I do for messes where no other mop is anywhere in sight. Durova^Charge 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Durova was right to speak up about incivility here. All the people 'jumping to the defense of JzG' have it exactly backwards... Durova was the one helping JzG. The stuff about, 'we do not block for occasional incivility', is half right... we generally don't block admins and other 'high profile' users for such. Regular users, on the other hand, sometimes get blocked for saying a single word out of line. The philosophy that 'we look at the whole picture' inherently means that longstanding and/or popular users are held to lower standards of behaviour... which we have seen become a self-defeating trap over and over and over again. That 'occaisional incivility' adds up, and when people see users being incivil and getting away with it they respond in kind. If they then are then blocked/strongly warned for it while the other person isn't they get pissed off at the imbalance and the spiral of deterioration continues. It is obviously bad for Wikipedia and if it isn't stopped sooner or later it always catches up to people. There was a time when Karmafist was well loved and his 'occaisional incivility' let pass... until it got to be too much. There was a time when Kelly Martin was well loved and her 'occaisional incivility' not a big deal... until it alienated too many people. You want to 'protect' good users? Stop them from being uncivil, don't violate policies yourself and attack those who are pointing out problems, and do what you can to take on some of their burdens... kinda like Durova was doing. --CBD 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at this and tell me then who was out of line! Not only had this editor posted this "crank" on WP:PAIN, he had posted the exact same paragraph on WP:RFC/USER twice and been reverted. He knew he was out of line and Guy was being overly nice by not beating him with the blockhammer. MartinDK 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... Yrgh got upset about TAnthony calling him an idiot, he acted out, he got blocked and insulted again by JzG. Who was "out of line"? All of the above. Obviously. It's not an 'either / or' equation. Incivility breeds more incivility breeds more incivility. Everyone who contributes to the problem is part of the problem. --CBD 12:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CBD, I've been ignoring this thread because as far as I'm concerned the whole thing was over as soon as it began, having been solved by the simple expedient of going to bed, but the above is factually wrong. I did not block Yrgh. Quite the opposite, I went and invited him to repost his complaint in terms that would allow it to be taken seriously. I also spent some time investigating the complaint despite its tone. And then it turned out he was wasting everyone's time, at which point he was indef-blocked by Cyde, who posted the block for review. At that point I endorsed blocking, referring to the former (now indef-blocked) user as a twat, based on the evidence presented by Cyde. Twat is a not a strong insult in England. Not that I'm especially proud of using invective, but I wasted quite a bit of time trying to follow up what looked as if it might have been a substantive complaint, only to find that it was a case of the very ancient iron pot calling the shiny new stainless steel kettle black. It was a very trivial incident, but amply demonstrated, to my mind, the inherent problems with the PAIN noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, CBD. I'll be clear here. Guy was out-of-line; and I don't think he'd do it again. He is one of the most hard-working administrators on Wikipedia and exercises good judgment most of the times. But do you realise there are users who assume bad faith with everyone and are regularly uncivil and disruptive themselves; Guy was provoked here, and he did not react nicely. Do you realise the user who posted the civility warning on JzG's talk was being uncivil and disruptive himself? Strings and threads of warnings on his talk page. The same user posts a {{npa}} template on Guy's talk; and when Guy reverts him he takes it to WP:PAIN, citing the words "fuck off" again and again and again, despite being uncivil, assuming bad faith – disregarding comments with regard to policies and guidelines with an holier than thou approach. That is "sanctimonious bullshit". I know where you are coming from, and you have the best intentions for Guy and Wikipedia as a whole, however a block warning by another administrator is frankly, out-of-line in itself. Would it help the situation get better? Definitely not. So, instead of giving more leverage to the arguments of such ... uh... over-assertive users, and rapping the knuckles of established administrators, we can all get back to editing articles. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The way to 'avoid giving more leverage' is to not violate the behaviour standards in the first place and not 'turn a blind eye' when it happens. If 'knuckles get rapped' in a fair and consistent manner they have nothing to complain about. If people are attacked for daring to suggest that the civility policies apply to everyone... THAT 'gives them leverage'. --CBD 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the approach covered by "I happen to believe in Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_diplomatic_immunity and I walk the walk." tempered by an eye for context. I wish the first question that went through an administrator's mind before intervention would be: what effect does this infraction have on the encyclopedia? The next questions could be: is there a hurry? and: will this cause a debate-fest, with the inevitable escalation that produces? And I'd like to suggest some slack be cut for administrators letting their guard down in non-article space like this page. The atmosphere gets a bit newsgroupy, so I'm saddened to see what is said offhandedly by good, hard-working users being policed just because they happen to say it in a room full of police, or to see one user's opportunistic stirrring being given the time of day: let complaints go through procedure, giving everyone time to think.

Despite dissimilarities with the Giano situation, I do notice one similarity. In both cases, a relatively harmless discussion on this page got out of control when diffs were suddenly bandied about and chased up. It seems to me that nothing administrators say here should lead to disciplinary procedures in the absence of a formal complaint (say to diff conjurors something like: "if you are bothered, make a formal complaint with a new heading, preferably after giving it a day or two's thought"). From what I can see, this started with one chap saying something a bit sharp, followed by someone telling him to tone it down: that should have been the end of it. In my opinion, another user pulled the triangle trap which I've seen on Supernanny, and I wish one of our best and most diligent administrators hadn't walked into it in all good faith. I'd also like to see administrators asking themselves whether speed is required for any particular block: in this case the various diffs, which were not fresh, could have been mulled over for a day or two (during which it would have been found that a certain word was relatively innocuous), because the only urgent reason to block someone, in my opinion, is to stop them damaging Wikipedia: in this case, that didn't apply.qp10qp 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what CBD is saying here. My philosophy is summed up at User:Carcharoth/Philosophy. This can be a hard thing to stick to, but no-one said this was going to be easy. In the long-term, breeding incivility is a very bad thing. I see too much of people seeing themselves as aggressive defenders of the project, and being attackers of trolls, and being firemen (and women) dealing with huge amounts of crap. I don't dispute that there are huge amounts of crap being added, but bringing yourself down to that level doesn't actually help. Constantly try to rise above it. Help others involved in this. If they are getting dragged down to the breaking point, point this out to them. Be a role model for others. Carcharoth 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I see how Wikipedia got to be a Top 10 website. It's all you knuckleheads resorting to vulgar epithets to dismiss those with conflicting views, then the victims signing in sixteen times an hour to cry and whine about it. Great encyclopedia, guys. --JossBuckle Swami 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

i can see why Guy would be angry, if the person wasted his time. However is an indef block warranted? Geo. 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really get the whole 'wasted time' bit. Yrgh complained that TAnthony had made personal attacks on him. TAnthony HAD made personal attacks on him. I haven't reviewed it in detail, but I saw that in just a cursory review. If Guy didn't see that and blew it off that's probably what led to Yrgh's complete meltdown... which sadly WAS extreme and worthy of a serious block. As he hasn't made any effort at communication since (that I know of) it is difficult to see if there would be any way to get him to calm down. -CBD 08:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy calling someone a twat was definately not ok. He apologized for that too. What should have happened at that point was that someone should have said to Guy "Look, you are getting too worked up now. Take a break, Wikipedia won't collapse if you are not here. Go watch some TV or something." Instead what happened was that everyone who felt a need to get even with Guy came running and started to fuel the fire hoping that they could get Guy blocked because he finally got too stressed and made a mistake. This is what upsets me greatly because Guy wasn't on at the time so the only people left to defend him were his friends who, granted, were equally eager to get even with those who fueled the fire to begin with. At that point all hell broke loose and I don't think any of us are proud of that. Hopefully what we have learned from this is that these situations are much better resolved by giving the stressed out editor (in this case Guy) a friendly "warning" telling him that he needs to take a break for a few hours or so and let others deal with spammers and the firehose of crap. MartinDK 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

May I humbly point out a remarkable coincidence about this episode, considering that it's JzG who's involved. The case, where a casual remark which is almost a jovial term of endearment in the UK comes across as a deadly and unforgivable insult in another time zone, parallels the G'Gugvuntts and Vl'hurgs case. From what I've read all have been acting with the best of intentions, and while Guy will no doubt have washed his mouth out with soap, it's worth remembering that Zaphod's ship is The Heart of Gold. And in all cases, not just with admins, I'd hope that previous good behaviour is always taken into account when handing down sentences. I rest my case, m'lud.... dave souza, talk 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading through all this, I think brenneman said it the best. To paraphrase him, we don't accept bad behaviour from established contributors, we just handle it differently. In my view, having an admin flag should be totally irrelevant. Setting up an "admins don't block admins" guideline will just give ammunition to those who suggest admins are too tightly knit. Also, WP:IAR shouldn't be used as an excuse to sidestep this question. Obviously, when dealing with other admins, an admin will take a different approach than when dealing with a known vandal. But at the end of the day, either an admin has the authority to block another admin or they don't - and this needs to be in writing somewhere.

Of course, someone who is an admin is much more likely to be contributing to the community than a random user, and those contributions should be taken into account. In this case, JzG is a clearly established contributor, who has done a lot of good work on Wikipedia (including use of his admin tools). So he earns a warning and a "please apologize", when a new user would have been blocked for posting the exact same things he did. But it's because of his contribution history, not just because he's an admin. It's a subtle difference, but I feel it's important to make the distinction.

On the swearing issue - Wikipedia isn't censored. However, that doesn't give people a licence to swear whenever they want. When writing an article about a CEO who was fired for having an affair with a secretary, there's no need to use a phrase like, "He got sacked for grabbing his hot-to-trot secretary and fucking her brains out". Swearing can be used, but when appropriate - both in main-space, and in talk-space. Can swearing be used in a conversation to make a point? Fuck, yeah! But it loses its point-making impact if every other post is an f-bomb. I'm particularly disturbed by the suggestion that "Fuck you" is a personal attack, but "Fuck off" and "Leave me alone" are both perfectly fine, and identical to each other. "Fuck off" can mean lots of different things when saying it to someone's face - but things are different on the net.

For the record, in Australia, twat's just a minor insult, like "silly twat". But we make sure to mention that to American visitors, just like we mention terms like "fanny". Come on, how can you not know what a fanny pack is? You silly - uh oh, I almost said twats. :-p Quack 688 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard of the American woman who told her New Zealander host family that she liked rooting for her home football team. One young man's reaction was, "What, the whole team?" -- Donald Albury 21:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maaaate - she sounds fully sick! Go, son! Better not have a Barry Crocker!

Translation: My friend, she sounds like a great person. I suggest you make a move towards her. I hope you don't make any blunders in your approach.

(P.S. Cultural misunderstandings are great fun.) Quack 688 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, point above: admins don't block admins. Yes they do, and should, but we should be as reluctant to block admins as we should be any other long-standing contributor. More to the point, though, blocks are preventive not punitive - and there was nothing to prevent, since I logged off at 00:35 local time and the above comment by Durova was at 03:41 local time - I was already in bed asleep by then. Had I still been in a foul temper when I came back the following morning, a block would have been quite in order, but I wasn't (see my above post the following morning). Guy (Help!) 11:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If an admin is frazzled and boiling mad, it is best to do tag team sysopping and ask an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation. Some editor (or troll) may have succeeded at pushing the bottons of the admin he is dealing with, so the normally mild mannered admin now is too agitated to do this best work or to meet the requirements of civility for which he should be an example. This allows the facts of the matter to be judged by fresh eyes, objectively, and any warnings or blocks to come from an admion who has no history of escalating angry exchanges with the problem editor. But by the same token, if an admin loses it and tells an editor he is a useless twat and should fuck off, he should not warn or block another editor for the same words. Edison 17:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Article created by sockpuppet?

What should I do with an article (Charles C. Poindexter) created by a sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user (User:Mykungfu)? I had sent it to AfD, primarily because I didn't think the subject met WP:BIO, but after seeing the debate (including comments by Mykungfu), I don't believe that is the case. He is notable, so the article's other issues (such as it being a POV fork from Alpha Phi Alpha) should be dealt with elsewhere. My question is whether an article created and almost solely edited by a blocked user should simply be deleted on that basis. I'm also hesitant to overstep my bounds here, as I was also the admin who blocked the last two MKF socks. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Articles created by Banned/InDef blocked folks should be speedied without prejudice to recreation under CSD C5 (Sock of blocked/banned user). If the article is notable, it will be remade. A ban/block is exactly that. There's no wiggle room with "Ban, except for articles that are notable". SirFozzie 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would keep the article but reduce it to a stub - thereby losing the content added by the banned user and allowing a new article to grow. I voiced the same opinion at the AFD.--Spartaz 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it per CSD-G5. However, it does appear that the subject is notable, so if the article is re-created by a legitimate user, I won't AfD it again. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?

Trolling or not, should someone remove this edit from the history? Fan-1967 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That needs to go to Request for Oversight. I have emailed them. --Edokter (Talk) 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really important enough for oversight IMO, it was just an e-mail address. I've removed it and the other time it happened from the history. —bbatsell ¿? 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Already gone. Looks like someone else reported it at WP:AIV and it was handled. Fan-1967 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Abusive subject header, seeking removal

User:Smashingworth behaving abusively: user created a top-level section header titled "Joie's Record of Editing Hypocrisy Reveals True Motives for Crashing This Page" at Talk:Lavenski_Smith. I would like to see the tabloid-style header removed or at least renamed. Please advise. Sorry if this is incorrectly placed. 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have renamed the heading per WP:RTP as a simple refactoring for brevity and to promote discussion rather than attacks. Please note that this is not an indication that I agree with either side in this dispute, but I trust discussion will prove more productive without inflammatory content such as that. —bbatsell ¿? 23:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kai bohrmann

This appears to be a repost of an article that was deleted from the German Wikipedia. I'm not a sysop over there (und mein Deutsch ist ein bisschen schwach), so I can't attest to the circumstances. According to the author, Kai bohrmann (talk · contribs), the public reason was for being an "agitation article." This article is now sitting in Kai bohrmann's userspace, still in German, either to be translated or sent back to de. Either way, I'm not very happy about the present situation, but as the speedy deletion is contested, I'm coming here for a second opinion. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:SEIFE. Deleted. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rampant removal of thread

The constant removal of a thread by an assorted variety of IPs is bordering on disruption on this board. I was wondering if there was precedence in semi-protecting this board. While I realize that this is a draconian and potentially controversial measure, I believe that the person behind the removal of the thread is unlikely to stop until we apply such a drastic measure. Any thoughts? Constructive criticism welcome. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention a certain banned user clowning around here using IPs. Do it. The sooner, the better. MER-C 07:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am probably going to be slaughtered for this ;) but why not semi-protect this page? Unless you have an account really there should be no need for you to come here anyway. Yes, I know it is against the spirit of Wikipedia but a lot of people are going to get blocked without reason when we need to block entire IP ranges. MartinDK 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, during the summer there was a period of time that both WP:AN and WP:ANI were semiprotected while I was dealing with a user who had a similar amount of ISP usage that was harassing me. I agree with MartinDK that unless you have a fairly old account, you shouldn't be here, necessarily.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs · count) has been constructively commenting on certain issues, including a request to check his/her edit to the {{db-copyvio}} template. [33] Hbdragon88 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Long-standing great IP user, whom we need more of. – Chacor 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. He can do a rename to The user formerly known as 68.39.174.238. John Broughton | Talk 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be very unfair to do that, he has said previously that he isn't going to register an account. We should not be shutting ANI to anons. – Chacor 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We're doing it out of sheer necessity, not because we are anti-anon. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Chacor, if you were me, struggling to control the vandalism to this page because two totally independent dynamic IP vandals were vandalising this page, what would you do? There was little way to get a word in edgeways, since the page was going back and forth between revisions from both the vandals. Notice I customised the sprotection notice to apologise to all the anons? The fact remains that sprotected, the board can be used by almost everyone, but were it to be unsprotected at present, it would be filled with vandalism, and nobody would be able to add notices due to constant reversions. Unfortunately, the fact remains that not many anons use WP:ANI, and I really am sorry that that user is shut out. But right now, it is totally necessary. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a pity we have to shut anons out of the conversation, but we are, as Deskana said, doing it out of necessity. Anyone who needs help can go to some signed-up user and ask them to post on their behalf; we can't continually let this noticeboard waste users' time and bandwidth by letting the whole page get filled with vandalism. This is only a short compromise until these socks/vandalbots/etc. are shot down. Cheers, Yuser31415 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More (seemingly) from blocked user User:BryanFromPalatine

It would appear that he has not given up sockpuppeting his way around blocks. BenBurch 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! --BenBurch 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Patchbook (talk · contribs)

I request that action (IMO a block preferably) be taken with this user. He has an ever growing list of improper behaviour which began with the continuous removal of maintenance tags from Police memorabilia collecting, for which he was warned more than once. Then in reply to edits to his (the one mentioned above) article, seemingly unable to accept that articles one writes are edited by other users, began personal attacks and threats on User:Kintetsubuffalo and myself User:SGGH, for which he was again warned. However, these warnings have had no effect, and User:Kintetsubuffalo has contacted Jimbo Wales himself requesting assistance, and I myself am here to request action. In addition to the problems already mentioned, User:Patchbook recently edited the Article Watch list of the Law Enforcement wikiproject, which he had was in no place to edit, and he had no reason so. I view his edits there, in a place used only by the "admin staff" (so to speak) of the wikiproject, to be vandalism in order to further his own argument. I kindly request advice and/or action in this matter, and would request that such advice is given to User:Kintetsubuffalo as well, as he had borne the brunt of Patchbook's attacks. Many thanks, SGGH 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the user in question has edited as User:208.127.49.118 and as User:Patchbook. As Patchbook, he left what could be considered a death threat [34] on User:Kintetsubuffalo's talk page. I left npa3 on the user's talkpage after this message and he has not edited as that username since then ... although he has been a disruption as the IP address as SGGH pointed out. --BigDT 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet more Art Dominique (talk · contribs) socks

These are pretty clearly socks of banned user Art Dominique. Could not be checkusered for technical reasons. Recommend reviewing them and blocking if found to be socks.

• Evelina Carlson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Swedish girl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Historical truth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thanks, researchers ! (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Notable world figures (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Use the shower curtain (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• No fear, no remorse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Thanks! TheQuandry 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that they are socks. All blocked Alex Bakharev 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possible WP:JARLAXLE sock

Imapoed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably, but not certainly, another WP:JARLAXLE sockpuppet. (User's very first edit was to undo a recent edit of mine, followed by a complaint on my talk page, followed by several more reversions of my edits. User's other edits seem to be legitimate vandalism reversion.) I'm reporting this here because I'm going to bed and thus won't be able to monitor the user. Someone else should check occasionally to make sure the user is (or is not) harmless. —Psychonaut 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:École Polytechnique massacre

I'm about ready to pack it in over this one. I've become involved as an editor, so my admin tools are no help. I filed an Rfc here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Suemcp but the user in question has refused to participate. I'm totally at a loss. The most recent thread in question (there are lots) is here Talk:École_Polytechnique_massacre#Challenge_for_Sue. I have not used my admin tools in this dispute, but I'll accept criticism from any admin about my tone, or other behaviour. Mostly, level-headed help is needed, from any quarter. I originally got involved to try and help solve the dispute, but I'm forced to admit failure at that. Any input or advice is welcome. Cheers. Dina 02:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried mediation? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, it doesn't merit mediation -- it isn't a dispute between two users, but a dispute between one user, and every other user that visits the article or talk page. However, the user in question did request mediation here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-01 EcolePolytechniqueMassacre as well as contacting User:Cowman109 personally: here. Some of the accusations are certainly toeing the line of personal attacks [35] but I feel powerless to do anything about it since I've edited the article. Dina 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User EaglesFanInTampa using nickname of 'Jimbo' in signature

User:EaglesFanInTampa is using Jimbo as his nickname, so that his comments on talk pages are signed Jimbo. It is disconcerting to see Jimbo participating and !voting in discussions such Talk:Newark#Proposed move. Does this strike anyone else as improper? -- Donald Albury 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I don't like it one bit. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, his sig links to his user page, not to User:Jimbo Wales. (See [36] for an example.) It may or may not be a great thing ... but I just wanted to clarify that he isn't trying to impersonate Jimbo Wales. --BigDT 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should treat "Jimbo" the same way we treat "God" and just not allow anyone else to use that name. I'm not talking about the username but even giving someone the name "Jimbo", "James", "Jim", etc at birth. --206.165.70.2 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably an innocent mistake if he's new, but definitely not a permissible nickname either. If he were to change it to, say, Jimbo Brown, it might be permissible then. --tjstrf talk 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova asked him to change his nickname two weeks ago, and got this response. Theresa Knott's request today to change his name, and my notice that I had brought this here, and EaglesFan's response, are here. If everyone is agreeable, let's drop the subject. -- Donald Albury 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask Jimbo Wales himself what he thinks, something tells me jwales hasnt trademarked his name on wikipedia :P. (assuming the person in question isnt a vandal) --Cat out 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimbo redirects to User:Jimbo Wales. Names such as 'Jimbo Whales' have been blocked for being too much like his name. Using a nickname of 'Jimbo' that shows up on talk pages, whether intentional or not, causes a problem. No one should be using a nickname that looks like another user's accoint name. -- Donald Albury 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales were just some random user or even low-profile admin, then using the nickname Jimbo wouldn't be a problem. However, when he's the guy who runs the whole show, it's highly confusing and disruptive. EaglesFanInTampa should recognize that using a name that will be attributed by any experienced editor to another person is unacceptable. We're not trying to gang up on him here, we're trying to save mass confusion and accusations of imitating "The True Jimbo" later on. --tjstrf talk 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe WP:USERNAME should be amended so that it clearly states that usernames/nicknames that resemble Jimbo's cannot be used. This is already on the borderline of the "Inappropriate usernames-Wikipedia terms" section of that policy, since we can interpret "Jimbo" as a name "implying an official position on Wikipedia".--Húsönd 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with *any* nickname that duplicates another user's account name. This example stood out because it was 'Jimbo'. How would you feel if some user were signing on talk pages with something like [[User:Mumblypeg|tjstrf]]? -- Donald Albury 04:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Invalid comparison, given that tjstrf is my entire name, while Jimbo is only half of User:Jimbo Wales. A more accurate comparison would be a user signing as "Mr. Weys", half of User:Cyde's signature. Or the concurrent existance of both User:Nemu and User:TTN who both sign their names Nemu. If a user was signing as tjs, then that might be an issue, but if it was their real initials and they weren't regularly editing the same pages as me, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. --tjstrf talk 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Click on User:Jimbo. Btw, that was created as a redirect to User:Jimbo Wales almost five years ago. The man is referred to in Wikipedia as 'Jimbo' much more often than as 'Jimbo Wales'. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what the problem is... so what if he uses the name "Jimbo"? Should other users be making blind assumptions based on the text in someone's signature? The chance of confusion is low, especially among experienced users. If someone thinks that it might be the real Jimbo, they should first check where the link in the signature goes to. In this case, that will instantly resolve any confusion. This situation reminds me of my days on the gamefaqs boards when users would be banned for having "CJ" in their names, even when there is clearly no chance of real confusion. --- RockMFR 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem I had was that I initially thought someone was counterfeiting Jimbo's signature. That meant I spent time looking into the matter that I could have spent more productively. Signing as 'Jimbo' is distracting, and some of of us still find it inappropriate even though it was a good faith sig. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole idea is messed up. I happen to know a person who has gone by the name Jimbo for almost 40 years. I guess if he wanted to join Wikipedia with the name lots of people know him by that would be impermissible? I understand the username policy is to prevent impersonation, but using the example of a bunch of letters like tjstrf's signature is comparing apples to oranges. When you start beating up on good editors simply because of their signature, rather than their edits or actions, you aren't helping the Encyclopedia, you're enforcing policy for the sake of policy. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your name is, or what you are called in real life, or what name you have used in 20 other internet venues, etc., if that name is already in use when you come to Wikipedia, you can't appropriate it for your own use. A nickname that matches a registered user name (and User:Jimbo has been registered since 2002) is a problem. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not really. Does the fact that I sign my signature with "Peter Dodge" mean that everybody named Peter can no longer sign using their actual name? Hell no. It shouldn't for Jimbo either. If Jimbo minds it he will see this AN/I report and block the user. If he doesn't, then why are WE worrying about it? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  It doesn't mean no-one else can use the name Peter, but don't you think it would be just a tiny bit confusing if I also started to sign my name as "Peter M Dodge" (or as "Wizardry Dragon"), even if that actually was my real name? I wouldn't object to EaglesFanInTampa calling himself "Jimbo R. Smith" or "JimboX" or "The other Jimbo" or whatever, but the plain "Jimbo" is already taken, thank you very much. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock, usernames does call some serious stuff here. I've seen RFAs get racked up "oppose" votes purely because the user who was up for RFA had a signature that was different from his/her username. Jimbo is thrown quite often and always refers to Jimbo Wales himserlf; heck, even WP:JIMBO redirects to his user talk page. Hbdragon88 08:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this sitting 30 miles from Dublin Ireland, where Jimbo is a REALLY common nickname, I have to say that if Jimbo Wales doesn't mind nobody else should, though it might be wise to create a hard and fast protocol that, to avoid confusion, the name "Jimbo" can only be signed if accompanied by a suffix or prefix that is NOT "Wales", or that make it clear the editor is NOT Jimbo Wales? --Zeraeph 08:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He could call himself "The other Jimbo", or something... Although I don't know how much I'd like to be known as the "other" owner of my name. I'd tend to think that Wales guy is the "other" Jimbo... -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to trolling problems in the past, a lot of variants of Jimbo's name, such as User:Jimbo Whales, have been indefinitely blocked (that account was later deleted). A user making good contributions could probably get by with a user name incorporating 'Jimbo', but creating such user accounts will set off the 'troll radar' of many editors. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid, the fact that he has the name Jimbo should not be a problem. It is a common first name and a someone must not have a monopoly over it. -Lapinmies 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, internet communities have "holy" names like "sysop" "admin" and this one has "Jimbo" and a few others. This isn't something new to the internet, it's nessessary for security. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me those a few others for future reference. -Lapinmies 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• These names should be clearly listed in WP:USERNAME, then, so there is no excuse and no confusion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I really don't see a problem with a user signing with "Jimbo", as long as it is clear that the user is not Jimbo Wales. This should be pretty clear, not only because of the link to his user page (perhaps a note could be posted on there to clear any confusion?), but because of the fact that "Wales" is not mentioned anywhere in the signature. It's a popular first name and it's not unique; simply because Jimbo Wales has such a first name should not preclude anyone else from using their own name. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out hand. Read my response to these accusations on my talk page and let's move on...I already have. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusations? Where? We all understand that your choice of nickname was perfectly innocent in intention. The only thing getting out of hand is your not-particularly-veiled threat to report us to the Wikimedia office for asking you to change your name. People are required to change their names all the time, for reasons ranging from it being too similar to a real individual's name to being in a non-Latin script. We aren't ganging up on you, and if you believe that you should reread the discussion above, where several people advocate allowing you to keep your name, either simply as Jimbo or by some form of disambiguation. --tjstrf talk 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, and I appreciate everything that everyone has done to stick up for me. However, I have much better things to do with my time on this site than to be singled out just because my name's similar as someone else. I really am appreciative of everyone who's fighting in my defense, but that comment was directed toward the people who started this in the first place, not you guys. It just not worth fighting with a brick wall, though, and you can only spin your tires in mud for so long. I'm willing to just bite the bullet and move on. I've made 25 significant edits today and I would much rather spend my time doing that than trying to explain to someone 6000 miles away why the nickname "Jimbo" is not offensive, deceiving, or improper. If someone can't realize that there's more than one Jimbo in St. Pete, than what's the point in trying to change their mind. However, thjsrf and everyone else trying to side with me, I really am thankful to know that's there's clear-headed people left on this site and you're all welcome to ask me to help you out with anything you need...you know where to find me! Now, back to my editing of Florida roads.... EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had made a topic on Jimbo's talk page asking what he thought about this issue, but I guess it's already been resolved. Hbdragon88 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Decimal block bug?

Didn't see anything on bugzilla that looked like it matched:

Earlier today, Consumed Crustacean blocked 68.254.181.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for "2.37685 weeks" (see block log). However, the wiki software parsed that as...

17:41, 8 January 2007, Consumed Crustacean (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 68.254.181.254 (contribs) (expires 02:37, 24 February 2020, anon. only) (Unblock) (Repeat school based IP-vandal, with much activity recently. Anon-only block.)

...which is considerably longer than 2.37685 weeks. Basically it looks like it took 2.37 as 02:37, and the remaining 685 as "685 weeks" (13.173 years, or 2020).

Anyone seen this before, or should I submit it to bugzilla? Syrthiss 18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth did he block them for 2.37685 weeks anyway? Isn't that a little overprecise? --tjstrf talk 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever. I would have done a simple 2 or 3 week block if I had known this. The system should have an error check built in to refuse such input rather than outright breaking, if that's possible with the way it's set up. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubt you'd get much joy from raising a bug, last i looked (some time ago) the system uses a php function to parse the relative dates and it is that which is failing. --pgk 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In the unlikely case that the gory details are useful for somebody: the PHP code for the block form is at [37] and calls strtotime(). The manpage claims that the date syntax is identical to the tar syntax (for which see [38]) and lies. (Otherwise, it would be possible to specify ‘1 fortnight’…) The actual grammar is here. The rules that were used in the above example are timetiny12 (e. g. ‘1:13’ or ‘12.05’) and relative (e. g. ‘3 weeks’). The important thing to remember here is that for specifications like ‘2 days’ or ‘1 year’, the number is expected to be a (possibly signed) integer and the function (which is technically a lexer, not a parser) is no ELIZA, so don’t expect it to understand jokes. Hope this helps. —xyzzy_n 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a small note: it does accept 1 fortnight. ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I somehow managed to miss those lines. It even does forthnights ago… —xyzzy_n 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with the title of this section, I'll be more impressed if they implement decimal seconds, decimal minutes, and decimal hours. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've filed this bug: bugzilla:8554. --ais523 18:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jacob Peters

JP is back with new IP socks. The Vladimir Lenin article's history page for the last few days includes them, and I think his sock page is up to date. He's editing/abusing other articles as well. The edits (primarily deletions) are disruptive as is his habit of reverting. It looks like he's trying to whitewash Soviet history using Soviet sources and removing qualified academic sources. At any rate, JP has long since been banned for this sort of behavior, but he persists with socks. An admin on the vandalism page has referred the matter here. The IP sock du jour is 204.102.211.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with 3RR and some talk page blanking. Rklawton 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The IPs are similar to those of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, including the above, 207.151.38.178 which was blocked yesterday for 3RR, and 68.126.253.190 which was also blocked yesterday.Ultramarine 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected Vladimir Lenin. Khoikhoi 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late, he's dead. OK, just kidding. What about the other article this sock is editing? Rklawton 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One of very few posts lately that have made me laugh out loud. Thanks, I needed that. —bbatsell ¿? 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm lenin towards support for this. Full marx to Khoikoi. Stalin work, that man. The guy wants trouble? So viet. Uss'r quite happy to block 'im, and if he gets bolshie we'll krusch evry sockpuppet we find. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We will bury him, figuratively speaking, of course. - Merzbow 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Genius. This thread almost made all of JP's hassles worth it. Kudos all around! --C33 05:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism from dynamic IP

The article Game rip (audio) has been frequently vandalized by an anonymous user with a dynamic IP since its creation, as you can see from the history [39]. Recently, their vandalism attempts have involved the repeated insertion of a link to an apparently virus-infected file, which they are trying to pass off as a legitimate program. Since their IP is different every time they edit the page, there isn't anything I can do besides just reverting their edits. Any ideas? WarpstarRider 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, adding to my watchlist. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have semiprotected the article. Next time request protection/semiprotection on WP:RPP Alex Bakharev 01:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1 annon vandalism a day isn't realy a good reason to protect it. Mine if I unprotect? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New User's Username

Under the naming conventions of Wikipedia, is Mrs.chokesondick (talk · contribs) an appropriate user name? I'd like to issue a request to change it to the user but first would like community advice. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

File it at WP:RFC/NAME

On one hand it's a name of a South Park character. On the other, not everybody watches South Park... file away in the correct place, and see what happens :) Crimsone 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by another user (and Crimsone beat me to the punch about the South Park reference). I still think whoever chose that name needs to pick another one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the name aloud, people. It's a South Park character with an intentionally offensive name, and should always be blocked. Grandmasterka 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrative intervention needed

New user Baristarim seems to believe talkpages are items that are, in his words, "owned." He posted several complaints on my talkpage and a WP:3RR warning after I reverted, one time, his removal of categories from two pages. He is now claiming that I am not allowed to remove his rude statements from my talkpage because the WP:3RR warning was "legitimate." Would an administrator please explain to him how talkpages work? Thanks, KazakhPol 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Diffs please. Yuser31415 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

He openly admits to posting the WP:3RR warning after one reversion[40] on the grounds that my "tone" implied I would violate the policy. If you look at the history of my talkpage you will see he accuses me of vandalism when I revert his incivil comments. KazakhPol 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User states that user talkpages are owned, and states that Kazakhstan "does not matter."[41] KazakhPol 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not fall for this trap. I gave him 3RR warnings [42] and he insists on removing them from his talk page saying that " I can remove any comment you post on my talkpage and I do not have to state why". I gave him a 3RR warning because I was sure that he would go all the way to 3RR, and two minutes after my warning he did his second revert and fifteen minutes later his third. He was adding an irrelevant cat to certain articles, then I reverted him, then I noticed that he had created a "Terrorism in Kazakhstan" template that I TfDed. I already notified an administrator about this [43].

And I am not a new user. I have been here longer than this user has, and have much more edits. In fact, I would like to request intervention on my part. He is insisting that I am being uncivil, and accusing me of being a new user, being ignorant of Wiki policies etc (see my talk page). He is insisting on removing my warnings and posts from his talk page [44] [45] [46] [47] [48], by saying that I am breaking WP:OWN, but is breaking the same rule himself by saying "I can remove any comment I please from my talk page" [49]. If anyone finds any comment that breaks WP:CIVIL, I have nothing more to say, all my posts were civil, decent and standard. This user also posted messages at the talk pages of numerous users, practically inviting them for edit warring on concerned articles [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] in the space of a couple of minutes.Baristarim 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that this user has demonstrated he/she does not understand a single Wikipedia policy, could someone either give him a stern warning or block him so he gets the point? I am trying to work and he is becoming a nuisance. KazakhPol 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, big deal. You're both reasonably experienced users and you should both know better than this. Stay away from each other, okay? You've both made your points. Yuser31415 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Would KazakhPol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please stop harassing Baristarim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [65]? Thanks. Yuser31415 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely right. After the reverts, I only notified one admin so that he can take a look, but I didn't go to ANI by claiming that "new user" was doing this or that. If possible, I would still like clarification on if he can revert 3RR warnings by saying that "I can remove anything that I want from my talk page". He posted msgs to 14 users practically inviting them for edit-warring. However, I didn't think that ANI was the right place for this in the first place. Cheers! Baristarim 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Struck out my comments, no need for now. Baristarim 04:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When users ask to be "banned"

What should be done when a user (Phillers (talk · contribs), in this case) asks to be "banned," presumably a synonym for "block," as his first edit? (Warning:The font he used is huge, so you might wanna view it with popups instead of clicking.) His second and third edits have been petty vandalism. I've been debating whether to welcome him (which may be useless - this is probably not his first interaction with Wikipedia, based on his knowledge of formatting and site layout), add him at WP:AIV, or add a section here. I recall users being blocked indef at their request, one blocked indef at their request and then unblocked involuntarily, and at least one completely ignored. Any other opinions on the situation? Oh, and forgive me if this has been discussed before. Picaroon 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You block the account because they are obviously not here to contribute to the project and only here to disrupt it to make a point. I've blanked his user page, and his contributions are disruptive and not done in good faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IP inserting misinformation

72.137.114.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is has repeatedly changed legitimate information in pages. Randomly picked examples include [66], [67], [68], and [69]. Could some admin rollback all of his or her changes quickly? Cheers. Yuser31415 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review a block

I just indefblocked Sillysailor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for page move vandalism which took me some time to unravel. As I did this block technically out of process (i.e. no warnings, and some good-faith edits in the past, though mixed with vandalism), I invite others to comment and either change the length of the block themselves, or ask me to do so (I will if there is consensus).

And, while you're at it, could someone please review this to make sure I didn't miss any of this user's havoc? --Ginkgo100 ^talk 04:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Valid block. Naconkantari 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a random sampling of his edits (dating back to the beginning and middle of '06) and almost all of it was sneaky vandalism. Should have been blocked a long time ago. No problems here. —bbatsell ¿? 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you got all the moves cleaned up too. —bbatsell ¿? 04:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a vandalism-only account in the vein of Willy on Wheels, except not as funny. Hbdragon88 05:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Willy would be disappointed with the lack of wit shown by the impersonator. Valid block. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Fann Wong by sockpuppets

When checking on Fann Wong, I noticed that Wenfangs (talk · contribs) added nonsensical tags to Fann Wong (such as sprotected, unreferenced and inappropriate tone tags) when the article is completely referenced and has recently obtained GA status. I've warned the user on his/her talk page but the user has accused me of vandalising another article, Zoe Tay. When I checked Zoe Tay, I noticed that a user with a similar nickname Wenfangfan (talk · contribs) was blocked for being a returning vandal. The tumultous edit war in Zoe Tay by sockpuppets resulted in it being sprotected. It seems that both Wenfangs (talk · contribs) and Wenfangfan (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets engaging in vandalism on both the Zoe Tay and Fann Wong articles. In any case, these usernames should be blocked for violating Wikipedia's naming policy (celebrity names - Fann Wong's Chinese name is Wenfang, which probably explains the choice of nickname). Voda voda 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given a username block to Wenfangs (talk · contribs). This matter was also raised on my talk page by someone who believes this user is the most recent sock of someone Zoe blocked. Can you clarify why you feel Wenfangfan is also a username violation, doesn't the "fan" part make it different enough? Sorry, I don't mean to be ignorant but I really don't know anything about Chinese names. :) Cheers, Sarah 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, I see that second account was blocked a few days ago. Sorry about that. Sarah 05:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fann Wong's full Chinese name is Fan Wenfang, and Wenfangfan can be taken as too similar to her Chinese name for comfort, even if the first name here (Wenfang) precedes the last name (Fan) - as compared to Chinese custom where the last name (Fan) precedes the first name (Wenfang). Alternatively, you could see Wenfangfan as a username coined in spite; for despite calling himself/herself a fan of Fann Wong, (ie. 'fan' refers to supporter and not the last name of the actress), the user has merely tagged on nonsensical tags to the article instead of improving it. I've just examined the Zoe Tay edit conflict and Wenfangs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page and I think it's quite obvious that it's definitely the same person stirring up nonsense in Fann Wong. Voda voda 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)