Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive70

malber (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was previous blocked for making personal attacks on me including saying that autism is a "social construct to hide behaviour" and that people with it should "just accept the fact that she's a jerk", comparing me to some pig thing from star trek and so on

I'm posting this here because now he is going around trolling and wiki-stalking me - reverting any change I make, presumably because I pointed out his previous nastiness (I have quotes and diffs in a comment on my talk page for reference, near the top)

His first follow-on was to the template Template:User Aspie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where he placed the template on his page (he does not nor has claimed to have AS (form of autism) and said it's a "social construct for hiding bad behaviour") and then used that as an argument for provocatively hanging the template from it's design that many people were using and had been agreed with on the talk page to an ugly-looking bright purple and green one (he also tried to claim that the userbox and category should be deleted, given his clear bias against the group of people in general you can see why, really)

An admin caught this but now he is doing more of the same behaviour as you can see looking at his contributions. He has been following around reverting edits I make on purpose just to harass me.

some links:

• [1] (Eve Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - see history, as well as removing the site (simply because I added it) he also has been repeatedly adding an "offensive content warning" to the article (and maybe other articles too) - which having read around quite a bit about this there is definitely no consensus to do)
• [2] Rehabilitation Project Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have edited this article and most of the content he deleted was made by me. Given the edit regarding "skills" -> "people communication skills" I suspect this all might have something to do with me being a "known" against Scientologist or "Suppresive Person" as it looks like malber has some knowledge about Scientology and may be a member of the Church of Scientology - a possiblity, anyway)
• [3] (Racial steering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - again, just because I added the content he pops out of nowhere and reverts me)
• [4] (Strap It On (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - again, follows me in a very short space of time onto an article he's never edited, obviously stalking me via looking at my contributions, and reverts me, this time claiming it's an "advertisement" (because its a link to an article about a video series))

I don't think anything can really be done at this point, I dunno, but it'd be nice if someone could at least watch him (I wouldn't be surprised if via his contributions-stalking he appears here and comments soon) as he's clearly just trying to troll against/harass me. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He also left a message replying to MSK on my talk page, here. - FrancisTyers 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just keep us posted here, and if it escalates, appropriate actions will be taken. Can you give diffs of when you've warned him about this stuff, and whether anyone else has too? Thanks. Harro5 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like User:Antaeus Feldspar. Are they friends? 203.122.221.73 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't know Feldspar but he doesn't look that bad. Who are you? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

203.122.221.73 (talk · contribs) is the banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs), as shown here. Zordrac, of course, is really the banned Internodeuser (talk · contribs). He's dodging his ban again to make yet more personal attacks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Harro5: Yes I did a while after I saw your message here: [5] - he was warned about the vandalism of the Asperger syndrome template previously here: [6]

In his recent edits he has been doing nothing but trolling me, either reverting changes I make, deleting content or vandalizing: Just now he vandalized the clean fuels userbox (diff) (users the edit affects) to offensively try make a point.

ALL his recent edits have been to articles I've edited and he seems to be here for no other reason than to harass me: I think he might even be a sockpuppet of some other user wanting to harass me under a different name. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

He is a person I met at the VFW hospital, and I dont think his conduct should be blocked, he was only exersising his freedom of speech. Just because you dont agree with him doesnt mean you can silence him. Additionally, his sister is mentally retarded, I know that because I met her. FFF has diabetes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.74.74.202 (talk • contribs) .

Who are you talking about? I don't see a User:FFF here. --Deathphoenix 22:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Im talking about Fighter For FreedomRepublican91 22:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

there is no article at Fighter For Freedom and I'm not seeing any deleted articles either? Checked Fighter for Freedom too. --W.marsh 22:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Or a User:Fighter for Freedom or anything in the logs for them [7]. --W.marsh 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_me for more details on this. It's pretty much been decided. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, user:Fighterforfreedom, and by the way, you read too much Harry Potter

The top message was posted on my talkpage too, by Republican91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ; I'll reply here once and for all. The privilege of editing Wikipedia has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. Why don't you try going to the Encyclopedia Britannica and insist on your constitutional right to insert "flaming communist homo" and "fucking bitch truckstop whore" in it? Everybody is invited to edit here, but the invitation is withdrawn if somebody is a mere drain on the project. I'm sorry Fighterforfreedom feels bad, and I'm even sorrier his sister (who is apparently not too retarded to navigate this site, something many healthy adult new users find quite challenging) talks exactly like he does. Please don't post on my page under any name again, it will only be removed. If you continue spamming this noticeboard with your unreasonable complaints, now that the case has already been fully discussed here, they will be removed on sight, too. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

Consider this edit by Republican91, the most recent sock puppet of Fighter For Freedom. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've indef. blocked all the sockpuppets of Fighterforfreedom including Republican91. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding note I put on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, as I'll probably get something quicker if I come here:

• User:Roitr has used several IP addresses and other sockpuppets to vandalize and/or add incoherent, unverified, and senseless "facts" to the following articles: List of countries without an army [8], List of state leaders [9] [10], Comparative military ranks of World War II[11], Air force officer ranks [12], Naval officer ranks[13], Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel[14], Ranks of the People's Liberation Army, Ranks of the People's Liberation Army Navy, Ranks of the People's Liberation Army Air Force, Russian military ranks, Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation, Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation, Naval ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation, and the Military ranks of the Soviet Union.
  • Further note: there are several others aside from these, these are the ones vandalized directly by the "Roitr" account - God knows how many it will be if you count the sockpuppet accounts. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A (growing) list of his sockpuppets:
    • 81.218.179.146
    • 84.109.80.143
    • Tt1
    • 80.46.172
    • 81.218.115.169
    • 84.110.69.171,
    • 82.81.58.42
    • 81.218.175.147
  • Please block him, he is causing as much trouble as the the Communism vandal and/or Willy on Wheels. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But wait There's more! I want you all to know that he has been begged to stop, and in that case I will add no links, as one only has to go to his talk page to see that several users have stated that his edits are inaccurate and harmful to the encyclopedia. He refuses to listen, I beg those who don't confide in my report to look in the diffs. provided by the article links above. Note that these are a morsel of the things he has done here, and those aren't necessarily the worst. He also has used IP's to blank his talk page whenever vandalism reports are posted - I don;t know how right I am by this: but I will take the liberty of simply adding them back everytime, as we need a record of the nonsense he is responsible for. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I feel that I should say some more anyway: all the rank article vandalism to Russia and China seemed to be adding two gold bars under the US category, along with the rank order: Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant, and First Lieutanant, neither of which exist, of course. He also came up with some rank on his own called Podpraporschik (which, as a vandal article, was deleted - that's why that is a red link and not a blue one). This user should have been dealt with a long time ago, and I am sick of this silly "He'll go away" attitude by adminstrators I have confronted. He hasn't went away: It is time to do something, NOW

I also hope I can trust somebody will add more evidence against Roitr/Tt1 - note that all the IP addresses start with "80" something and according to this tracking service they all come out of Israel. (Open proxies, by the way, are illegal on Wikipedia) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this attracted as much attention as Vanilla Ice's music career (that is, recently :) ). Seems like no one cares, but remember, I warned y'all about this guy. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be deleted under {{db-bio}}/{{db-band}}, but everytime I place the notice there it gets taken down (by the creators of the page). Google searches for names of people and albums mentioned in the article return few if any results.--216.165.33.63 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that it's a speedy, but I've listed it on AfD to give the community a chance to make a call on it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Anti-vaccinationists. Assume good faith, no ad-hominem, a single-minded appraoch to making WP into yet another copy of propoganda on a single subject, whereas the man presumably has some actually useful material somewhere. May he (probably called John Whale) be blocked please, for a while or forever, I don't think he'll learn but some work can get done. Midgley 13:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the page Mackenzie Crook? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.142.245 (talk • contribs) .

• Can you be more specific? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note, an anonymous user from IP 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been causing significant disruption and posting threats to the community in general at Talk:Jack Abramoff. This same user was perviously operating from IP 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and managed to earn a block there. I'm not sure of the individual's actions at the new address has risen to the level of warranting a block yet, but it must be getting close. --StuffOfInterest 18:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Leaving messages like this on people's userpages is enough for a block in my book. I blocked this one for 48 hours, if they come back and do more of the same I'm happy to block them for longer. --Fastfission 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the most recent IP for 48 hours. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, all. When he pops up on his next IP I'll probably drop another note here. It appears he has a semi-static IP address as he keeps posting from one until it is blocked and then switches to a new one. --StuffOfInterest 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:85.250.217.240 for one week for posting a threatening message on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

He's back.. Now working from IP 62.0.142.114 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Obviously switching addresses to avoid blocks. Any appropriate action appreciated. --StuffOfInterest 00:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The account user:Pyro-tom is only used to include slander to the article Loughborough Endowed Schools, see my comment on the talk page. --Walter 22:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from WP:AN/3RR, because there were edits that amounted to vandalism, as well as excessive reverting)

He has reverted Template:User freedom seven times despite repeated calls to stop from multiple editors. The version he is reverting to is far different from what the creators and users intended it for. I consider these edits to be an act of vandalism.--God of War 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• 1. [15]
• 2. [16]
• 3. [17]
• 4. [18]
• 5. [19]
• 6. [20]
• 7. [21]
• 8. [22]

• 05:38, January 22, 2006 Sean Black blocked "User:Gmaxwell" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Lots of reverts at Template:User freedom-needs to cool off) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that I have protected the template. The then-standing version was Gmaxwell's, on which I protected without endorsement. However, since Gmaxwell is blocked, some other admin may wish to revert to before the whole 22nd Jan silliness. -Splash^talk 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've reverted to the version from before the vandalism, and added noinclude tags to fix it on userpages. Mark¹ 12:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking over this page, it appears that a 3 hours block is slightly on the short side for edit warring? Noting of course, that we usually unblock if the person agrees to quit the behavior anyway. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes it is on the short side but you have to remember that blocks are not meant to be punitive. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I think you'll find that I am in fact the person who added that into the blocking policy. I do not see anything on either User talk:Gmaxwell or User talk:Sean Black that indicates that any discussion took place where Greg indicated that he would lay off. If we keep giving shorter blocks to cabal members (Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner, and now Gmaxwell) we should at least be honest and edit blocking policy to say "24 hours if for the little people". These are guys we should hold to a higher standard than normal. Giving them a slap on the wrist when they violate one of the siplest and most straight-forward policy we've got is very poor form. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm also surprised by the length of the block, because he was engaged in vandalism, not just edit warring. I'd block him myself but I was involved in a dispute with him over an image recently. Three examples of the edits I see as vandalism: he changed a box supporting the American military to one supporting the Iraqi insurgents. [23] He inserted an image of a woman "hogtied" and gagged into a box opposing fox hunting, and changed the fox hunting link to BDSM. [24] On Template:Wikiproject Terrorism, he replaced the image of a terrorist with one of a nuclear explosion. [25] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(start comments not pasted from 3rr)

• The last one I'd leave off the list as just bad taste. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR or vandalism, although its fair to say it is disruptive. It is however incredibly notable that Wikipedia policy in no way implies freedom of speech, and that Jimbo has left us all a polite message exhorting us to keep our political views off the project, as keeping them on the project may cause it harm. Any of you who think good faith is an adequate reason not to block someone should take note.--Tznkai 17:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If I can chime in here- Greg was upset. He needed to calm down, and I thought he would be able to do so after 3 hours. I was evidently wrong (see the header below), but I did what I thought was best.--Sean|Black 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You did just fine. 3 hours stops the current problem and is probably long enough to give time to discuss the need to extend it. - Taxman ^Talk 15:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell and copyright notices

Alert to all admins. Gmaxwell is going around to every user page that displays any kind of thumbnail or flag from Wikipedia Commons and declaring them "copyright violation". He is then blanking the user page and putting up a copyright violation notice. Is there any justification for this? It seems to me there should be nothing wrong with displaying a picture on a user page so long as the picture itself is not a copyright violation. -Husnock 18:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Gmaxwell's blanking of User:Karol Langner, which did not even have any fair use images on it. I don't understand the rationale here.--Alhutch 19:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I recall that there's an official policy somewheres (I think at WP:FU) that says fair-use images are not to be used in the user: namespace. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the policy from WP:FU: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)."--Alhutch 19:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict)
Yes, I inadvertently fell foul of that a while ago. On that occasion, though, the person who alerted me merely removed the image and left me a polite note in explanation. Gmaxwell has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively with regard to image violations (real or occasionally imagined). Here, he's misapplying a rule about fair-use images to the use of public-domain images, and doing so in a heavy-handed manner. Judging by the comments on his Talk page, he's heading for an RfC. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The heavy-handedness is totally unncecessary. I agree with Mel Etitis, all you have to do is be polite and notify people if they have done something wrong, not go around unilaterally blanking people's user pages.--Alhutch 19:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've spoken to him several times about his aggression, since a dispute I had with him recently about an image (in which he called me "hysterical" and accused me of vandalism because I dared to revert his removal of it). What with this today and his behavior last night (see above), I'm unsure of the best way is to proceed, but something needs to happen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

His behaviour is outrageous. Firstly, where fairuse images are wrongly on user pages it is invariably due to a misunderstanding, not an attempt to break the law. All he had to do was leave a message, not post a massive notice all but accusing the user of being a lawbreaker. Secondly, he is not removing the offending image, but all images, even those that can be displayed. Thirdly, blanking a user's page is grossly disrespectful to other users. Frankly, he is out of control at this stage. This bullying behavour of his has to stop. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am confused, the original poster (Husnock) says Gmaxwell is declaring user pages using Wikipedia Commons images copyvios, surely Husnock meant fair use images rather than Commons? The commons doesnt accept fair use images and Wikipedia Commons images can be used freely. Martin 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I move that all his edits be reverted and considered petty vandalism, and that the said user be blocked for a period of one week. We don't have time to entertain him or his dubious edits. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, his contribs list is beyond the pale. It's vandalism, pretty clearly. You just need to remove the image and leave a talk page message, and you don't need to blank others' userpages. It's behaviour I'd expect from an editor on a rampage, which, frankly, Gmaxwell is. Note in particular User:Carnildo/Unusual Files, which is merely a list of links to images, and contains no images at all. Evidently, Gmaxwell has blindly been applying his new policy without any thought. I've reverted all his edits (yes, with rollback), and yes, I know that exposes fair use images in userspace. Gmaxwell can jolly well go and remove them as appropriate by hand+talk page if he's that concerned about it. Further, he's been doing ridiculous things with userboxes very recently, and calling people assholes. He's now taking a 24 hour Wikibreak to reconsider his general behaviour. -Splash^talk 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this course of action, as Gmaxwell definitely needs to cool down.--Alhutch 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Splash, but I'd have given him 72 hours at least. :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Start out with short blocks to get the message across and to have the block be remedial (now he can't continue his various crusades for a little while) rather than punitive. Imo, anyway. -Splash^talk 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The speed, systematic and indescriminate way this is being approached (Special:Contributions/Gmaxwell) really suggests to me that he is using at least a precompiled list, if not a bot, to do this. While it is in the interest of existing policy, the handling is clearly unnecessarily rough. Dragons flight 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is probably something like User:Gmaxwell/user fairuse. Do note the blind manner in which he has been carrying this out, as per the example in my previous post. -Splash^talk 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I note the fact that they all have identical edit summarries and content, are all marked as minor (the pywikipedia default) and are occurring at 30-60 second intervals (the pywikipedia default throttle). Also Gmaxwell is responsible for the Roomba bot. I am prepared to assert with near certainty that these edits were made by a pywikipedia bot. Dragons flight 20:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He blanked User:Karol Langner, which has an image which is not fair use, but rather public domain needing a tag update.--Alhutch 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey DF, long time no see! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of these edits seem a little odd. I see clear evidence of good faith efforts made by the blocking administrator and others to raise these edits with the user on his talk page, but no response.

In particular I thought the blanking of User:Carnildo/Unusual Files looked odd because at first sight it contained no inlines. However on investigating I discovered that it contained "Image" links with no preceding colon--it's possible that Greg is interpreting these as inlines, although in practise the ogg files in question are presented as links. I interpret this as a good faith error, or at least an alternative interpretation of a borderline case, by Gmaxwell.

On the blanking of the fair use pages, I think that's a very laudable objective, but the lack of interaction here is worrying. If one performs a lot of quite provocative edits--even if as here they're clearly reasonable and defensible, it's important to be responsive and available to discuss and defend them and to help repair damage caused by errors. Notices on talk pages explaining the issue and asking for the user in question to remove disputed fair use material would have been wise; I am looking but as yet see no evidence that this mass blanking was preceded by such efforts.

I want to stress again that I regard the objective here as laudable, and I'm certain that "fair use" claims on inline uses of image file on user pages will one pretty soon become a thing of the past on Wikipedia; the legal exposure to the site is too great to ignore for long. This was not the way to advance towards that objective, however. The block was necessary to stop the user continuing his ongoing actions without discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:Majorityrule is going around doing the same thing now. 68.39.174.238 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked --pgk^(talk) 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be much more sensible to post a templated message on user's talk pages notifying them that they have fair use images on their user pages which they should remove? Arniep 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

it certainly would.--Alhutch 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just address the fellow in English instead of templatese? This might promote a dialog in which the user could be educated about the liability issue with respect to use of images to which there is no free licence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In the past when Greg has left notes he has been very confrontational, which causes the situation to flare up. In his case, using a template would be a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On the evidence, it seems that Majorityrule was a sockpuppet of Gmaxwell. I have extended Maxwell's block to one week. Given his behaviour, if they are an admin perhaps a move should be made to have them desysoped. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Look what I started! As to my own userpage, are flags a violation of these strange rules and regulations? Displaying a country or city flag on a user page should not be a problem, but some of the flag images come up as fair use. As far as the original user blanking all these pages, it is vandalism as far as I'm concerned. Not the right way to do it. Back to the flags, if there is a problem with displaying them on user pages then we have an even bigger problem since hundreds of user pages probbaly display a flag or two. -Husnock 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The flag image issues is explained in detail at User_talk:Husnock#Flag_images_question. Brief version: the flags were tagged as a PD template, which I moved in late 2005 to one that makes flag images fair use/maybe PD. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What evidence is there that this was a sock of Gmaxwell? How sure are you that an extension of the Gmaxwell block is justified? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He isn't an admin and supeficially performing exactly the same set of edits does suggest a sock puppet (my initial reaction), though of course it's possible that it is someone up to mischief. --pgk^(talk) 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the original block is justified but the extension is not, I am going to reduce back to the original block time. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Маjоrіtуrulе (talk · contribs) (cyrillic letter substitutes) and Minorityrule (talk · contribs) were recently created and blocked before editting on the presumption of being additional sockpuppets. Dragons flight 22:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser says: These appear not to be Gmaxwell at all, but a troll stirring up shit. They also created FіrеFох (talk · contribs) and Vаndаlbоt (talk · contribs) (both Cyrillic substitutions) and previously used Wikipedia is not evil. (talk · contribs) - all impersonation or near enough. Majorityrule (talk · contribs) is Greg, however. This appears to be Greg wanting to go out with a bang because he's sick of Wikipedia. Argh. - David Gerard 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that proves me right then in my choice to reduce the block back to original length. It's also a very bad idea to block for sockpuppetry without checking into whether they're actual sockpuppets or not. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not enitrely sure it does, reread "Majorityrule (talk · contribs) is Greg", that's the one which caused the block extension. --pgk^(talk) 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That proves that Gmaxwell did engage in sockpuppetry which means it was right to extend the block.--Alhutch 00:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg obviously wants an indefinite block and I'm in favor of denying it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted, blocks on Greg have very high collateral damage. Specifically, they block Mindspillage. Phil Sandifer 07:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a big worry. If Mindspillage needs the editing priveleges returned every time Gmaxwell decides to be a jerk, she can always unblock the autoblocked IP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Something positive

There's a lot of angry guys around, and talk of an RfC on Greg's talk page. I'm afraid to look at the RfC page, because I might see that it already exists, but surely that's the last thing that this situation calls for? There are a two possibilities: This user intends to return, or is trying to "go out with a bang".

If it's the second, we should save ourselves the time and energy of a pointless and almost certainly damaging RfC where lots of people would probably say regrettable things. If it's the first and they've just gone nuts, surely something more along the lines of an intervention would be a better way to return him to the fold? Has anyone been able to just chat to him?

brenneman^(t)(c) 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that talk of an RfC has been overtaken by events. He obviously wanted out and required some assistance in making the break. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent discussion on his talk page suggests that he doesn't want to leave after all. -- grm_wnr Esc 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with brenneman's conclusions. Although I think Greg was very much out of line here, there's been enough of a pile-on regarding that. Greg should be given time to cool off, and any blocks (if they prove to be necessary) should be preventive, not punitive. Let's give him time to cool off. I don't think he's recovered from the Roomba image problem of last month, which appeared to upset him considerably. Johnleemk | Talk 01:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent statements on User:Gmaxwell's talk page

All that being said, I'm still concerned about the edits he's making to his user page. If any other user said words to the effect of "you want to see damage to the encyclopedia, I can show you damage," we wouldnt be holding back. I ask again, is there anyone who's had a (real-time) chat with him? - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg still has his tool server account, he's still a talented developer with a fairly good knowledge about how the site works, and he states quite honestly that if he truly had evil intent he could do a lot more damage than a few silly page blankings. I don't think there's serious cause for concern in the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't, under normal circumstances, care if a person can actually follow through on their threats to "DESTORY WIKIP{EDIA!1!!", we care about the mindset behind those threats. My concern is for the future of an editor who had apparently made large contributions, when he'll regain his composure, and how much damage he's doing to himself as a Wikipedian in the meantime. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of malice here. He sounds bitter and disillusioned but really that is very well founded. As he sees it, some Wikipedia editors are jeopardising Wikipedia for reasons of selfishness and ignorance and his reasonable, patient attempts to protect the Foundation have been rebutted by people whose support he expected. Some of us are very buoyant and thickskinned, and that kind of nonsense is like so much water off a duck's back, while some of us are easily hurt and may sometimes overreact. Greg is of the latter persuaion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. He's not known for making "reasonable, patient attempts to protect the Foundation," unfortunately, but for acts of aggression that have led other users to leave the project. I'm concerned that, in his most recent statements, he has announced his intention to continue being disruptive, and has said he'll evade any blocks that are applied. That's a direct threat to the project, not an attempt to protect it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel the block on Gmaxwell ought to be extended so that he has a chance to reflect on whether he's able to edit within our policies. His behavior is frequently disruptive; this is far from being the first example of it. After being blocked yesterday for three hours for what was arguably vandalism, then for 24 hours for mass blanking of user pages and unapproved use of a bot, he carried on blanking pages using a sock puppet, User:Majorityrule, which check user confirmed was him. He frequently makes mistakes (e.g. wanting to delete supposedly orphaned images that are in fact being used in articles) leading to lots of time-consuming arguments during which he is very rude, with users having to undo his work, and people even leaving the project because of him. He also deletes posts from his talk page so that it's hard to keep track of all the disputes he's causing (says he's archiving, but then doesn't). [26]

Today he seemed to indicate he has no intention of following our policies:

• "Like I give a crap about being blocked, it doesn't even inhibit me from editing." [27]
• "Man. You think I've stopped because I'm blocked? Please! Blocking doesn't actually stop anyone but twits!" [28]
• "You're still wrong about me being blocked accomplishing *anything*, since I can still edit whenever I please... in fact, being blocked gives me far less incentive to be nice about it, in so far as there can be far less than nearly none at all." [29]
• "I feel great because I can still do what I want, and I don't have to worry what rude jerks think about me ... I can continue to do whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking [sic] mass of people." [30]

That's not even to mention the personal attacks. Users are frequently blocked for long periods for less than this. I think we need to show some consistency. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! After this latest episode everyone should know now that claiming "fair use" for copyrighted images on one's userpage is against Foundation policy and increases the legal exposure of the project. So block everyone who restored their pictures or won't take them down. Pilatus 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Those comments are very troubling. Anyone else making them would likely be facing a substantial block for that alone. There's only so much goodwill the community affords each of us, and GMaxwell was using up his prodigiously prior to making these comments. I'm concerned about someone making comments like that and still having access to the tool server. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately if we block Gmaxwell, a side-effect is that Mindspillage is also prevented from contributing. What do people suggest? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. We can do a user-account block without blocking the IP address (block the account, then unblock the IP). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

kinda. You could block the account but not the internet, but then he might just come back as a sockpuppet so yeah (although there's a possiblity that he might not do that also arguably you'd be better off knowing who is actually him) =| --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's... awkward. android79 22:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The comments by Gmaxwell show disrespect to the project and its participants ("rude jerks"). Gmaxwell's actions appear to have been disruptive and rude. This is seriously inappropriate behavior, and deserves a strong response from the community. -Will Beback 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the strong reek of double standards emanating from some contributors here, it's odd that anyone should hesitate at the notion that Gmaxwell be blocked for any other than practical reasons, given the pile of evidence against him. Those reasons are also fairly minor, though, surely; just about anyone could edit through sockpuppets, and some do — our response isn't to agonise over whether blocking is a good idea, but to block the sockpuppets as and when they appear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mel. Moreover, many WP policies are intended to protect the project from disruption. Editors feel insecure and unsure how to respond to problems when these policies aren't followed evenly (never mind they aren't, and would go far in stabilizing things around here if they were). Wyss 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If I could make a comment here -- It seems to me that Gmaxwell's head has gotten extremely big. It's extremely frustrating to see him make so many rude comments and vandalous edits without reproach. "Double standard" is exactly what comes to mind. Anyone else who would've acted as he has would've been dealt with much more vigorously. As an administrator-hopeful, I find it absolutely disgraceful that someone such as Gmaxwell has been permitted to continue on as he has. Wikipedians agree to edit by consensus, and with his recent actions, he seems to think he is above policy. ~MDD4696 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope that some recent contributors to this discussion will reconsider their harsh, intemperate and accusatory words in the wake of this incident. This user has currently been unblocked for over thirty hours and has engaged in no further problematic behavior. I find it incredible that editors are seriously suggesting that "more vigorous" action would have been taken against other editors engaging in the blanking of pages containing unlicensed images. It simply isn't true of me, and I find it hard to imagine that Jimbo Wales would regard this as problematic behavior--upsetting though it may be for the copyright infringer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, that isn't the point. The point is that some (or many) or the users who are using these images have no idea what they're doing wrong, or may have some rationale for the image's status as something other than fair use. The issues here are someone being overly aggressive and unnecessarily rude.--Sean|Black 08:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh up to a point, I agree with you. But let's not pussyfoot, here. All of the images in question are clearly marked as unlicensed, nobody has any business using them anywhere on Wikipedia without a very, very good reason. We should be taking this a lot more seriously, and believing that you have a good excuse to put an unlicensed picture on your userpage is not a good excuse to risk jeopardising the Foundation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What's pussyfoot? Like the First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? El_C 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. But you don't have to be a dick about it, is all.--Sean Black 13:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You're actually right for a change Tony - oh and ignore Sean Black, we all know that this is personal for him due to his close friendship with SlimVirgin and previous protectiveness of SlimVirgin's blatant disrespect of the rules about using fair use images on user pages - If people won't remove fair use images themselves someone else does need to do it.

However I don't agree with his blanking of user pages, he should have simply remove the fair use images from them and left a talk page message. While Kelly Martin is against him, there are some very large parallels in his behaviour of destructively deleting things just because they have fair use images in them than constructively just simply removing them or replacing them with a free use/GFDL/public domain image. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible response to User:Gmaxwell

Greg is obviously hurt and angry, and blocking him further now will deepen any feelings he has that Wikipedia has "turned against him", despite it looking like that's what he wants. I'm more worried about getting him to continue doing positive things in the future than I am about stopping him doing negative things right now.

But something needs to be "seen to be done", or alienate people who are not in the cabal. This is the third example of high-profile violations getting a short block in the last few weeks. Last time, I looked over the previous 5000 or so blocks and only found four 3RR blocks of less than 24 hours, for example. Do we expect that we'll have happy Morlocks slaving away forever with this inequity?

A possible (non-punative) measure is having ArbCom issue an injunction stating that Greg is on 0 revert, 0 attack, 0 bot (?) parole, etc etc, with a statement that he's welcome to continue contributing in a positive manner but that damage to Wikipedia won't be allowed. Sadly, this should be paired with an indefinite block of the IP until he promises not to blow shit up, as is standard. If his promise is by IRC, e-mail, or voice, a statement that it has been received should be placed somewhere public. No need for an apology or any of that nonsense, but a clear message that blocks will be applied, and an injunction means that no one has to hesitate to perform them.

brenneman^(t)(c) 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block of Greg's IP would also be an indefinite block of an Arbitrator just elected to a three year term. Are you quite certain this would be a good idea? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It should not be difficult to help Mindspillage find a proxy that he can use for editing. True, Gmaxwell might be able to take advantage of that too, but that doesn't mean we should be paralyzed with fear. Nandesuka 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, the block of the IP can be undone, leaving only the block of the user account. A block of Gmaxwell will not affect Mindspillage. 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)SlimVirgin ^(talk)

There's no need to block the IP. Any sockpuppet causing trouble of the kind Greg has caused will be recognized pretty quickly and blocked. It's the Gmaxwell account that needs to be blocked for longer than 24 hours. I wouldn't say indefinitely, but I think the week-long block ought to be restored, to give him a chance to consider whether he wants to be part of the project, with all the frustrations that necessarily entails, and which he currently seems unable to handle. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm operating on the assumption that we'd treat this independant of whom it is that's acting up. I find it hard to credit that if a static IP has run a destructive bot from a username and again from a sockpuppet that we'd think for more than five seconds before we'd block the address until that person foreswore more bad behavior.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Wik. He was hardbanned for the same kind of thing. I appreciate Greg's concerns about copyright but I'm not sure that the right response to not getting your own way on day one is to start vandalising the place on day two. As he's noted on his talkpage, he's technically adept enough that banning him would not be sufficient to prevent him from carrying out further vandalism but it sure would give him a message.

I think you have to separate the user -- bad -- from the agenda -- good -- and give him the message: you're banned until you turn the dial down and try to achieve your goals a bit more patiently. Grace Note 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything more than we can or should do at present. Greg has developer rights on the toolserver, and his investment in the project as a whole is not in doubt. I think we should just wait for him to cool down as very little damage has been done except for hurt feelings.

And honestly if anybody brings up "morlocks" and "little people" again I shall vomit. Greg is precisely that, not an administrator or an arbitrator, and by his hard work and talent he has made himself a great asset to the project. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You read my mind! You know damned well that if someone you didn't like was doing this, you'd be leading the charge, Tony. It has nothing to do with "investment in the project". Lir made many good edits. So did Wik. Grace Note 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To be frank: While Greg is indeed neither an adminstrator nor an arbitrator, one needs only to scroll up a bit to discussions of "collateral damage" to see that he is politburo at the least. If we continue to give senior contributors free ride to wheel war, vandalise, run bad bots, and generally do whatever the hell they want, let's not be suprised that the peasants are revolting. I suppose we could just quote the ArbCom and tell them to fork off, but good luck maintaining 934,826 atricles without them.
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tone it down? "Wheel war", "run bad bots", "vandalise", "peasant" and did I see somewhere in there a reference to the Cabal and the politburo? Aaron, you yourself must know from your own treatment that respected contributors (whether I regard them as personal friends or not--there is no issue with that) tend to attract more good faith and that the evaluation of a situation is not so blindly evenhanded as to, for instance, block a respected contributor who makes a gross misjudgement but does not seem to present an active risk. I think there is underlying this a suggestion of double standards, which I steadfastly refute. I do regularly (check my block log) reset and remove blocks where good faith can be inferred from email conversations, talk pages, or from reading this forum, and I have no doubt that this is a normal and regular operation carried out by all other conscientious administrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As much respect as I have for Greg, I have to agree with Brenneman. We can't tolerate this shit. It's one thing to gawk at punitive blocking. It's another to gawk at preventive blocking to prevent further crap from occurring. The practical problem, of course, is how to get Mindspillage to edit. Presumably she will have to use a proxy, or we'll have to disable the autoblocker for Greg's account, as the autoblocker will automatically block any IPs he has been using. Johnleemk | Talk 06:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

John, he is a technically adept user. He can easily circumvent any block. So it's pointless seeing a block as a way of actually preventing him from editing. But if his ID is blocked and his IP left untouched, he is given a message. Or we could just all purse our lips some more and tell ourselves how much we "respect" a user who respects other users by blanking their userpages rather than talk to them. Grace Note 10:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you getting at? I've already said I want him blocked as long as he continues to damage the encyclopedia. You're talking to the wrong person here. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifics of this case aside, getting Mindspillage to edit is a total non-issue, since she's an admin and can easily unblock her IP herself as per the "collateral damage" rule. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And who pretends to be an admin, threatening to block people who disagree with him, [31] regularly makes personal attacks, tells people they're using Wikipedia as free webhosting because they don't want their user pages to be edited by others (nothing to do with images, mind you), [32] and asks good editors to stop editing outside the main namespace because he doesn't like the way they voted in an RfA. [33] [34] [35][36] [37] [38] [39] [40] The people defending him have to realize that they've weakened their own positions regarding the next time they call for a troublemaker to be blocked. If they're prepared to take that on board, good luck to them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he asked people to stop editing outside the main namespace. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sjakkalle. Fixed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If he's been doing that, you need to take it to dispute resolution. WP:AN/I is mainly for assessing urgent problems that may require administrator action. There doesn't seem to be any cause for that here, so far. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, Tony, those defending him will have to be consistent, so if you're willing never to put a query on this page about a non-urgent issue, never to block someone for doing less than Gmaxwell did, and to seek dispute resolution from now on when dealing with disruptive editors, instead of blocking, there'll be no problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be as inappropriate for me to defend Greg here as it is for you to use it as a forum to attack him. This is for assessment of risk in potentially urgent incidents. Please take your complaints against Greg Maxwell to dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been larely away from Wp for a couple of days and have just read Maxwell's page. Frankly his comments are outrageous. Freom threats to bypass blocks to verbal bullying his comments there are outrageous and would not be tolerated from a newbie. Then there's this. He seems to be out of control. (BTW so is this page. Every time I hit the edit box I'd find myself in the wrong part of the page. I had to type this by opening the entire page. The text then appeared letter by letter with each letter taking 4 seconds to appear. It took 7 minutes of typing, waiting and correcting to add this paragraph in. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 00:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Post-Block

I think Aaron's comment of him being "hurt and upset" is still there after the block, but at least he seems less aggressive now(to an extent)[41] .Just figured i'd give a heads up. Karmafist 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion of this user is that he is a very dangerous individual whose edits speak for themselves. Full of sarcasm, threats, rude insults, impersonations of an admin, not to mention massive disprect of other users and blanking of user pages. I'm all about forgiving, but this is banable behavior. If further incidents occur, a ban would be warranted. -Husnock 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Which admin did he impersonate? kmccoy (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He acted as though he himself had administrator status, I believe. ~MDD4696 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So? Admins aren't police officers. If "impersonating an admin" was an offense, then we should start banning all those evil non-admin users who post {{test4}} onto user_talk pages. kmccoy (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike Nobody/II needs to have the fair use images removed. Needs delicate handerling. User appears to be a little anoyed about haveing to remove fair use images from his userspace.Geni 03:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Where's Gmaxwell when we need him? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who has volunteered for this kind of thing? Jkelly 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Me. Problem is that I delt with the last lot of copyvio stuff so he is slightly anoyed at me.Geni 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I just left another message at User talk:Mike Nobody. Jkelly 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the issue has been resolved. Jkelly 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Sebastiankessel said that removing warnings from one's talkpage is considered vandalism. He told me to check WP:Vandalism, and so I did, but I'm having a problem finding the info where it says that one is not allowed to remove a warning on his own talkpage. What is says is "Removing vandalism warnings from one's talk page is also considered vandalism", but I was not warned for vandalism. Can someone help me out? Can I remove a warning that doesn't pertain to vandalism? --Candide, or Optimism 20:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Anittas is right. I interpreted the message left as a warning and reacted accordingly. I'd like somebody to correct me if I was wrong in the way I read the page. Thanks.

My apologies in advance to Anittas if I misinterpreted the policy. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's cool. --Candide, or Optimism 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, though I concede that that is the wording of the policy, the intent is actually slightly different. The intent of that comment is to avoid anonymous vandals removing warnings. I think it's permissible to allow a wide latitude in behaviour here. Nevertheless, Anittas does correctly state what the policy page says. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A loophole in one policy is not carte blanche to violate another. When removing warnings Anittas misused the edit summary to make personal attacks and discount genuine warnings as mere harassment [42], [43]. FeloniousMonk 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not misuse the edit summary because it's my talkpage and I should feel free to remove any comments that I want. Your policy say that a user is not allowed to remove warnings about vandalism. I disagree with that one also, but it has nothing to do with my case. Where did I make personal attacks when I reverted back? I want you to back up this claim of yours. --Candide, or Optimism 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As has been said many times, policy is what we do, and the written version of it always lags behind. The page should be updated to reflect what is actually meant (which Sam Korn stated quite concisely, so I won't bother repeating). Having not read through the events of this situation, I can't speak to the issues FeloniousMonk has raised, but certainly WP:VAND needs to be updated. I'll go and do that now. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can an admin change, update, or reform a policy? I thought that the entire community decided on these things, with a reserve from Jimbo who can at any time dismiss any changes. Also, it doesn't matter if you change that particular policy because that particular policy - that is, the Vandalism policy - doesn't apply to me. I have nothing to do with vandalism. --Candide, or Optimism 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages only document policy; they aren't policy in themselves. Where what happens is obvious, it is not unreasonable to update the policy page to reflect this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. The policy pages reflect the official policy if Wiki, right? Then, I'm thinking that one user can't just decide that the policy is to be changed or even reworded without authority from the community, or whoever. --Candide, or Optimism 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question, as far as I can tell, is no. The policy pages do not reflect the official policy of the Wiki; they reflect, for reference, in a slightly out-of-date way, what we actually do. -- SCZenz 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. There are one or two "official" policies, which must be obeyed: NPOV, Copyrights, Civility. Other than that, written policies are more like guidelines that should almost always be followed. The primary policy, though, has always been "use common sense", and updating policies to fit in with sensible practice makes good sense. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How can you then enforce things that are not a part of the policy? Say that I was a vandal and I would remove warnings about my vandalism on my talkpage. Why would I then risk to be blocked for removing the warning? In fact, how can you define that as vandalism at all? You said above that the wording was wrong and that it would apply to anonymous users that would make the revert. Obviosuly, these admins wouldn't interpret it this way. You guys aren't even on the same page. It seems that there are no requirements on who can add new rules to the policy, as we have seen here. Some dude thought it was good to update the so-called policy and so he did, without anyone objecting it. It makes no sense. Who is shaping this policy? Who decides these things? --Candide, or Optimism 07:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As I told you on wikien-l, Wikipedia is not a game of rules. It is a project with a purpose. You seem to be confused about this, given your constant attempts to find a way around the wording of policy. You see, the wording of policy isn't what gets enforced, in actual fact. It's the spirit. Granted, we sometimes disagree on the spirit, and that's to be expected. But there is no way to get away with things on technicalities here, so please do yourself a favor and understand that. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I've restored Essjay's wording, because it's obviously sensible. This being a minor and blatantly obvious fix to the policy, this is the appropriate way to build a consensus--it's a wiki, remember? -- SCZenz 23:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious...why, if civility is a policy instead of a simple guideline (like WP:NOR, WP:EDSUM, etc.), are we not permitted to block unrepentant violators? Tomer^talk 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Too subjective - David Gerard 12:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Tznkai has banned Yuber (talk · contribs) from editing Islamic extremist terrorism for disruptive editing in violation of the arbcom ruling against him. I don't know the details, but I see Queeran (talk · contribs) is somehow involved, and it might be relevant to know that there's a suspicion Queeran is banned user Enviroknot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who's been after Yuber for months. I've advised Yuber to request a user check. If Queeran is directly involved in Yuber being banned from editing this article, I wonder if Tznkai might reconsider? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)if Queeran is Enviroknot, I'll just ban him too. Its a one week suspension from an article, not punative, but prevnative so he'll cool down. Yuber seems to have taken it pretty well. Where the hell is that template by the way?--Tznkai 03:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I was never able to find a template, so I just wrote it up myself when I last did it. [44] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with a ban since I wish to remove myself from this dispute for a while. Yuber^(talk) 03:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For those of you concerned the applicable remedy is qualified as "Disprutive edits" and repeated reverting is by its nature, disruptive. I am planning on lifting this ban in one week barring objection, and willing to lift it earlier if any three adminstrators ask me too.--Tznkai 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely protest this outrageous accusation by the admin Slimvirgin, and note that she is entirely too protective of Yuber. Queeran (strikeout added by Tznkai. El_C 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

Take it outside.--Tznkai 04:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, if you're going to strike out another user's comment, you must clearly denote this. El_C 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, as Yuber doesn't seem to mind, I see no problem, though someone should request a check user tomorrow to see whether Queeran is editing from Houston, Texas, or using open proxies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no need. I can tell you right now, yes, I live in Houston. It's no crime. I don't use open proxies. As for the rest, I suppose I really shouldn't care, your behavior in this has proven to me that there's absolutely no point bothering with Wikipedia. Queeran

Oh, if only I could believe that - David Gerard 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not ban Yuber indefinitely? He's clearly a trouble maker. Zordrac 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having tried to AGF for quite some time, I feel this is no longer warranted and I've blocked Mistress Selina indefinitely. Her recent actions, especially this edit and the subsequent discussion on her talk page, look too much like the work of a troll. I don't think this can be explained away as a case of ignorance, or being new around here. In fact, after some consideration I don't see that there can be any explanation that would convince me that the linked edit above was made in good faith. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this a blockable offence? Maybe. Indefinetely? No. But for me, it is the case of straws and camels backs. Somoen pushes it, and pushes it and eventually we either stop AGF - or we become dolts. Perhaps reduce this to three months, but I'm minded to let the block stand as is. --Doc ^ask? 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because the best way is to just block people so the POV pushers they oppose can get away with bullshit.

Wikiadmins are fucking cowards, this is just more abuse of power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.120.29 (talk • contribs) 14:25, January 27, 2006

I'm not a sock, but I agree to 99-percent on the statement made above. You guys are cowards. You come here just to block people and play your role-playing game by hiding behind the Wiki policy. Go and work on articles, instead. If someone thinks that Wiki is a fascist site, then let them. What the hell do you block them for? In fact, I happen to agree with that statement to 50-percent. So what? Shouldn't I have the right to think that Wiki is a fascist site and say it? --Candide, or Optimism 17:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You may think whatever you want of Wikipedia. But when you write on a proeminent page explaining what Wikipdia is about that Wikipedia is fascism, I don't see how to distinguish that from vandalism. And yeah, if that were the only instance, that would not warrant a block. However, look at her blocklog. She's been a nuisance ever since she is around. Such an editor makes life hard for people around, and must go. With the current state of affairs, it requires an exhausting and long arbitration process to get somebody out. This case is obvious enough to bypass that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. There's no policy that dictates free speech, and if you feel so negatively toward the project, perhaps you should leave. We're here to make an encyclopedia, not discuss politics and critisism towards fellow editors. The encyclopedia comes first. Always. -Zero^Talk 19:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

IP blocked as probably sock and certainly abusive. --Doc ^ask? 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Did it really have to take this long? WP:AGF is a great policy, but it's not a suicide pact. --malber 20:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Malber. She literally hasn't gone a week without being blocked for something. We've tolerated her for too long. Raul654 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yay! However, Selina will come back with another username, I believe this is not her first username, nor the last. And the story will start again..... Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat inclined to reduce this block. Despite being blocked and unblocked many times, she has never actually had a block stand for more than 30 hours. I'm uncomfortable jumping straight from 24 hours for childish behavior to an indefinite block with nothing in between. Sit her down for a month or two, perhaps, but I'd still offer her another chance. Dragons flight 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers. It's about time. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop being so anti-Jewish, already! !תצאי בחוץ El_C 22:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, old habits die hard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, my cabal calendar says it's Slim's week to be the anti-Palestinian, and Tomer's week to be anti-Jewish. C'mon guys, stick to the schedual! - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And who gave you a cabal calendar?--Doc ^ask? 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Doc, that was me. Wasn't thinking :). And good job, Mark. I hope it sticks this time (*cough, cough*).--Sean Black 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"bonk the trolls on the head before they get too socially involved with the site" (source)
--JWSchmidt 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm tired of her. I want to say something about process, and ArbCom, etc, but hell with it. She's a pain and the project is best without her.--Tznkai 07:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck process. Block timewasting trolls. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Careful what you ask for Tony. You might see the administrative staff halved. Honestly, what can possibly justify such an excessive and pointless ban? MSK, as noted above, has been blocked, but never has a block stood for much more than a day. Indefban is totally out of line considering the fact that MSK is apparently acting in good faith, and doing her best to help wikipedia. I suggest that this block be removed - and that those of you jumping on the chance to hang MSK out to dry try some serious self-reflection. --Dschor 07:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is perfectly good, and nobody is perfectly bad either. However, Selina has been too much trouble for whatever gain she has been bringing to the project. I believe the block must stay.

But Tony's wording was poor indeed. Following process is the only sane way most of the time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some users may be of the opinion that Selina has been more trouble than she is worth, but it is clear that she has become an easy target, and that admins are taking the opportunity to silence one of their more effective critics. Her edits in this instance were hardly worthy of a warning, and certainly not of the caliber demanded for an indefban to be placed on her account. Tony's "Fuck process" comment is an indicator of the level of discourse at which the administrative staff has chosen to engage MSK. Abusive blocks simply exacerbate the problem. Why give her more to complain about? What damage has she done to override WP:AGF? --Dschor 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now. Her edit was trollish and totally unacceptable. What's worse is the spray she gave when warned for it. And it's not as if her behaviour has been isolated – she's been a continual nuisance. This block is clearly warranted.--cj | talk 08:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone see the irony? Post in good humor that wikipedia may be turning fascist... and then get proved correct as admins swoop in to block with no regard for proportion. I could see 24 hours as the max for such an edit. Indefban? You must be kidding me. The block is more trollish than the edit was. --Dschor 08:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you seem to be taking an exceptionally narrow view of the reasons for this block. It wasn't solely her edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that justified the indefinate block, but her manner before and after it. It was, as they say, the final straw.--cj | talk 10:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

She has indeed been a nuisance from the start. Here's a wikified version of three posts I made on Wikipedia Review a couple of weeks ago, describing her history up to that date.

• User:Tony Sidaway/Blocks on Mistress Selina Kyle

She has been blocked several times since then, mainly for disruption and vandalism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The user seems to be in a permanent state of war with the wiki. I support the indefinite block here. -- SCZenz 08:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree. An indefinite block is suitible; Any user going without not being blocked every week is..troublesome. Users have asked her about her methods of speech and actions numerous of times, and she continued to take advantage of such interaction. Hmm, guess she'll never learn. -Zero^Talk 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

She seems to have been unblocked by Freestylefrappe [45]. Was there discussion of this somewhere I'm not aware of? -- SCZenz 18:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course not. Freestylefrappe is making a WP:POINT yet again, and has undermined concenus and previous situations. I recomend a re-block immediately. -Zero^Talk 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nope. It's just typical bad-faith wheel-warring, of the sort that should lead to the development of some sort of policy, but won't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone construct an Arbitration case against Mistress Seline Kyle? If they can, clearly they need to do so, since admins cannot agree among themselves on what should be done. -Splash^talk 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is consensus here at WP:AN/I. The fact that one admin is willing to reverse the decision, without discussion, doesn't change that. So I don't see an ArbCom case as necessary. -- SCZenz 18:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It does change it. If one admin can be found who will unblock the user, then there cannot, by definition, be a community ban. As WP:BAN says, "Some editors are so odious that not one of the 600+ admins will unblock them." I'm saying this only because there is obviously disagreement, rather than because I support unblocking or whatever (I have no position on this case), and the user's blocklog indicates substantial evidence is available for an Arb case that would likely result in an injunction of some sort fairly quickly, pendin the final outcome of the case. (Though, given the usual duration of an arb case, you'd be better of just using the law courts.) -Splash^talk 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Freestylefrappe's reasoning seems to be that it is okay to use the label "fascism" to describe the actions of Wikipedia administrators but not Wikipedia as a whole. --JWSchmidt 18:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: Now Improv put in a one month ban. Maybe that has consensus...? -- SCZenz 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

At risk of sounding like a scratched record: it needs unanimity among admins, not consensus. It is not fair to any user to iterate on their block length. -Splash^talk 18:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For a permanent ban, this may be true. A one month block is absolutely justified and does not need to unanimity. Since only one admin disagrees with a permanent block, there's obviously strong consensus for a limited block. No admin should unblock without a very good reason. This is no longer a ban, so "I disagree" is not a valid reason to unblock. Carbonite | Talk 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I definitely support a one month block. Carbonite | Talk 18:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

One month seems like a sensible length. Hopefully a line can be drawn under the matter now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree per Ms. Knott. Should be instated as a sensible blocking period, and prevents controversy, as well as coincides with concensus. Next situation, however, should warrent a indefinite ban. Good faith and policy-dedication only goes so far. -Zero^Talk 19:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If the one month block, which I also think is reasonable, is lifted without good reason, then I will restore it. Once. If there is consensus for this block then it will be sustained by such a reasonable show of preparedness to enforce it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm on welcome patrol when I see this come up on RC, and I have to say that i'm dismayed once again after looking at all of this. Selena's incivil to the point where i've given up on bothering defending her, but I look up at all of this and wonder what her crime was, violating WP:DICK,WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA and a variety of the other hodgepodge goobledygook that we call "rules" around here,which she has done, multiple times, or pissing you people off, which she has also done multiple times.

If it's the former, that's fine. Just be clear about that here and now -- I think she's gotten to the point that the minimum would be a few months under our current wiki-legal structure. If it's the latter, than she's right, this place is fascist, i've seen too many times people ignoring any process to try and harm others under the guise of "helping the Encyclopedia". Replace "Encyclopedia" with "Fatherland", and you have the modus operandi of a multitude of fascist governments and movements throughout history: they ignored all other concerns for the good of the nation, and in this case, our nation is the Wikipedian nation, the people who use it and contribute to its articles, images, and yes, culture.

Sometimes those who do things like that feel that there's no other recourse, sometimes those who are on the recieving end of actions like that are instigators and should know that such actions would recieve a due response. Regardless, it's a symptom of a sickness that all of us in the higher echelons of this project have, and few want to admit -- that the way we govern ourselves is in need of a drastic overhaul immediately.

Because if we block Serena out of our own subjective views of her, it's a slippery slope before any of us, along with an assortment of secretly contacted colleagues, can get rid of any of us through any justification, regardless of its merit.

I won't return to this discussion, so if you disagree with what I just said, please feel free to e-mail me or respond on my talk page with your torches and pitchforks, i'll delete your comments if they aren't civil. I'm likely going to break the 1,500 welcome plateau and the 10,000 edit plateau today, and I don't want to dwell on this disgusting state of affairs here if I can avoid it. Karmafist 19:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Selina repeatedly violated the fundemental rule of all social interactions -- Don't be a dick. The community decided she was more trouble than she was worth. If after 3 months, you can't go a week without being blocked for problematic behavior, then the chances for reform are negligible. Raul654 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it would be in order for members of the community to petition the Committee for a permanent injunction in such cases? A quick review of the evidence should be enough to convince the committee of the appropriateness of the proposed permanent block, and with dual support presumably the block would have as strong a legitimacy as any other such block. I'm not particularly thinking about this case, which for now seems to have been settled reasonably satisfactorily, but other possible cases in which strong community consensus but not unanimity exists for an indefinite block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the committee's mandate limits us to 1 year blocks (or, depending on interpretation, one year blocks per remedy). On the other hand, in the past, the committee's has basically told admins that in the case of clear-cut problem users like Selina, admins are to proceed at their own discretion. Raul654 19:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.--Sean Black|Talk 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate: I honestly can't believe that we've put up with this. I can almost guarantuee you that after this month block, she will come back and do it all over again. She hasn't learned anything. If we give people this many chances, despite the fact that they have repeated their insanely disruptive behaviour over and over and over and over again, then we might as well just let them run rampant. I'm pissed off about this, frankly, and I hope that something gets done, even if we have to waste the ArbCom's time with it.--Sean Black|Talk 01:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for helping the clueless and the newcomers. You make a mistake, you get warned. You make a big mistake, you get blocked temporarily. If you come back and start making good edits, all is forgiven. You make a second mistake, you get blocked again. You make a few more mistakes, you get blocked again and again and again. And again. And again and again. At some point, we have to ask ourselves, does this person have the intention and/or ability to be a serious contributor? I believe the project is far beyond the point where we need to bend over backwards to accommodate problematic users in order to extract out of them every last good edit that's in them. On the contrary, this extreme tolerance, which may have been fully justified in the past, may hurt us at some point in the future. In fact, this has already happened: I had to help several editors who had strange encounters with some of our more quirky users and who got quite irritated by the fact that they had to put up with some rather bizarre behavior. Our desire to help the problematic users should be balanced with the need to protect those who want to contribute in a stress-free environment.

In the specific case of Ms Selina, I have seen some very trollish behavior and am frankly at a loss as to why it has been tolerated for so long. In order to determine whether she really is a troll, we'd have to read her mind, of course. But, as plenty of ArbCom decisions have affirmed, we do not need to make that determination: if someone acts like a sockpuppet, they can be blocked like one. And if Ms Selina acts like a troll, she should be blocked or even banned like one. I've cleaned up a major mess she made, where she dug in on an unreasonable position and made a number of edits that were arguably in violation of WP:POINT. I've seen numerous violations of WP:AGF: instead of admitting she might be wrong, she will accuse others of being sockpuppets making a concerted effort to get her. I've seen her level unfounded accusations against users and admins. I've seen her interpret things as personal attacks that ordinary people wouldn't think twice about. I've seen her retaliate with personal attacks. For me, those are the marks of the troll. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, their are limits. Djegan 22:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed: in several of the edit wars she was involved in, the final version which is currently live was the version she was pushing. Even when it was repeatedly stated to be against consensus. Why is that? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

She isn't being blocked for being wrong. She's being blocked, when you get right down to it, for not interacting reasonably and with due consideration for other editors, and repeatedly demonstrating an inability to work with, rather than against, the community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If that was true, why weren't User:Snowspinner, User:Ambi, User:David Gerard and User:Kelly Martin all blocked? Let alone User:Malber and User:Antaeus Feldspar. Seems to be a bit strange that some people are allowed to get away with murder, while others merely have to move and they get destroyed. Oh and get rid of the ridiculous ban on me already. You all know that I never made a legal threat. One was made TO ME. There's a difference. You banned the wrong guy. Zordrac 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All the afterfore mentioned editors never recieved weekly blocks. They also discuss issues in a level-headed manner. -Zero^Talk 19:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard Scoville, subject of this article, has sent a legal threat to the Help Desk mailing list. Since the article was created by User:Rscoville, and since the real Scoville is furious and has already put up a page on his site attacking not only Wikipedia, but Maru, who discussed the problem with him on the mailing list, it's obvious that the User who created the article is not him. As a result, I will be blocking User:Rscoville as an imposter. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh. After some quick Googling, it's not a surprise he reacted this way. [46]--SarekOfVulcan 03:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that when you want to block an entire AOL range you sometimes use commands like 'blocked User:64.23.132.13/22 with an expirey time of...' to take out the entire range for 15 minutes,

the question is, could you use the same method to clear AOL autoblocks? as in 'unblocked User:64.23.132.13/22'? Or even better,

how about 'blocked User:64.23.132.13/22 with an expirey time of 0 minutes',

then just do the same thing for each of the three major AOL ranges, 64.x.x.x, 152.x.x.x, and 205.x.x.x, maybe add it as a daily function for your bot, to clear any autoblocks that might pile up during the course of the day?--64.12.117.5 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, that won't work. I use an ISP that is owned by AOL, and I've been hit by the autoblocker because of some of the AOL trolls, and unblocking has been darned impossible. Unblocking other autoblocked AOL IP's has not cleared mine, so I would tend to think there aren't ways of doing that. Geogre 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if unblocking range blocks works, but adding a 2-second block on that same range will clear those blocks. Then it's just a matter of clearing all the autoblocks, which can be searched for on the block log relatively simply. Ral315 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm attempting to keep blatant violations of WP:NPOV and WP:CITE out of the Debates over Wal-Mart article. Unfortunately, I'm currently up against the electric fence and have no reverts left. Here's an example of KDRGibby using the article as a POV essay: [47]. Note that Mallaby's arguments are endorsed in the encyclopedic voice, and that there isn't even a citation for the blatant POV under "Wal-Mart and Product Controversy". There are areas where reasonable Wikipedians disagree on POV issues, but this blatantly crosses the line. Note that this kind of behavior has gotten KDRGibby brought in front of Arbcom. I need some assistance in keeping the article in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Also, could someone please remind KDRGibby of WP:CIVIL - see [48], [49], [50] et. al. I try to avoid getting sucked into edit wars, but the alternative here is to allow the use of Wikipedia as a POV soapbox. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This recent edit appears okay to me. Thanks for the alert -- I'll get started on adding this evidence to the arbcom case. Johnleemk | Talk 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation here, is his user page breaking the rules or no? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, both his user and user talk pages should be removed from the article-space categories they're in. —Cleared as filed. 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have previously asked him to do so when he decided to copy his POV version of communism (IIRC) onto his talk page, but he refused. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 06:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've warned him against personal attacks in edit summaries; I'll start blocking him if he continues in the practice. He's deleted warnings about it from his talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Having two ANI posts ignored over the past couple months, his misbehavior has unsurprisingly not subsided. He continues to daily follow my edits and revert them, such as this revert of Wild Swans (a sore subject for him), in which I did little more than restate what was already written in a more sensible fashion. He deleted the picture, which amounts to simple vandalism. So does, I believe, the removal of others' comments on talk pages which don't belong to the user. [51]

He started his career here by vandalizing user pages such as mine (but others' as well), and he continues to make personal attacks, in edit summaries, in article talk pages, and in user talk pages. [52] [53] [54]

More details found on my user page, which leads to the other ANI reports and other edits. Any action this time? Maybe a token response? --TJive 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, as 211.30.206.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) does seem to be of negative value to the project. Going by the contribs, they could do with a block, and I would block, if they'd been adequately warned. That doesn't seem to be the case, though: I only see one, mildish and very recent, warning on his/her page. I can't slam them with a block on the strength of that, especially since they haven't edited after the warning. There's no warning of any import on the page of PatCheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) either, and I can't find the other IPs you refer to. Hmmm, I see 211.30.205.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) from one of your links, is that the same person? That IP stopped editing in September, though. Could you please supply any other IPs that have been abusive, and preferably also give links to your previous complaints, as I'm having trouble locating them on your talkpage? Diffs to your original complaints would be fine. Or else just a renewed explanation of what they did and why you assume all the accounts to be the same user, if that's simpler. This is not a token response, I'll do what I can if you supply the info I request. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for taking a look at this problem. The comment you mentioned on his page was only left by the administrator MONGO after I made this latest complaint.

Here are the IPs I know of that he has used. [55] [56] [57] [58] These are the ones that started following my edits, starting in September (the second one is mostly a list of articles I had been editing). You will see the same pattern of articles that match my own by dates. I stopped editing between sometime in late October and early January, so I don't know what other IPs he might have used in the meantime.

The other connection running through the IPs is a focus on Chinese-related articles, specifically negative edits pertaining to the Falun Gong on pages like The Epoch Times.

Now, September is when he first became a problem. Initially it was just a matter of his personal attacks and POV pushing, some of which I noticed and reverted. Because I didn't satisfactorily discuss a particular article with him, I was blocked by User:Rama. I made a post on ANI about this, which mostly focuses on Rama's actions. I don't have the diff (it was in September) but it's archived. [59]

Meanwhile, the anon IPs started to follow my edits (and sometimes others') and harass and insult various users. Here are just a few examples. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] Phrases like, "fuck off and die", "retarded", "Americocrap", etc. One that I recall (but can't find ATM) is, "I piss on your bloody Americrap flag." As you mentioned, one of the IPs was warned several times for this, and blocked. He evaded the block by using another IP, and never discussed or apologized for the remarks. Rama chose to ignore the whole situation once my block was over (and artificially extended), and after a few more weeks I stopped editing because I did not have time to mess with it.

A little later, User:PatCheng was created, and first edits on November 1 with talk messages to Rama's page and another user complaining about me. [66] [67]

Hello, TJive has repeatedly deleting off sections of articles he don't agree with without consensus. [68][69][70]. Several months ago he has been warned by Rama, and he's back doing it again

So the account is started to post talk comments which reference my dispute with him specifically, and is only used a few more times during the remainder of the year, reverting the Human rights in Cuba and Fidel Castro articles, and trolling a talk page. [71] January sees the beginning of renewed activity for "PatCheng", when I started editing again. Both PatCheng and this anon start moving "No Gun Ri incident" to "No Gun Ri massacre". His only comments in talk (as seen elsewhere) are to disparage me. [72] This message, by the way, is a tacit admission that he is the anon (not that he has denied it), who also tried to delete a message on that talk page pertaining to him. For my first January ANI report, see this diff but also this archive. The page warns that longer messages get ignored, which this was. Unfortunately, shorter messages mean "I need more evidence". So, happily, I have obliged.

It has gotten to the point now where, for a few weeks, I have been forced to revert several articles daily just for my edits to stay on the site at all. This has led several times to other users complaining to me that I am engaging in an inappropriate edit war and my having to explain every single time that something else is going on.

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. --TJive 22:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to these? [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. This T Jive person has regularly vandalised and started edit wars in political articles relating to Cuba and Fidel Castro, pushing some Cuban exile anti-Castro agenda. His use of words regularly blackwashes communists or whoever he hates, while whitewashes articles involving conservative Americans or pro-American dictators. Even his User page trolls against me and other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.206.11 (talk • contribs)

A user has been systematically attempting to replace British as a nationality with English on a huge number of articles with no prior discussion or consensus and has continued to do it despite my messages on their talk page to stop. The user has an account Special:Contributions/Layla12275 but also uses Special:Contributions/82.4.86.73 and Special:Contributions/82.110.217.226 in order to evade a block for 3RR (although the user denies this). There has been some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#User_replacing_British_with_English. I would appreciate an admin asking the user to revert their edits as there has been no discussion let alone consensus on removing British nationality on WP. Arniep 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All three have been warned. It appears that one of those IP's is from our old friends at Vandal High School and carries many warnings already. Nevertheless, let's hope that this is a single person with strong feelings who will respect our practices and not anyone with a wild hair or wild idea. Geogre 22:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very common in the UK to refer to people as Scottish/English/Irish/Welsh rather than British. Referring to people as "British" is considered highly unusual. So, while it is inappropriate behaviour to make these changes unilaterally, the end result isn't inappropriate, or an example of controversy. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'd totally disagree with that. In general people from England are described as British in any other major reference work, and most people I know (in England) also regard themselves as British. Arniep 23:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Having lived in England, Wales and Ireland I recollect only one time that someone described themselves as British, and that was a friend of mine in the Navy whose mother was English and father was Scottish. Everyone else uses either their one nationality or a combination. English people calling themselves British is very rare, at least where I come from (East Midlands), perhaps it varies depending on region? - FrancisTyers 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I describe myself as British, and not English. Secretlondon 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Legally, English, Welsh and Scots are all British (British Nationality Act 1981), but really I don't care which way it is described as long as it's consistent: On Ian McKellen there's people reverting English to British, and on Robert Carlyle reverting British to Scottish. It makes my head hurt --TimPope 23:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that isn't surprising. Generally it is accepted in reference works that Scottish and Welsh people are not described as British, but every person from England that I checked is described as British. Arniep 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I just check two reference works at random: Compact Oxford Reference Dictionary - Siegfried Sasson, English. Hutchinson Factfinder - William Wordsworth, English. --TimPope 23:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well they are both people I would think of as very English. The point is I don't think that everyone identifies as English, especially ethnic minorities and people of close descent from Irish, Welsh or Scottish people for example. Britannica also lists Wordsworth and Sassoon as English, but Ian McKellen (who has close Scottish ancestry) as British. So really noone should just assume anyone from England should be identified as English. Arniep 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for people from any country. Ideally we should go on what they think. How does Ian describe himself? If a reference for that can't be found then no mention of his ethnicity need to be made. We just say that he is an actor from the United Kingdom born in Lancashire. - FrancisTyers 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simple. Internationally many, particularly in the US, use English when they mean British (ie, from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, eg, saying Queen of England when legally there has not been a queen of England, or indeed a kingdom of England, since 1707). However certainly in the last decade since home rule was granted, British is not used to refer to people in the United Kingdom outside England (and Unionists in Northern Ireland). People from Wales and Scotland take high offence if called British, firstly because they want to be referred to by their own nationality (as far as they are concerned, Scotland and Wales are nations and should be referred to as such, irrespective of legal technicalities) and secondly because given the international tendency to equate British and English, they believe that saying that someone from Scotland is British can be interpreted as meaning they are from England. Calling someone from Scotland and Wales british is seen as POV, offensive and politically incorrect. The only issue is how to categorise people from England. Most English people have no problem with being called British. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Largely agree aside from Most English people have no problem with being called British.. I personally equate being called British with ignorance. Depending on who the ignorance is coming from I may or may not take offence, for example an American might not know better so it would be ridiculous to take offense, if someone from the UK called me British, I might not take offense but I'd certainly look at them funny - can they not tell from my accent? I wouldn't be offended (but I'd correct them), hell, I'd be more offended if someone thought I was from the South rather than from the Midlands ;) but I would be suspicious. I can only think of one occasion when someone has specifically described themselves as British and that guy had a Scottish dad and an English mum. - FrancisTyers 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone from England should be tagged English. Many people who are of close descent from Scottish, Welsh, or Irish or ethnic minorities might actually find it offensive. Arniep 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, see above for my suggestion. - FrancisTyers 00:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My 1992 UPI stylebook (it may be a bit dated by now, I don't know if a new version has been published) has this entry:

British, Briton(s) The people of Great Britain: The English, Scottish and Welsh. Do not use Brits except in direct quotations.

It has not entry for English. (I don't know if that helps but it was interesting to look up.) RJFJR 00:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dang it, folks! Let's not hash this out here, eh? The warnings I put on the pages was true: it doesn't matter which one is right or true. The fact is that the category folks have argued this for over a year, and they've got some consensus. For myself, I tend to call folks like Wordsworth "English," too. That's because the next word from my pen is "poet," and Wordsworth is an English-poet, and so is Robert Burns, even though the latter was a Scottish person (i.e. English language poet). Again, it sort of doesn't matter whether we can subdivide or not: we settle on the tag that is most inclusive and accurate. Would one want to tag Alfred the Great as a Wessex king and not an English king (I mean in terms of category)? I understand if people want to use an historical designation (English if they were from the time when the kingdoms were separate, British if before they were kingdoms or before union), but I think we've got to distinguish between profession, ethnicity, and nationality. This tag is only the latter. Maybe I'm wrong, but, if I am, let's hash it out at a more appropriate place -- the category talk, the bio MoS talk, etc., and not AN/I, because any way you slice it making a unilateral change on dozens of articles without discussion is blockable. Geogre 02:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we've got to distinguish between profession, ethnicity, and nationality Agree. - FrancisTyers 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am an ignorant American but I thought in one traditional sense British was sometimes used to refer to the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of the island of Britain, especially the Welsh, Scots and non-Danelaw areas of England, as in the context of Arthur as the quintessential Briton. Is this not a recognized inclusive usage? alteripse 03:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Briton is not the same as British iirc. - FrancisTyers 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

English, Scottish and Welsh are the standard descriptors. "British" is ambiguous and politically-charged; and considered offensive/pejorative, or at least inaccurate, by many people. There is absolutely no case for intimidating new Users with threats of blocks: that is totally unreasonable.--Mais oui! 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Have you looked at the diffs? Have you looked at the user pages? Are you sure that this is a new user, who happened to go on a rampage and find all articles with "British" and change them? No? Then let's not accuse anyone of biting newbies, eh? There is far too much evidence that this was not a new user and far too little that the user was bitten. Geogre 13:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)