User:DCGeist refuses to allow anyone to edit theRKO page with pertinent and referenced information. He also has removed the POV tag I placed on the article. He refuses to budge even though my addition is referenced because it is not in "his sources." He is attempting to remove my referenced additions to theSound film page as well. Looking at his past edits, he seems to be doing this quite alot and doesn't allow anyone to edit certain pages.Zosimus Comes08:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:DCGeist is now making personal attacks. He reverted my sourced edit ofSound film (which also included a better preserved poster than the one which is now on the article) and made this comment "this is an article about sound film, not about a single-minded editor's unsourced, nonconsensus obsessions" and then he added this to my talk page: "why don't you shut your foul mouth."Zosimus Comes09:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Top Gun (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202#Block evasion, continuing copyvio (and other sections in older archives)

Top Gun is an editor with a severe lack of understanding of copyright issues and a habit of copying material from websites. This editor was blocked twice for copyvio and the second time, the block was extended to indefinite duration for continuing to edit anonymously (also seeWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Top Gun, an older case). Top Gun was unblocked after promising ‘not to add any more copyrighted text to Wikipedia’ but ‘may be immediately and indefinitely reblocked in the event of any further copyvio edits’[1].

Recently, Top Gun createdThe Maravar Battle (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) as an almost verbatim copy[2] ofsomebody’s war story, justifying this by ‘The article has been already rewriten. And difers from the original.’[sic][3]. However, besides the fact that the initial revision was a copyvio, the article is now a derivative work (as clearly seen in its history) of a non-free copyrighted text.

Prior to being unblocked, Top Gun was told not to do this. I think this is a clear violation of Sandstein’s terms and Top Gun should be blocked. —xyzzy_n09:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

He appears to think altering the text makes it a non-copyvio. An easy mistake to make. Did he do this before he was blocked? -Mgm|^(talk)09:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A lot. —xyzzy_n09:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If he is violating the rules, as explained tohim onhis talk page, despite multiple warnings - then he should be blocked. If, however, his behavior may be reasonable, due to a misunderstanding of the rules and of the messages on his talk page, maybe the problem is that he needs things explained better.OdMishehu12:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[4],[5],[6]. Top Gun should have had enough time to readWikipedia:Copyrights while blocked. —xyzzy_n12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Solution is simple. Avoid any kind of copying and you avoid copyright violations. -Mgm|^(talk)12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I've given Top Gun a suggestion on how to go about writing articles. -Mgm|^(talk)12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Cymruisrael was banned from editingRa'anana several months ago, in relation to a dispute withuser:Israelbeach. He's just called my attention to recent massive and problematic edits to the article, edits made by an anonymous IP and having nothing to do with the dispute for which he was banned. I don't currently have the time to invest in the cleanup of this article. MayUser:Cymruisrael be granted special permission to cleanup the article as it currently stands?--woggly12:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that such a request is reasonable, provided that the user doesn't make any modification except for the cleanup, and that the material is, in fact, unrelated to the reason of the ban.OdMishehu13:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following was posted onWP:AIV:

• Mel Etitis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) - This admin attacked me for my disallow vote[7], and proceeded to attack be further despite warnings[8][9], then threatened to block me for giving him warnings[10].The Behnam18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've examined the situation, and from my limited view this does look likeUser:Mel Etitis has been quiteincivil. This isn't the kind of thing I like dealing with, so if anyone else wants to investigate this further, please have at it. --Chris(talk)18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Another one[11].The Behnam18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not an attack on you. it was a reference to your content. If it said, the Benham should die, or the Benham sucks, or the Benham is an idiot loser, i would view those as persoal attacks. SUre, they might not have been the most appropriate but they are far from being very innapropriate.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling me a 'puritan', mocking my vote, and threatening to block me for warning him about the offense are all things an admin shouldn't be doing.The Behnam18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the puritan comment was probably our of place. I will agree with that. and the threats as well but if the situation has been handedled a little nicer on all sides, things would have gone alot smoother.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I already apologized for not realizing that you don't use the warning templates for 'regulars', but this doesn't at all merit his reaction.The Behnam18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO,this edit is grossly uncivil. Civility is a policy, not a suggestion. --Chris(talk) 18:45, 26 March 2007

(edit conflict) I disagree that Mel was being particularly incivil, and I'm still looking for a personal attack here. Andnb for The Behnam- placing warning templates on a user's talk page is generally inferior to leaving them a written-out explanation of your grievance. I suspect that Mel's brevity in dealing with you was a result of getting a warning template and not some actual human communication.A Train^{take the}18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam,this cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as an "attack", let alone one that requires administrator intervention, and your leaving of boilerplate on user talk pages[12],[13] is significantly less in the collaborative spirit we expect here than any suggestion that you "grow a thicker skin" about what constitutes an inappropriate username, which was apparantly the harshest thing said to you before you started threatening to have people blocked. Knock it off.Jkelly18:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. It is sarcasm, followed by a "forsooth" statement expressing disbelief.[14]The Behnam18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, civility is a policy. It could have been stated much nicer however I think the point is valid. SOmetimes people take things a little to seripously and need a reminder to lighten up. However, the manner it was done is was not appropriate. Has teh editor in question left a message (not a template) expressiong there concerns? There is a huge rusn to post something toWP:ANI without trying to confront the editor in question first about the issue. Try to work it out there and then come here.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I must agree that Mel's username vote was hardly an "attack", let alone unworthy of a npa template. The further contacts were unecessarily confrontational from both sides, but could have been avoided if each side tempered their indignations. Jeez. No more warnings. No blocks. Just walk away and cool off. --Scientizzle18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He was basically stating that we shouldn't have editors like me/I am not a good editor. Then he expressed disbelief at my vote, then all the rest.The Behnam18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't understand how one could interpret the RFCN vote in the manner that you did. It looks more like an attempted light-hearted joke than an attack. Your application of an npa template was needlessly impersonal and trite (Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars); Mel's response was out-of-line, your continued application of npas was, too, and the whole nonsense exponentially accelerated into this. Seriously, who gains from further warnings or blocks here? Both of you say sorry and get over it. -- 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• We can do without message changeslike this one; but I don't considerthis to really be a personal attack at all. I will say that the "grow skin" message is extremely inappropriate, but not uncivil.Acalamari19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is he above the consequences other users face for the same violations? If there is anybody that shouldnot do something like this, it is an admin.The Behnam19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know of an admin who blocked an English Wikipedia user for telling another user to grow a thicker skin, please do let us know, because that admin needs a talking-to.Jkelly19:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is time. His threats to abuse admin power are also not acceptable.The Behnam19:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • This is pretty funny, since The Behnam himself threatened me and accused me of a "personal attack" for a comment that wasn't directed at him at all. I'm with Mel Etitis on the thin skin issue 100%.TortureIsWrong19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins are not above policy. In fact, admins have to make sure they follow policy more strictly than regular users do; as they are expected to know all about policy.Acalamari19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just say "Everyone calm down: incivility is a bad idea, so don't, and boilerplate templates for people who have been around a while are also a bad idea?"Moreschi^{Request a recording?}19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An admin shouldn't 'lose control' or whatever excuse because someone used the wrong template. He doesn't even yet acknowledge that he violated civility at all.The Behnam19:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see this pattern fairly often, where two users just aren't getting along and become incivil towards each other. There is no specific sanction against incivility here. Benham, if you'd really like an acknowledgement, I suggest taking it to Mel's talk page, acknowledging that you yourself had a role in this, and expressing hope the two of you can put it to rest.IronDuke19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just recently apologized for using the templates on this page.[15]The Behnam19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what you should have done instead of coming to AN/I, coupled with an explanation to Mel about why you felt his comment was uncivil. Then the two of you could have hashed it out, and it probably would have ended with smiley emoticons and back-patting. There's nothing that AN/I can do that actual one-to-one interaction wouldn't have done in this situation.A Train^{take the}19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually brought it to ANI, as it was originally posted on AIV. If this was a bad move, I apologize, but I figured this would be a better place to discuss than AIV. --Chris(talk)19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I mis-typed. My meaning is that The Behnam should not have brought this to a noticeboard at all, certainly not the Intervention against Vandalism noticeboard. I don't think that you, Chris, did anything improper by moving this to AN/I.A Train^{take the}20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I handled this the same way I do when a newbie starts attacking me; issuing warnings and then taking to AIV if he ignores them. But I guess Mel Etitis is above having to abide by the policies and face consequences like "normal" users have to.The Behnam20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification, A Train. --Chris(talk)21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've heard such complaints about Mel - I rememberthis request for comments on him from 18 months ago which includes a lot of very similar complaints. I'm wondering if this indicates a long-term problem. --ChrisO19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[after multiple edit conflicts]
Good grief.. Not only did I not call him a puritan (no-one did, though another editor used the term obliquely), but The Behnam is being incredibly thin-skinned. Would those who have no personal axe to grind have a look at the history of this, so that we can all forget about it? --Mel Etitis (Talk)19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You attack me (thin-skinned, again) to support the claim that my NPA calls should be ignored. How quaint.The Behnam21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam, your ill-founded claims of being attacked are an inappropriate attack onMel Etitis and their continued repetition is disruptive. Further, your weak claims diminish accurate claims against admins as it makes them easier to dismiss as just more of the same.WAS 4.25022:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I think that my claims are legitimate. Even if they are mistaken this does not justify an admin insulting and threatening to abusively use his power against another user. The only reason that this is dismissed is because people insisted upon protecting him by ridiculously blaming me. As if my fault even matters when it comes to an admin's civility.The Behnam00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Mel seems to be going too far.Users should not be required to grow thicker skin - this is not the project for thick skinned, this is the project for everyone. It's the uncivil editors who should learn how to behave and apologize, not the delicate ones who should learn to tolerate them. Further,threatening a user with a block for using astandard warning template is certainly inappopriate - if such block would be implemented, it would in fact be an abuse of admin powers.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admin noticeboard, I had created a checkuser case against Jessica Liao and her many various socks. The case has since been closed and I was wondering if you look the checkuser case over now that it has been closed.You can find it here. I have noticed that the accounts are still being used... recent edits include a few days ago and even themain account has started to be used again, while theIP accounts are still in use. I'm not sure what action you can take but I have been told by many admin that this is the correct place to report and ask for a decision in cases like this.MrMacMan00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If the checkuser case has been confirmed, go and post the names of the sockpuppets onWP:AIV, with links to that case. Or you could leave it here, and eventually the socks will be blocked. --KZ ^{Talk•Vandal• Contrib}06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you or admins in general don't have a problem with me leaving the case here instead of having it in another location... it would just allow me to make sure action is being taken.MrMacMan16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved toWP:CN.Durova^Charge!14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone that I presume to be the subject of the article, William (Bill) Bradford, has been tryingvery hard to get his article deleted. This involves what I suspect to be sockpuppetry, deleting what he doesn't like, tagging it for prod and speedy, and generally acting against the consensus at AfD and against the policies of Wikipedia. He also stated in an edit summary,"I have removed false statements about claims Bradford is alleged to have made but which cannot be substantied by reliable sources. Previous edits have been libelous and actionable." and"The original purpose of this page, and recent edits to it, are libelous and false and allege statements and conduct by Bradford for which there is no reliable source." I consider these to belegal threats, which I believe are a no-no. Note that the article is thoroughly cited, by my own work, as of last night. Whether those sources are reliable, I have no idea. See also:User talk:Disavian#William Bradford (professor). Any help or guidance would be appreciated. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs)14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A small correction - I believe the prod was added byUser:Doc glasgow, not by an anon. I was the one who most recently removed the prod. --badlydrawnjefftalk14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. I'm not necessarily saying that anyone that added{{prod}} was a Bradford sockpuppet, just that there is some controversy, and someone claiming to be Bradford seems to be involved. Bradford didadd a{{db-attack}} in one of his edits, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs)14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The user came before claiming that he was the subject of the article. The edits have obviously been POV some examples:"In2005 Bradford accused ProfessorFlorence Roisman of opposing histenure because of some of his conservative views andout of a racial animus against conservative American Indians..." "Several bloggers havespread false rumors that Bradford..."[16] In addition the IP has been making legal threats saying that the additions are "liable". I've protected the page for a day meanwhile we see how to deal with this.--Jersey Devil14:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Be very careful here. This is a marginally notable biography and a very upset subject. This is one of the areas when wikipedians tend to lash out and act totally unethically. Yes the article is referenced, but we really need to ask ourselves whether we need it. Whether some of the information is one-sided, intrusive, or amounts to investigative journalism. We don't do investigative journalism. And I fear some of our wikipedians are rather to keep on keeping all the critical negative information they can.--Doc^g14:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And he's a lawyer, according to the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs)14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not really relevant, even lawyers are human. Allegedly. Doc is right, we should think long and hard about what motivates us to keep this article. I have removed the military record section for reasons stated on the Talk page. I have to say that my Factiva sub does not show the case at all, so I am not convinced of the significance of it.Guy(Help!)15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant that lawyers are more likely to present and act upon legal threats. And what is this "Wikipedians tend to lash out and act totally unethically"? I was doing my best to take the article, reference it, and remove the bias. Is it not (theoretically) unethical to delete something that is (theoretically) true about someone? Although I agree that removing the military record section was probably a good idea, at least until it can be rewritten using a more NPOV stance. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs)16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it a little bit, the main conflict has been over the military record. However, that's not the primary part of his story. That part of the the article says what hedid orclaimed. It should probably be worded that "news source xyz said that..." etc. It would also be helpful if we could access his profile, but not even archive.org has it. There's not a source that quotes him saying that he has a silver star, either; perhaps he says so in one of the FOX News clips. Also, there's the question of whether or notFrontpage Magazine.com (the source for the silver star information) is a reliable source. Bradley says they are not, (if not explicitly, then implicitly given his disagreement with the information in their article) and given their consistent POV and recent crusade againstThe Technique, I am inclined to agree with him. Ultimately, I want whatever results to be thoroughly sourced, and to remain relatively comprehensive. POV and RS are our big problems here. Deleting the article because someone whines about it doesn't seemright, or ethical for that matter. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs)16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Or just delete the section. Yeah, that works too. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs)16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the article was POV-ish, and I was attempting to remedy that by adding references and rewording it; however, his large deletions of content and attempts to delete the article were highly distracting, to say the least. By the way, the broken reference #13 was caused by the deletion of this line at the end of "tenure controversy":

At some point, Bradford began assuming names and posting comments in support of himself on a law school weblog operated by students.<ref name="wol">{{cite news|last=Epstein|first=David|title=Web of Lies|work=Inside Higher Education|date=2005-12-06|url=http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/06/bradford|accessdate=2007-03-27}}</ref>

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs)14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs)15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

- Articles untagged, AfDs deleted, user blocked.WP:RBI.

User:Scalgon has in his/her own words nominated "10 random pages for deletion" at AfD. These appear to be the user's only contributions, so we're probably dealing with a sock of a banned editor on aWP:POINT rampage. Someone please close the relevant AfD debates. Thanks. --Folantin14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have closed all afd's.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm at the end of my rope again.User:Pebs96 has a long history of promotional and combative edits. She and I came originally came into conflict over the now-deletedBloodless bullfighting article. Her first edits to Wikipedia were promotional in nature, mainly adding herclients' websites toExternal Links sections ofcorresponding articles. She had the policy explained to her byUser:SCEhardt on histalk page, but continued in this manner untilhaving the same exchange withUser:Jredmond. Many others attempted to explain this policy to her, includingMetros232 andadamrice. After the discussion withUser:Metros232, she began tomark all edits as minor. She then continued toadd external links.

• regarding this "she began tomark all edits as minor"... that was a default thing in my profile, which I had no idea what it meant and did not even know what it was for. So STOP wording things "assuming" you "think" you know everything (K-I-A ... Know-it-All). Your madness never cease to amaze me. Get a life already!--Webmistress Diva06:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pebs96 created theBloodless bullfighting article inearly June last year. The article was filled with improperly licensed pictures, mostly tagged with GFDL licenses but with no release by the photographer and a very large, clear copyright notice on them. I speedy-tagged them as incorrect license, and she respondedhere after they were deleted, with my admittedly steamed responsehere and following inmy archive.

After waiting several months for theBloodless bullfighting article to become something more than an advertisement and word-for-word copy of her own commercial website, I submitted it toWP:COI/N. The decision was later made afterdiscussion there to submit it forAfD, where it was deleted, in process. 2 days after the close,she responded on the closed AfD. I had the page on my watchlist, andopened a DRV request, procedurally. I alsonotified Mailer diablo, the closing admin. It has been through DRV as well,and has been closed and endorsed.

Now she has insinuated, though not outright accused me of,racism,trolling, and being a member ofThe Cabal.

Despite the fact that I find being accused of being part of The Cabal funny, the veiled accusations of racism I find abhorrent.

Where do I go from here?fethers15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I state for the record:User:Fethers is not a member of The Cabal (TINC). For and on behalf of The Cabal,Guy(Help!)16:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Psst... The first rule of The Cabal is you do not speak about The Cabal.Deny its existence.Deny everything.Lemon martini09:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yup... you're officially a member of that cabal you talk about... which I never even heard of and wiki-linked to. You're constant harrasment of me clearly speaks of your intention.
• Just an FYI, all of those folks whom you mentioned above NEVER went as far as you are going. It truly is amazing how a person can have so much energy with negativity.
• You need to just STOP accusing me of "promoting".... when it is absolutely NOT true at all. You just can't leave stuff and people alone can you. You just have to go on and on about NOTHING!
• Well.... this is way too draining for me to have to rehash again.... so I am going to sign off now.... buh-bye! Have fun with being a negative person! Yours truly ~ --Webmistress Diva04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• p.s.

You're behavior in "nature" is quite the "anti-[faith] attitude. You seriously need to get a life and leave my alone.--Webmistress Diva04:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Edit warring on the above mentioned article, administrator intervention requestedRaveenS18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

→WP:RFPP would have been the most appropriate place to request a full protection. The talk page of the article is almost empty. You got some work to do → discuss while the article is protected. I've just done the protection. --FayssalF -^{Wiki me up ®}18:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mewtwowimmer (talk ·contribs ·count ·logs ·block log ·lu ·rfas ·rfb ·arb ·rfc ·lta ·socks confirmedsuspected)

This is from a helpme request ofUser:Squirepants101:

Can I remove theAdministrator2 userbox fromMewtwowimmer's userpage because he isnot an administrator? He did not a request atWP:RFA. He also impersonated another admin by giving himself a barnstar signed byGlen S. I removed the barnstar from his talk page. Is that also okay?

Here ishow he impersonated Glen S..Squirepants101 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit is when the user added the userbox, which I removed already.CMummert ·talk21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the cherry on top: the user has a userbox claiming that he is 13 years old.CMummert ·talk21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I left the user a note pointing out that the userbox has been removed and that it should not be re-added and requesting an explanation. (Please note, however, that there is no inconsistency between being 13 years old and being an administrator.)Newyorkbrad21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being a 13-year-old editor, just as long as no harm is done. —²¹⁰physicq (c)21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My most notable edits are as follows: addingTeletubbies andMy Gym Partner's a Monkey to the list of shows broadcast byJetix. Want to see?Mewtwowimmer00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... could someone explain to me why pretending to be an admin when you're not is as terrible as this implies? -Amarkovmoo!00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

All other things aside, it is a bad thing when your user page contains things like this "Most of my changes are so right that I can edit any page to be 100% accurate and no one can change that." and "I createdWikipedia andArfenhouse." (I'm removing said lines as we speak)⇒SWATJester^{On Belay!}00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the user self-identifies as being ADHD and edits wikipedia to keep his "miniscule attention span" (his words) occupied.⇒SWATJester^{On Belay!}00:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not being an administrator can be seen as or used as a position of authority. Admins are usually pretty experienced users, and being an administrator shows that you have at least some level of trust from the community. Also, admins have certain abilities that other users do not, and thus non-admins approach admins for help. This is problematic if the person approached is also an inexperienced new user or, even worse, a user with malicious intentions. Lastly, less experienced users frequently do things like posting block messages or protection templates when those tools can not be used. A less experienced user, not knowing where logs are or how to read them, may just take those templates at their word, which isn't good.Natalie00:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, especially given edits like this:[17] in which the edit sum is "I am the new administrator".⇒SWATJester^{On Belay!}00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with pretending to be an administrator is that people may come to you for help that you cannot provide. This user also faked a barnstar gift from another user, which I find more troubling.CMummert ·talk01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The users justcreated an Rfa for themselves with a few personal attacks in (calling other users trolls), on top of claiming to be an admin would anyone support a 24 hour cool down period? There are some good faith editsRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd support it. I just gave him a "final warning".⇒SWATJester^{On Belay!}00:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd support the RfA??? Oh.... you mean you'd support the 24-hour cool-down. *sigh of relief* --Ben ^TALK/_HIST20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)and remember, boys and girls, always be specific about your referents when "it" can mean more than one thing!

Mewtwowimmer recentlyadded questionable content onJetix (Germany). He claims thatPopeye airs on Jetix (In the United States, it doesn't, it airs onBoomerang. In Germany, Boomerang is available on Pay-TV).Squirepants10101:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah he also changed the country codes on the list of Jetix shows, and changed what countries air what. He changed the abbreviation for Scandinavia from SC to NU, so pretty clearly unconstructive. He needs to take his ADHD elsewhere.⇒SWATJester^{On Belay!}01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

AAAH! I've lost my mind! I was the guy who kept voting 10's for Popeye on the German Jetix. In the USA, Popeye is on Boomerang. I know, I know. I also added shows likeTeletubbies,Peppa Pig,The Dumb Bunnies,Bob the Builder,My Gym Partner's a Monkey, andThe Powerpuff Girls to the list of shows on Jetix.Mewtwowimmer23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood has been subject to vigorous debate about itsexistence, its notability as a topic, its scope and subject matter, etc. Anyone who reads the Talk page and related pages will quickly find that one group of editors wants the article gutted or deleted; another wants to keep it. After these various discussions, one editor chose to slap a Notability tag on the article, though it was clearly established through the AFD and other discussions that the article and its topic is indeed notable. Betacommand has taken it upon himself to enforce this POV edit by threatening anyone who removes this tag with immediate blocking, and has followed through on that threat[18]. While there clearly continue to be content disputes on this topic, admin sanctions are inappropriate here. I would ask that Betacommand be directed to mediate on a more constructive and less partisan basis, and that Jaakobou's block be lifted immediately. --Leifern16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I find Betacommand's actions here very troubling. I'm hoping that Betacommand realizes his actions have over-stepped his authority, and that other admins won't have to unblock for him. It would be much better if Betacommand did so himself.Jayjg^(talk)16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ill tell you why I blocked the user. plain and simple edit waring. I left a note on the talk page yesterday clearly stating that until issues were resolved on the talk page there was to be no edit war removal of the tag. I also stated that anyone who does remove it before the discussion was finished would be blocked for edit waring seeWP:NOT. I dont care one way or another about the tag. it was edit waring.Betacommand^{(talk •contribs •Bot)}16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ButUser:Jaakobou has only made 3 edits in the past 4 days to it, am I missing something?Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) That's not the kind of ultimatum we should be making. Betacommand, I suggest 'again that you refrain from blocking other editors- period. Your judgment on when it's appropriate to do so has been questioned many times, and you have shown no sign of being more conservative in your actions.Friday(talk)16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly question your judgement here, Betacommand. Please unblock the editor in question, and recuse yourself from "policing" this article.Jayjg^(talk)16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a group of users who are in the middle of a content dispute on that tag. I wanted to stop the edit war and left a note on the talk page hoping to stop the war and promote discussion, Instead Jaakobou ignores the issue and continues the dispute. that is why I blocked Jaakobou.Betacommand^{(talk •contribs •Bot)}

There are several users warring over this tag. It hardly seems equitable to block only Jaakobou. Allow me to add my voice to those calling for this block to be lifted and for Betacommand to use more restraint with the block button.Heimstern Läufer17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, you're one of the users who is taking part in the dispute; you've restored the tag twice yourself. You therefore can't block any of the other disputants. Please unblock Jaakobou.SlimVirgin^(talk)17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the unblock (that should be done by Betacommand himself), as per Friday and Jayjg' comments.≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support unblock per above. Seems another example of v poor judgment to have blocked only one side.WjBscribe17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't have blocked either side. :-) He's involved in the dispute.SlimVirgin^(talk)17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support an unblock as well.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Now unblockedRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message at Betacommand's Talk page making similar points. My own feeling is that he ought to be blocked, and Jaakobou unblocked; he clearly isn't going to acknowledge his error [I was wrong about part of that; he's not admitting his error, but he has unblocked Jaakobou]. Looking at Betacommand's history, I don't really see how he can be held to be a safe pair of hands for admins' tools. --Mel Etitis (Talk)17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• There have been many incursions recently, and historically. Look at his block log, he has been blocked multiple time for unathorized bot use, and has not learned.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have blocked any user who continued to edit war regardless of the side. I have unblocked Jaakobou but someone needs to stop the edit war on that page. I don't care about that page except to stop the edit waring.Betacommand^{(talk •contribs •Bot)}17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was contintuous close to 3RR infringements by a user over a number of days I could have understood, but this was nothing of the sort, protectionmay have been the answer but not blockingRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

←Looking at it, protection did not even seem too appropriate. Over the last week, there were generally 5 or less edits per day with one day having 1 edit. May be a dispute but not hardcore edit warring. I would have had to see alot more action to protect there and have a validWP:3RR violation to block.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Some background is needed here.Pallywood (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) recently went through an inconclusiveAfD discussion, which resulted in no consensus. Several of the editors who voted to keep it asserted that it was "notable", without explaining why. Following the AfD closure, I asked four key questions on notability on the article's talk page atTalk:Pallywood#Notability questions. Two other users have also raised notability concerns. One of them,Catchpole, added the {{Notability}} tag to the article to flag these concerns ([19]). Three editors including Jaakobou then acted in a tag-team to repeatedly delete the {{Notability}} tag as a means of shutting down the debate ([20],[21],[22]). To date,none of the editors who argued that the article is notable have bothered answeringany of the questions, other than appealing to the number of Google hits (e.g.[23]) or arguing in effect that "it's notable because I say it is". This is in fact the third time that Jaakobou has done this; Betacommand's action was undertaken to stop Jaakobou continuing a tag-team edit war which he started ([24]).

The notability questions haven't gone away, and I invite people to look atTalk:Pallywood#Notability questions to judge for themselves whether they're justified. To put it bluntly, a number of editors apparently don't want to address these questions and are bent on ignoring it and shutting it down. I suggest that this isn't the kind of behaviour that we want to encourage. --ChrisO18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO,

(1) I'm amazed/dismayed that you try to pin your hijacking the page into a revert war i supposedly started.[25]

(2) editors have adressed your qualms numerous times but you keep ignoring them and portray the responses as "it's notable because I say it is", as a matter of fact, it has gotten tiresome to adress your repetative ignoring on Afds, votings, comments, responses and edits made by other editors which you misrepresent with ill faith to support your original deletion and blanking attempt on the article.Jaakobou19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, this isn't the place to get into the content dispute, but your notability concerns have been discussed many many times on the Talk page, on the AFD, etc. There have been strawpolls on the questions you raise, and so on. To say that we don't want to address these questions is at best unfair. --Leifern18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So where is your answer to the notability questions that I posted? Diffs, please. There is some deeply dishonest, POV-driven editing going on here, frankly. --ChrisO18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

here's some of his answers -[26], now you can search for "Leifern" on the talk page and i'm sure you'll come up with a good numbers of responses that in my mind can be summed by these two: (1) the phenom is notable and has a fair deal of coverage (as a user stated: most of the 'allegations' have been proven), (2) there is support for a better title about the phenomenon, however - it is not the generic "media coverage" title that you're promoting whole-heartedly to hide the topic in (after a failed deletion attempt).Jaakobou

Someone else already mentioned the subject, so since it's out there.. I believe there's a general lack of confidence in Betacommand's use of the admin tools. I know there's no "official" process for this, but realistically, if crat asked a steward to change someone's permissions, it's likely it would get done, right? What would it take to convince a crat that there's consensus for a removal of sysop permissions?Friday(talk)17:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It would have to go to arbcom, we couldn't just ask a stweard to do itRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, an RFC for starters ...Cyde Weys17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There alreast is oneRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To add, it can be foundhereRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a process that I am not too familiar with. However, with the large amount of seriously controversial activity recently, what would need to happen to start that process. He has been confronted many times and may temporarily stop but shortly after begins. In all honsety, I really hate to say this but I do not think he has shown recently that he has the capability to use the tools responsibily.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall say this the current RFC is moot that issue was settled before there a need for it. I attempted to step in an stop an edit war. the issue was over a tag and thus I saw no need for protection, instead I left a note on the talk page warning users not to engage in the edit war and to discuss it on the talk page. Less than 24 hours later there was another edit as part of the issue. Like I said before I have no POV on the page. I dont care if it gets deleted or becomes a FA. I was just attempting to stop an edit war.Betacommand^{(talk •contribs •Bot)}17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's to be RFC, I'd suggest a new one specifically aimed at this question rather than tacking onto the old one. But, I don't see the point in RFC unless we believe a crat would consider it actionable.Friday(talk)17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel the bst move would be arbitration, the RFC has already been filed for another issue regarding trigger happy blocking, another RFC seams pointless when beta isn't going to change his ways, and for an involuntary desysopping it must be arbcom enforced or by JimboRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, take a look through hsi last 200 or so blocks. It appears that th eusername block issue is not completly resolved. I am perusing it and have a.) found several blocks fired rapid fire (10+ a minutes or so) and blocks of usernames such asUser:Marri+jake,User:Dldnjstjr (which may be random but is short enough could have gone toWP:RFCN and other ones that would have been better at a request for comment username.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I'm not sure it's really up to a 'crat if it's actionable.Majorly_{(o rly?)}17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that a single bureaucrat could decide to desysop anyone. What's wrong with arbitration? --Conti|✉17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for getting involved in this mess. I attempted to stop an edit war an get killed over it. I havent even read the dam article. I was just attempting to stop an edit war. Please forgive me for attempting to do the right thing.Betacommand^{(talk •contribs •Bot)}17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While some accounts have been deadminned on an emergency basis (such as suspicion that the account has been compromised) there is no precedent for stewards to desysop admins based on administrative performance. Unless Betacommand voluntarily gives up his sysop rights, desysopping will require arbitration.Thatcher13117:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don't know if arbcom has ever expressed a willingness to do this due to community consensus. They usually prefer a smoking gun, don't they? I don't know that there is one here, it's more about the cumulative effect of many incidents.Friday(talk)17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with ArbCom except that it's decision cycle is so long. I'm not sure if it matters in this case, there's isn't an emergencv here. I agree with all the others that some action needs to be taken. Maybe Beta would undergo a voluntary RFA and abide by the results. Otherwise ArbCom would be the next step if there was a action (de-sysop) in mind. Maybe it's time to discuss a community de-sysop process along the lines of a community ban.RxS17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued abuse of sysop privaliges, I don't know whether they would accept or not, but if there is a repeated pattern, and efforts to try and stop the abuse with dispute resolution there is a high possibilityRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the specific situation here (indeed, I haven't even looked into it yet), but if there is a clear pattern of misuse of adminstrative rights and an Arbitration case is brought, it is likely that we will take any and all appropriate measures, including de-sysopping when necessary. Thanks!Flcelloguy(Anote?)18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would everyone support a request for arbitration then? I don't want to jump in with my feet first if the community doesn't feel that this is an appropriate measure, but I really feel this matter merits them taking a look at itRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just unblockedKarenlister1 (talk ·contribs) — no reason was givem no notice at the Talk page, just a vague wave in the direction of Username policy in the block summary. AtWP:RFCN we can't see what's going on here. I'm blocking Betacommand for an unjustified and unexplained block, unless anyone objects. --Mel Etitis (Talk)18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth,m:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access sure makes it sound like the stewards are willing to honor consensus decisions. It's true that we have no established local process for this, but then again, such things become "established" by actually being used.Friday(talk)18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the crats if they would do this. SeeWikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Would_a_crat_be_willing_to_be_the_.22trusted_user.22_in_a_reverse_RFA.3F.Friday(talk)18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Meta + stewards work for/withevery Wikimedia wiki, and not every wiki has the same structures that we do (in fact, very few do). To my knowledge there is presently no structure on en.wp to gain community consensus for a desysop as traditionally it has been handled by the Arbitration Committee, who would then request action from a steward. I doubt we could just have a discussion and then point a steward to it without significant discussion about implementing such a facility first. —bbatsell¿?✍18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Husnock was desysopped after consensus here at ANI, as far as I can recall: but that was an emergency, as he'd given away his account password to help a blocked user circumvent their block. We probably need to start thinking about a procedure for community-enforced desysoppings following massive loss of trust.Moreschi^{Request a recording?}18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Husnock was an emergency desysopping based on the threat of a compromised account. The stewards are responsible for all wikimedia projects; only some have arbitration committees. Here, I believe they would not honor AN/I consensus. In fact, as an arbitration clerk in Seabhcan case, I was planning on posting a notice of the arbcom case on Meta:requests for permissions and was told that the arbitrators would communicate directly with the stewards to effect the approved desysoppings in that case. I don't have an opinion on the allegations here but I am reasonably certain that the only way to desysop someone on en-wiki is be decision of Arbcom, either as an emergency (such as the NSLE case) or after a hearing.Thatcher13119:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I posted this initial notice on the basis of one decision that I thought was ill-advised with respect to one highly contentious article. I have no reason to believe thatBetacommand was looking for trouble, or trying to cause it. We all make mistakes, and I for one, am happy to allow him to learn from this and move forward in his efforts to improve this encyclopedia. --Leifern18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said I was just trying to do the right thing and stop what I saw as an edit war. I attempted to stop it. and now Im being taken to arbcom? what ever happen to AGF I was trying to do the right thing in stoping a edit war over content.Betacommand^{(talk •contribs •Bot)}18:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please rememberWP:AGF

• Yes, you're being taken to arbcom.Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Betacommand I believe you did everything in the best of faith. But I don't think you accept that it was wrong, any of it. More importantly, I feel absolutely no confidence you won't do it again without being taken to arbcom. I assumed good faith on March 21, when I thanked you for reverting, and took no action. I assumed good faith on March 23, when I asked you to promise you wouldn't do it again. You didn't. It's now March 26, and there are a dozen very experienced editors who think you are very wrong, again. There are only a few days left in March, but I can't think of a different way to avoid another AN/I section titled Betacommand by the end of it. --AnonEMouse^(squeak)19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Betacommand has apologized, very sincerely I think, for this mistake. It was a tense article and he was trying to do the right thing. He just misjudged. So long as he guarantees not to use his tools again in disputes that he could even remotely be seen as involved in, then I think we should let him learn his lesson and give him another chance.SlimVirgin^(talk)20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please write that on the arbcom page. You're a very experienced and highly respected editor, even among other admins, it should have an influence. --AnonEMouse^(squeak)20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look atWP:RFCN where I am requesting that many editors, blocked by betacommand for username violations, be unblocked due to lack of policy violation. This issue has been brought up before and was the reason for the originial request for comment.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

These aren't recent blocks though, by all means, overturn them if you think they're not appropriate but do we need all this drama over something from February ?--Nick^t18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thanks! I just like to make sure before I do something like that. (I.E., I would rather have a second opinion).-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, in his defense, many of those blocks are old, around the time of the orginial RFC. However, i find that suchs blocks hurt wikipedia more than any innapropriate name that exists for an extra 5 minutes will do.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the dates, which I really should have done. In one sense that makes it worse; a set of potential editors may have been driven away from Wikipedia. In another, my block of Betacommand is less clearly justifiable. Should I unblock? What's the consensus here? --Mel Etitis (Talk)18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with his recent actions, but he unblocked the one in question. While most of the username blocks that I brought up were after the initial request for comment, in the past week or 2, his blocks have been used less frequesntly. I think he should be unblocked but on the record, I strongly disagree with very much of his recent actions.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any policy basis for your block in the first place, it seems punative rather than preventative since as far as I can tell he has already stopped the disputed activity pending the outcome of the discussion. If he's really that much of a danger to the project then a block is a pretty limp sanction anyway. --pgk18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"In the first place" I'd wrongly understood that this string of blocks of User names was very recent, and the block was intended to stop him blocking any more. As soon as I realised that the blocks were older, I came here with what I'd thought was a clear statement of my position. I'm glad to see that he's now been unblocked by someone else. --Mel Etitis (Talk)20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought a clearer statement of your position would have been to unblock on realising the block was made on a misreading of the situation, leaving the block in place certainly seemed to suggest (to me) you thought a block maybe justified just not on the basis that you blocked. Your initial statement on this regarded a single username block you undid, "I'm blocking Betacommand for an unjustified and unexplained block", though having looked closer I see the block summary you used was some what different. As you say this is resolved now. --pgk20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was unclear from the linked page whether or not this was current activity. I unblocked Betacommand now that it is clear what the situation is. --RM18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I apolagize for not making it clearer. I was not asking for immediate action, however help in reviewing the usernames that did not seem to be policy violations.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the issue here seems to be Betacommand having been quite reactive apparently blocking quickly without thinking/working through any issue. I guess there is a certain irony to him having been blocked on the same apparent reactive basis. --pgk19:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have stopped username blocks to address the the issue of the RFC. I only block very obvious ones now when needed.Betacommand^{(talk •contribs •Bot)}18:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens when an admin gets too trigger-happy, but I think BC's resolve to refrain from it for the time being is a good idea.BuickCenturyDriver(Honk,contribs,odometer)00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

SeeUser talk:Coppertwig/Significant dissent andUser_talk:Coppertwig/Stability_of_policy.

New rules are imposed on editors? Read these gems in thetalk page of these:

If you are in favour of the merge and in favour of WP:ATT as the merged version, you may not edit this page. If you are against the merge or against some aspect of how it's being carried out, you may edit here, except that I reserve the right to impose additional restrictions including restricting or banning specific individuals. Individuals should respect the WP:3RR rule, except that as the user whose user space this is in, I am not limited by that rule but can do any number of reverts.

What kind of behaviouristhat, if not disruptive? The contentious attitude of this user over the last few days leave me wondering how can these users be advised to behave better? When enough is enough?≈ jossi ≈(talk)02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think his behavior boils down toWP:POINT. It seems he has a particular issue with the concept of 'verifiability not truth', and because he feels he is not getting enough people to discuss his issue with him, he is on a campaign of disruption. This includes editing the ATT poll questions by removing references to 'ATT', by engaging in endless debates, and by now creating a mini-fiefdom within Wikipedia's server where only he can decide who can edit, and where he alone can have unlimited reversion and content control. This disruptive behavior really has to stop.Crum37503:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will leave a note on his talk page if you likeWe Need You03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)—We Need You (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.

And you would be...? These are your first two edits.Grandmasterka03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at that, right in this edit window...

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others,do not submit it.

Sometimes people do keep personal essays and the like in userspace, and prefer to be the only ones to edit it, but I would really question the appropriateness of inviting only a part of the community that shares a certain opinion to edit.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just left a note on his talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crumm375, hopefully he will calmly and rationally discuss this.We Need You03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That links to nothing. Are you sure you know what you're doing?HairyReason04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)—HairyReason (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.

(3x edit conflict) Um... You posted on the wrong page. SeeUser talk:Crum375 (one "m".)Grandmasterka04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:We Need You try [link].HairyReason04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may, isn't it proper form to alert the editor whose behavior is the purpose of this AN/I that he/she has been reported here? It was over an hour before someone even told him. Not cool unless I missed something.MetsFan7604:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I just left a word with him at hiscorrect talkpage. Looks like User:Hairy Reason doesnt have a clue either.We Need You04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Now Im the one making el stupido mistakos. Posted totalk page Coppertwig. I know, not theexact same link, but whatever.We Need You04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I suggest that anyone posting to this section of this page should read theproceedings of the 1787Philadelphia convention before commenting further. A detailed historical record of any other four month long policy making process would suffice as well. That is, in light of how rational women and men with widely divergenttruths are actually able to come to consensus, it is important that every point-of-view, including those with opinions unpopular with those in power be able to collaborate to develop clear statements of what they think of proposed policy changes. After those with the unpopular opinions are able to develop clear statements, they surely will offer those statements to be posted to a public space for everyone to edit and comment. Would that be acceptable to this honored assembly? --Rednblu05:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh?We Need You05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your eloquent but meaning-devoid commentary is duly noted, Rednblu. I find your attempt at appealing to vague historic authority especially amusing in this case, since the American Constitutional Convention didn't tell anyone what they were doing until afterwards and kept everything confidential to the extent of employing armed guards around the deliberation halls. Hardly the model we wish to imitate here. --tjstrftalk05:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe those rules applied to Wikipedia in 1787, but now?..We Need You06:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some users are telling me that it's not proper to invite some users, but not others, to edit a page in user space, or that it's not proper to do so if the page is advertised as background information to a poll. Possibly I misunderstood the situation. I assumed that the pro-merge documentWikipedia:Attribution/Attribution explanation, which was previously in user SlimVirgin's user space, was not open for editing by users taking an anti-merge position. Is it? I assumed it was a document collaboratively written by those on only one side of the dispute, and that the "Other Statements" section in the poll was there for the purpose of linking to similar collaborative documents on the other side(s). What are the rules for editingWikipedia:Attribution/Attribution explanation?

I created the pageUser:Coppertwig/Stability of policy based on discussions atWikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2#Statements from all sides needed, and expect to move it to project space when ready, as was done for the pro-merge document.

It would be helpful to have an opinion from a non-involved admin on what the proper procedure should be here. Thank you. --Coppertwig13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If the pages in question were essentially a personal essay, written by Coppertwig, expressing his views and objections to ATT, I would have no problem. That is well within the idea of what user pages are for. If he wanted toprivately invite a few specific individuals that shared his views to edit it, I would have no problem. Still in the acceptable user page mode. But... setting up what is in essence a counter poll, anouncing its existance in a public forum,and invitating the community to come and contribute makes the page something a bit different than a personal essay expressing his opinion. To my mind it moves the page away from user space and makes it semi-public. To then say that only those who agree with his views may comment or edit, and that he has deletion rights, etc., is something I do have a bit of a problem with. Combine this with his overly repeated comments on every single page that even remotely relates to ATT, and it definitely goes beyondWP:POINT in my eyes.Blueboar15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's attempt to polarize the situation and dramatize these proceedings through his actions over the last four days, is in my viewvery disruptive. Sure, he has not broken any rule, but one does not gave to break the rules to exhaust the community's patience. Rather than further polarize the issues being discussed, this user should consider just being a community member that express his opinions like any other member: through useful public discussions in the assigned talk pages, and not as a self-declared representative of the "anti-merger" proponents as he himself has describe it.≈ jossi ≈(talk)15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize it was a mistake to tell users they can't edit the talk page of the user subpage(s). I hereby invite all users to post messages on the talk page of the collaborative page(s). I will be thinking and reviewing policy (which I should have done before acting in the first place, sorry) and I might decide within a few hours to invite users to edit the user subpage too; one thing this may depend on is finding out what rules are/were in place for the pro-merge document. The users who bring up the issue of polarization have a good point. It may be beneficial for users to edit the page of the "side" they don't agree with, because trying to do this in such a way as to improve the document as a representation of that "side" involves a mental gymnastic that would tend to lead to understanding and collaboration. Interacting on the talk page may help in that regard, too. --Coppertwig17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for non-involved admins to advise you, they did (see Blueboar comment), and you still do not listen. So what is the point of asking?≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jossi, I'm not an Admin, just someone adding his two cents. I would also say Iam somewhat involved... I have written negative comments on several talk pages in response to Coppertwig's repeated harping on the roll of truth subject ... and wrote a comment directly to him, expressing my displeasure with the way he set up his 'Stability_of_policy' page. I have also expressed strong support for the merge. I would not say I am neutral.Blueboar18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On reviewing various policies, I've gained the impression that essays are written by either a single user or by all users -- not by groups of users. For this and other reasons I'm striking out my invitations to certain users to edit the user pages and inviting users to submit material for inclusion on the talk page instead. I hope this is satisfactory. Users may wish to comment on this at my talk page. --Coppertwig22:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Vlad fedorov seems to be harassing other Wikipedians inWP:DRV. In particular, he groundlessly accuses them of Wikibreaches[27],[28] on the sole basis that they use E-mail for undisclosed purposes. Also note that the harassment is obviously motivated by political editing dispute, and that content issues are discussed on a wrong page.AlexPU12:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• As well asUser:Pan Gerwazy, which supports the same point in review. Groundlessly accuses me in some breaches, not relevant to the discussed AfD[29]. These two really attack those who disagree with deletion. Also, off-topic content discussion continues.AlexPU13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the complaints department, and AN/I is not a court. If it were, familiarity with the concept ofequity might be useful, especially the idea ofunclean hands. After posting the above, you suggested"BLOCK THAT "MAN IN BLACK" FOR CENSORSHIP!". Before that we have you telling Pan Gerwazy"Please remove your post ASAP", and screaming that Vlad FederovSHOULD BE PERMABANNED FOR DISRUPTION.This exchange, which is what Pan Gerwzy pointed out, is worrying, to say the least. Let's give the usual dead horse metaphor a rest: the good word is that when you're in a hole it's time to stop digging.Angus McLellan(Talk)14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this sarcastic and cryingly injustful dude is not even an administrator. Is he allowed to talk here? Or should I report him as well? I did nothing wrong, I don't deserve this. No guys, I demand a real admin intervention, not comments form bypassers.AlexPU15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Angus is allowed to talk here, as are you yourself or any one who can edit Wikipedia. I see you have been blockedrepeatedly for personal attacks and just came off a two-week block for personal attacks4 days ago, consider this another final warning. Stop making personal attacks against other users now.Natalie17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. She did nothing about ongoing incident, but bothered checking my block log. If you've been blocked before - you're always wrong? I like that girl, her future is as bright as ArbCommer I guess :). No more questions on this chatpage.AlexPU20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Being blocked doesn't necessarily mean you're always wrong, but it does mean that you can't claim ignorance of this variety of unacceptable behavior. You may consider asking for help, instead of demanding it; providing diffs that actually support your claim (your first diff shows a user changing a sentence from "endorse" to "endorse deletion of the article" - hardly damning); and not snapping at people that politely point out your own harrassment of other users.Natalie22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On 21 March, I removed a number of fair use images fromUser:NewYork1956's userpage[30] leaving, as I always do, a detailed edit summary noting the policy under which the removal was done and leaving a pointer to a page containing an in-depth description of what it is I am doing and why. On 27 March, NewYork1956 reverted the removal[31], leaving me a somewhat nasty message about it on my talk page[32]. I responded[33], and re-removed the images[34]. Per my response, I am now reporting this incident here so that admins may address the matter with this user since it seems this user is intent on willfully violating our policies. Thank you, --Durin12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So let me see if I am following the sequence of events here: On March 21st, without so much as a simple message on NewYork1956's talk page, you took it upon yourself to edit his userpage to conform with your view of policy on Wikipedia. When he quite naturally took umbrage at your presumptuous behaviour and tried to discuss the matter with you on your talk page, you escalated the conflict, repeated the behaviour, and are now taking it to ANI looking for support. Hmmmmm. You won't get any support from me. As I see it, you are guilty of editing his page without first discussing the matter with him, Had you taken thatbasic, polite step, this whole unfortunate situation could have been avoided. While you are within policy to do what you did, I certainly don't support the way you did it, and would have responded a lot less civilly than NewYork1956 did.Jeffpw13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh....Jeffpw, I don't think it has anything to do with "his view of policy."WP:FU states "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." That's pretty cut and dry to me. The only incivility that I see here is your accusations and your claims that his behavior is "presumptuous". That was certainly uncalled for. As for how you would have reacted, may I remind you thatWP:CIVIL applies to everyone?⇒SWATJester^{On Belay!}13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously somebody hasn't cleaned their glasses this morning. I said it was done in accordance with policy. But it wasn't done in accordance with basic civility, which indicates Durin should have talked it out with NewYork1956 before acting.As to my "uncivil accusations", I don't see that I made any accusations at all. I merely gave my view of Durin's actions. Surely that is the purpose of ANI?Jeffpw14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. From the page onfair use criteria, "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." See alsoWikipedia:User_page#Images_on_user_pages. It seems pretty cut and dried--Durin's userpage on FUC is just to elucidate and expand upon the policy. I'll look into the matter. --Merope13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think the image removal was performed in an uncivil manner, I don't think it had to be brought here immediately. An explanation on the user's talk page should have been given instead, and then this reported if heagain reverted the removals. --Consumed Crustacean(talk)13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to remove images that are under fair use from any other space other than the mainspace, even if it is another person's userspace. After all, it is copyright law.x42bn6Talk14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Responding on two points; one, the concept of discussing a removal with someone has been proposed by people before. Enough people proposed it that I generated an RfC on it, which resulted in overwhelming consensus that what I am doing is appropriate and proper. You can view the RfC atWikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals. Two, I brought the matter here because the matter has become a dispute with this user given their response. When I was an admin (a position from which I voluntarily stepped down), I would undo the re-insertion of the images and leave a note. Now that I am not, and given that this user is making a distinction between admins and other editors, I felt it appropriate to bring it here so that admins could comment on the user's talk page to help resolve the issue for this user since it is obvious he lacks respect for my opinion given that I am not an admin. --Durin14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images are not acceptable in userspace any more than any other copyright image would be. It would be courteous to request their removal first, but in this is not a matter where there is grey area regarding what is permissible- fair use images must go.WjBscribe15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Durin was, of course, in the right. The use of non-free images on userpages is clearly prohibited. That we don't simply have a bot doing this is testament the the efforts we're going through in order to be user-friendly. The idea that asking is nice is noble, but it implies the contributor has a say in the matter, when he doesn't, which just builds more animosity... It also makes handling a backlogged area worse, and I expect at the end it would reduce the overall friendliness of the process. --Gmaxwell15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Durin probably knows that all users are equal. Admins do not have any extra magical-policy-sauce. Of course, if this particular user isn't listening, an admin can use their famous block button to actually enforce policy, as a form ofmeatball:PowerAnswer. --Kim Bruning15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Durin was absolutely right. I too have, lately, been removing fair use images from pages where they should not be. Originally, I left kind civil notes to the users, and some responded; some did not. Really, I completely lost track of who I had contacted about what, having 700+ pages in my watchlist. To suggest that users who are merely enforcing policy should go to the extra lengths to ask other users to stop breaking policy is unrealistic. And this it totally supported by the consensus shown at the rfc. --Iamunknown16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Durin's actions. Although I am for fair use on Wiki, user space is no place for them. If you like something so much, and want to use it on your userpage, make your own photo of it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have a new vandal. First he wasJerry the Tank Engine, then he wasRoland the Tank Engine, and most recently he wasTrevor the tank Engine‎. Keep an eye out for those tank engines. :)IrishGuy^talk18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Kenny the Tank Engine just createdWerner the Tank Engine,Craig the Tank Engine,Akira the Tank Enginew,Vandal with downs syndrome andVandal with aspergers syndrome. The latter two were immediately blocked as username violations. Seeing the mass username creation, two of which with "vandal" in the name, should we just block on site knowing that his whole reason for being here is vandalism?IrishGuy^talk19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support indef block on sight, though possibly subject to later review if one of the username's decides to stop vandalizing. --Iamunknown19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Now the guy has14 socks. He is just cranking these things out.IrishGuy^talk19:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support on sight blocking of any ______ the Tank Engine, at least for the time being. I'm sure he'll quit after awhile.Natalie19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was pointed out onWikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit thatNorman the Tank Engine was blocked way back in February. I'm not sure if this guy will simply give up. This might be a bigger problem than I initially realized.IrishGuy^talk20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I as well support a block on site here.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; users with similar names to well-known vandals are blatantly obvious, such as the "on Wheels" users or the "has a crush on Kate McAuliffe" users.Acalamari20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn! And I so wanted to beUser:I have a crush on Kate McAuliffe's wheels :(Lemon martini10:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Evans1551 created a nonsense article entitledI Am A Monkey. The last line of the article even notedThe song was never published, but remains popular with a select few inhabitants of Crowthorne, now studying in Edgbarrow School Sixth Form (As of 2007). I deleted it.

He then began harrasing me on my talk page. He grew very incivil with comments likeLet's fight fair Irishman - this is the English server after all and then decided to open a RfC because I refused to undelete his idiotic article and requestedSomeone please reason with this knave. To me, this is blatant trolling but since it is me he is screwing with, I don't want to block him. Input?IrishGuy^talk20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I left him a warning on his talkpage; let's see where this goes with this. I don't think that he's being terribly incivil, but I do agree it is over the line.Veinor^{(talk to me)}20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully he will drop it now. :)IrishGuy^talk20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems more like harrassment than incivility, but that's pretty much splitting hairs.Natalie22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)