text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive7

Contents: February 12, 2005 - February 15, 2005

Warning about a future edit
I will be editing Template:Infobox Country to correct a bug in the template. This means that I will have to change some 30+ country pages in one sweep. About two days ago I performed this edit but was reverted by User:Netoholic on grounds there was no consensus to make this change. User:Jdforrester considered this was such a small change that it did no require any consensus. Regardless of this, and due to fear that Netoholic would just revert me if I made the edit again I asked for feedback in the Talk page. Nobody has so far opposed to me making this change, except of course Netoholic. Because I have the support of Jdforrester and only one opposition (Netoholic, who has a history of rejecting any change I make) I will be proceeding with this tiny change now, so I ask you to be weary with Netoholic if he begins reverting me. Thank you. —Cantus… ☎   04:35, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is obviously not an "incident that requires the intervention of administrators". The only action needed is for an admin to block Cantus for an (unrelated) violation of his arb ruling, which was reported on this page above.  This just trolling to retaliate.  Please consider deleting this section altogether so as not to support trollish abuse of this noticeboard.  -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

 * considering the number of past battles over "Template:Infobox Country" I am somewhat interested in knowing of any activity that may trigger anotherGeni 05:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrongful block
I believe

 * 00:40, 12 Feb 2005 Postdlf blocked "User:Dnagod" with an expiry time of indefinite (repeated racist attacks on VfD voters)

was a wrongful block, according to the Blocking policy. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Here is the comment that finally got User:Dnagod blocked indefinitely. This was one of many anti-Semitic remarks he made. In it, he talks of the "Jew infestation" of Wikipedia, and closes by saying he has "faith that history will repeat itself," which, in this context, appears to be a comment about the Holocaust. He's the owner of a number of white supremacist websites that he kept trying to insert links for into articles, and when they were deleted, he would reproduce the links several times on the talk pages, perhaps because he believed it might improve his Google page ranking. He is the author of Conscious evolution, which is worth reading to get the full flavor of his views. He's also an associate of User:Paul Vogel, who was also blocked indefinitely, I believe for similar reasons. SlimVirgin 14:44, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering that User:dnagod was an unapologetic Holocaust denier, how could his statement of "repeating history" infer what you suggest it does? - Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  21:50, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any proof for any of that, outside of the comment purported to be a Personal attack not covered by the blocking policy? Besides, what do any of these red herrings have to do with his wrongful block, or the Blocking policy it ignored? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If you mean do I have proof that he's the owner of the white supremacist sites he kept referring to, he admitted it. SlimVirgin 15:04, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Where? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * On one of the talk pages he inhabited; it should be easy enough for you to find. I believe it may have been Transhumanism. There's evidence all over the Web. He doesn't hide his affiliations. SlimVirgin 18:14, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * See No personal attacks: “In extreme cases, you can request the attacker be blocked.” If an ordinary user can request that an attacker be blocked, I'm unclear as to why an administrator can't decide that an attacker be blocked.  I expect that I've missed something.  Dnagod showed himself on Wikipedia to be an incorrigible and outspoken racist, though, aside from any external evidence. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is the extreme case covered by the policy. Regardless, an indefinite block was clearly excessive, and would appear to have the effect, if not the intent, to censor a given POV. That is quite contrary to the spirit of the policy. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The blocking policy says: "Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion." Dnagod did make a lot of disruptive edits and upset a lot of people in a very short space of time. It also says: "Blocks may be imposed in instances where threats have been made or actions performed . . . which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. In such a case a ban for a period of time may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery." Dnagod spent his entire time at Wikipedia railing against editors he perceived to be Jewish, pointing out to other editors that they were Jewish or "lackeys" of Jews, as he put it, and in his parting comment referred to the Jewish editors as a "Jew infestation." I would say that falls within the category of "[exposing] Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by . . . any others." Whether that persecution occurred or not is irrelevant. The exposure to potential persecution took place, and it was deliberate and repeated. SlimVirgin 15:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * "...and upset a lot of people..." -- Is the mere act of upsetting people covered or addressed by the blocking policy? If not, what is the relevance of mentioning it regarding a decision to block? Also, the addition of the word "potential" in the phrase "exposure to persecution" is yours, not the policy's. One wonders how the word "exposed" should be interpreted. I would venture that the word "potential" is very vague and arbitrary and is not intended to be implied by "exposure". I have the potential for persecution, theft, murder, and death every day; I can't put someone else at fault because something might have happened to me. - Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  21:50, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The sorts of disruptions given as examples in the blocking policy all involve vandalism, like editing talk page comments, not the possession of a "disruptive" POV. As far as putting users in danger, what potential persecution are you alluding to? User:Dnagod was quite clearly discriminated against. What evidence do you have of him putting others into potential harm? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * anti-semitism, or any similar hate-agenda is not a personal attack, it is simply and evidently unacceptable behaviour. We cannot include "racism" in the blocking policy because every editor involved in Israeli/Paliestinian disputes would come running here, saying they have been exposed to racism. That we have to protect ourselves from becoming flooded with confused suprematist hate-mongers is self-evident imho, and needs no further justification. dab (ᛏ) 15:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm now confused as to what Sam Spade is arguing. In response to me, he seems to be saying that the problem is that the ban was indefinite, while in response to SlimVirgin he seems to be saying that there shouldn't have been a ban at all.  Also, the claim that Dnagod was “discriminated against“ is serious, and needs to be argued for carefully and coherently, not merely stated. Anyway, it's doubtless very fine and noble of him to spend so much time defending someone who was clearly, openly, and volubly racist (presumably following Voltaire's maxim), but aren't there articles to be written and improved? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I'm not so much defending him (he probably won't ever use that acount again, unblocked or no) but wikipedians generally from being persecuted and blocked based on POV. Nazi's are an easy target, but who's next? Have a look at my contributions, BTW, you'll see I've made my share of article improvements :) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * actually, polite nazis who don't rant against jews on talk pages, and who simply lovingly cultivate the articles about their idols, citing sources for every nazi position, would not be blocked. Nazi rants are an easy target. "who's next" is a valid question, and being vigilant is good for the project's sanity. We draw the line this side of nazi rants, and this side of goatse. We know that drawing a line is a difficult task, and I hope we are humble enough to acknowledge that, but drawing such lines is the noble duty of the community (which elects admins as housekeepers). dab (ᛏ) 15:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Quite. The question is if expressing an objectionable POV is disruptive, and if so, is an indefinite block acceptable. Admins are housekeepers, not line drawers, and when they begin to violate policy in a manner reflective of their own POV, censoring those whom they disagree with, they need reigning in. Thats what this is about. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * admins are line-drawers in a sense. If the policies could be applied mechanically, admins would be superfluous. If one admin, or a group of admins begins to work against the community, we have the paths of rfc and arbcom for the community to deal with it. the arbcom is more delicate, since the only way to appeal against them is to Jimbo personally. I appreciate that you come here rather than opening a full rfc about this, but either way, you must be clear that you are not likely to get much support if you argue against this block (my personal estimation, of course). It is good to have people watching what the admins are doing, so your being alert is appreciated, but in this case, it is clearly disruptive to leave ranting nazis loose on WP's talk pages. Such rants do nothing but instill flamewars, and some editors might leave WP in disgust. Ranting about "jew-infestation" is not a pov, Sam. It's something you just clean up, like goatse. I do not even disagree with such statements, since they do not deserve discussion. dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Words are weapons; we have to watch how we use them, and not just let stuff spew forth as though it has no consequence. Here's an example of the type of material Dnagod has posted on the Web. Drawing the line at providing a platform to a neo-Nazi is called editing, not censorship. Jimbo Wales has said time and again that what we're doing here is writing an encyclopedia, and that the process, though very important, is secondary to that. He wrote recently: "I will not ride the ship of openness to the bottom of the ocean." Dnagod lives at the bottom of the ocean. SlimVirgin 17:53, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * But why was the block indefinite? Where does it say in the policy that admins can block (other than for abusive username etc) indefinitely? I thought that was the job of arbcom. Incidently, 168 anon has posted far worse anti-Muslim remarks (including a claim on this admin board that Muslims took over Wikipedia). Where were you at that time? While we are at it, have a look at unsolicited abusive comments by User:BSveen posted to User talk:BrandonYusufToropov, . BrandonYusufToropov never even talked to this guy before, but yet, out of nowhere, BSveen started posting abusive messages on his talk page. Nothing happened to him, of course OneGuy 19:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, then it should have done. It's simply fallacious to argue that it's wrong to deal with one act of wrongdoing because a similar act wasn't dealt with.  I don't know about the others involved in this case, but I saw neither of the events to which you refer.  Anyone can only respond to what they're aware of.  Some criminals are caught and punished, some get away with it; some politicians are caught and voted out of office, some are cleverer or luckier at hiding what they do.  That's the real world. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that's right, a block would have been justifiable in the cases OneGuy cites. People with such stark world-views will never grasp the nature of an encyclopedia (or of npov) anyway, and will have very little effect on WP. But I agree of course that statements to the effect "Muslims are evil" are offensive, and in principle blockable. dab (ᛏ) 21:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The blocking policy says: "Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion." Dnagod was a new user account and he was disruptive and highly offensive. Therefore, an admin used his or her discretion. SlimVirgin 20:50, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Incitement for hatred, plain and simple. El_C 00:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incitement eh? And is there concensus that this is grounds for an indefinite ban? I am strongly of the opinion that such is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Blocking policy. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 07:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No, not incitement eh?, incitement for hatred. Yes, there is consensus for that, absolutely. I am strongly of the opinion that this was at par with both the letter and the spirit of the Blocking policy. El_C 07:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What other kind of incitement is there? Considering the dubious and unpopular nature of the subject, the fact that at least 2 people have spoken up for the guy tells me there isn't concensus. Indefinite blocks are not to be given lightly, and certainly not based on POV. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "An incitement for informal discussions," "an incitement for a sounder land-use," "as incitement for cultural criticism," "the incitement for telling stories," "a better incitement for discussion," "an incitement for reflection," etc., would Sam Spade like sources for these citations, I wonder? That indefinite block was well-served, and I, and I would suspect most editors here, applaud the actions of the admin in question. El_C 08:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You may be right, thank God this isn't a majoritocracy, we'd likely have an official Leftists-socialist POV, and an atheist creed. Fortunately, we have

 * Foundation issues

 * and

 * Policy Library

 * (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It is my opinion that this encylopedia is staunchly right-wing and theistic in orientation. Thank goodness, though, that in this case, sanity prevailed. El_C 09:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * it is neither. Thank go*dness, we have the most divergent opinions here. Just keep it polite and in good faith. Sam, it's good to have a devil's advocate (I mean it), just try to keep it in perspective -- there's no need to call wolf in cases where you know there will be overwhelming consensus. There are enough cases that are indeed debatable, and it is healthy to debate them (for example, what about our polite self-declared "enemy of Islam"? Would we block similarly polite self-declared "enemies of Judaism"? I honestly don't know, I just wish (vainly) that people would stop picking on each other when they're supposed to write articles) dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see consensus, overwhelming or otherwise. Also, I have been informed by the user in question that he will continue to edit via changing IP addresses (he also said that in the note that got him banned, BTW). A reasonable short term ban, or better yet a warning would have encouraged him to use the single acount. Treating him unfairly in this instance has encouraged him to be more difficult to track, and to communicate with. I will continue to edit articles of course, but it is my duty as a WP:AMA advocate to continue to expect the highest standards of policy accordance from our admins. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * we don't want to 'track' him. We'll just block similar edits as they come, without caring whether it's him or somebody else. dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spambot domain list
I think we have a handle on the domains being used by the spambot, see the list at Category:Protected against spambots. These are free subdomain services, so he can essentially create as many subdomains as he wants at no charge, hence we have to spamfilter the entire top-level domains.

Anyone who's also a meta admin can add these domains to the spamfilter, but I think Silsor would handle it. Hopefully we would be able to unprotect the affected pages tomorrow. -- 01:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2004
I have noticed that the 2004 article has had the NPOV tag on it for quite a while. I have read the entire talk page and I've noticed that a suggestion to break the dispute was put on the table: split up the page into different articles to try to balance up the page and cut it down in size. However, it appears that those who want the NPOV tag to stay and not allow material to go into the article are unwilling to compromise. This has been going on since December 2004, with no resolution in sight. Hence, I have made a note that either a compromise is tried, or I lock the page. I have since removed the NPOV tag from the page. I will go ahead with my promise of locking this page for a time if it goes back on again as it is clear that certain editors are not trying to come to consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You made the right decision. Such a major article should not have what amounts to a permanent NPOV tag.  - SimonP 04:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism
This page was deleted recently after a clear consensus on VfD. It seems that User:Mikkalai has re-created it and directed it to Culture of Critique, which is about a book by Kevin B. MacDonald. Mikkalai also inserted a sentence about Jewish enthnocentrism in bold into the intro of Culture of Critique to link up with the redirect. Part of the reason for the VfD was that the term "Jewish ethnocentrism" is used a lot (and perhaps mostly) by neo-Nazis, so it was the title as well as the contents that some editors objected to. Is it okay for another editor just to re-create it like this? SlimVirgin 06:09, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think there's any harm in having it as a redirect. silsor 06:13, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted the redirect, but I'm not sure whether that was the right thing to do. SlimVirgin 06:23, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * You blanked it, in fact, and I deleted it, but then recreated it since, as Silsor says, a logical redirect seems fairly harmless. — Dan | Talk 06:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why Culture of Critique and not Ethnocentrism? El_C 08:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That was a good idea and I did it, but I got rollback used on me by somebody. silsor 09:47, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea, indeed I ended voting for it to become a redirect to Ethnocentrism at the infamous VfD, but I did not win that vote: only myself and MIRV voted for redirect within the keep votes, and these lost to delete. El_C 10:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the redirect is fine as it is: the term is idiosyncratic to anti-semitic literature, and is explained (bolded) in the "Culture of Critique" intro. This is a content issue however. It seems this noticeboard is more and more becoming a replacement for both Village Pump and RfC? dab (ᛏ) 10:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Dbachmann, it is a great honour and privelige for me to be writing on your Administrator's noticeboard, I am truly humbled to be here, with you. And thank you for noting my comment about how the VfD concluded against having the item as a redirect (which I actually voted for). But you think it's fine; VfDs, it seems, are of no import to those with extra-judicial powers. El_C
 * thank you Sir, thank you, you are too kind. I ventured to give my opinion on the matter, since it was brought up on this page in spite of it being labeled as "this isn't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour", without the remotest intention to question the sovereignty of VfD, of course: I was replying to your question "why CoC and not Ethnocentirsm" without touching on the question of whether or not it should be deleted. dab (ᛏ) 12:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not pleased with this territoriality, expressed in a condescending offhand way, over the noticeboard. You venture to comment on my one-sentence question regarding why redirect to CoC versus Ethno. (at the admin's god-like whim, you seem to suggest, but naturally that is not subject for discussion here), but surely my more substantive question, which was not content-related and which your comment directly followed, warrants some consideration. At any rate, to recapsulate it: can any Administrator here review the table at Jewish ethnocentrism VfD and then please explain to me how, in the context of its results, can it be deemed acceptable for any Administrator to go around and turn it into redirect anyway. Thanks in advance. El_C 12:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, please review Votes for undeletion/Jewish ethnocentrism, which conveys 23 votes of keep deleted versus (Sam Spade's) single undelete vote. While, indeed, I am one of two people who voted to turn JE into a redirect (in the VfD), I am against doing so through extra-juduical means. I tried to be concise – not too much verbosity, I hope. El_C 12:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * just to add my agreement with El_C's points. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * you agree that I was behaving condescendingly, and that my reminder about the purpose of this board was 'territorial'? In that case I gladly yield the terrain (note I never touched the article in question) and withdraw from this topic. dab (ᛏ) 13:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * PS, I just realized that Requests for sysop attention points here for "Redirect or Page move issues?" now, so that this is apparently perfectly ok here. I apologize. dab (ᛏ) 13:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I forgive you, User:Dbachmann, unless that apoology wasn't directed towards me (which is plausible seeing the general way in which it was phrased), then I just emberassed myself. A small price to pay in the interest of goodfaith though. Now, withdrawing is certainly your preogrative, but I challenge that it would reflect well on you, as an Administrator and editor, not to withdraw after all that, and instead review the evidence I submitted (respective VfD and VfU) viz. said redirect. It is not a particularly complex issue to take a position on (for either side - if there are two sides). El_C 14:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought it had been deleted again today. Mikkalai appears to have created Jewish ethnocentrism again, still with a redirect to Culture of Critique. SlimVirgin 18:44, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Could an admin please explain what is the correct thing to do in a situation like this? There was an overwhelming majority in favour of deletion, with around 45 in favor; two wanting a redirect (as I recall to Ethnocentrism) and only a small number, including several socks, voting to keep. The aricle was then deleted. Sam Spade put it up for a VfU, which again was overwhelmingly rejected. Given that clear consensus, is one editor simply allowed to recreate the title regardless, redirecting it to a page no one wanted it to redirect to? AndyL deleted User:Mikkalai's recreation of it, but Mikkalai has created it again. SlimVirgin 19:09, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I have blanked and protected it. Noel (talk) 19:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You violated the policy. You cannot edit pages. You can only protect a version. Mikkalai 01:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find it outrageous discussing my actions without notifying me and hence not giving me a chance to defend my actions. NKVD Troika behavior. Mikkalai 01:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What's next, adding a {vprotected} notice counts as "editing" too? To put it another way, I can delete the page - a zillion times if I feel like it (no 3RR on deletes, right?) - but I can't blank it and protect it? Get a grip. Noel (talk) 01:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I also protected the closed Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/previous, which Jewish ethnocentrism now references (by way of explanation), to prevent people messing with that. Noel (talk) 19:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately it's now neither blanked nor protected. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That's because User:Mikkalai, who is an admin, has unprotected it and re-inserted the content. (To me, this is a definite abuse of admin powers - he's using them to control the content of an article he has edited content in.) There's nothing more I can do. I suggest you file a WP:RFAr. Noel (talk) 19:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is there nothing more you can do, Noel. WP:AN says this is the page to bring complaints to about admins abusing their power. SlimVirgin 21:22, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Admins should not abuse their power. Neither should bureaucrats, which is why I haven't done anything but talk, or make normal edits to related pages.

 * Would you all like me to put #REDIRECT ethnocentrism on the Jewish ethnocentrism page, and then protect it against page moves and/or other edits? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:14, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally, I'd prefer to protect the page blank. Because, well, it's been deleted. And the consensus was not to redirect, but rather to delete. Snowspinner 21:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Snowspinner sums it up nicely. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help, Ed, but I believe Andy L and Curps dealt with it by blanking it and protecting the blank page so it couldn't be recreated or redirected, as that was the consensus at the VfD. Mikkalai used his admin power to unprotect the page after Curps did that, I believe, but AndyL has redone it. Many thanks though. SlimVirgin 21:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually it was not me that protected the page, but Jnc and Andy L. -- Curps 21:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Curps. Sorry, I haven't recovered from my confusion of yesterday. ;-) SlimVirgin 21:56, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Jnc did it in violation of policy. Here is the log, for those who are happy to slap stickers without investigating the matter.
 * 23:25, 13 Feb 2005 . . Mikkalai (Reverted edits by Mel Etitis to last version by Mikkalai)
 * 23:29, 13 Feb 2005 . . Jnc (Article was deleted per vote on VfD. Stop re-creating it.)
 * 23:30, 13 Feb 2005 . . Mikkalai (this is not re-creation. This is a totally different article, about the existing term)
 * 23:34, 13 Feb 2005 . . Jnc (Reblank)
 * 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 . . Mikkalai (rv. This is a *new* article. Protecting an article by an editor is still another violation of policy.)
 * After protecting by an independent admin I complied. Mikkalai 22:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai, the article was deleted. The consensus was not to fix it or to NPOV it. The consensus was to delete it. That means no article. Creating a "new" Jewish Ethnocentrism article is NOT the appropriate thing to do in that situation. Deleting attempts to do it is. Snowspinner 22:35, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is your private interpretation of the policy. Fortunately, not all agree with it. Besides, you are off mark: I was neither "fixing", nor "NPOVing" the old article. "No article" is your arbitrary treatments. Deletion means deletion of the particular objectionable and non-salvageable content. There is no policy in wikipedia against a NPOV article on a valid topic. Mikkalai 23:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * agree with snowspinner. there is no point in deleting if a rewrite can fix things. (I do not see the harm in a redirect, though). In some cases, recreation is warranted, namely if there is a change in notability. Say I create a vanity article about myself. You guys justly delete it. Tomorrow, I go and shoot Rumsfeld: Then, of course, the article will be recreated as about the guy who shot Rumsfeld. No such change in notability applies here, though.) Mikkalai, you are mistaken. A vote for deletion means that the topic is not valid. Anybody can fix a bad article, we don't need to vote on that. People voted that there should be no article on "Jewish ethnocentrism" (why they did that, god knows), not even one from the npov. dab (ᛏ) 23:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Allow me to respectfully disagree with you. I am tired to repeat the same argument again and again as more and more people jump into this discussion. I will try to present the case at one of policy pages. let me only mention a logical error. You say "in some cases..notability". Let me point out that notability is not an issue here. While I am preparing to the discussion at an appropriate policy page (I will notify all involved), please do some research to present there the policies that say "no article" forever. Mikkalai 00:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Imagine that someone created an article called Russian genetic inferiority, which recounted the theories of people who were racist about Russians. A Vfd leads to the article being deleted, whereupon another user creates an article with the same name as a redirect to Russia or genetics.  Is that supposed to be OK?  I find Mikkalai's arguments unfathomable. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the difference from the case when someone makes Russia into a redirect to Shit?. Unlike your and this my silly example, I was readdressing to the article which actually discusses, and what is most important, criticizes the concept. How many fathoms deep is this simple idea: to redirect to an article that discusses the subject? Mikkalai 00:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A better example would be Serbian Catholics. The term is not inherently insulting. It's just that it is only notable for being used in context of ethnic hatred. If we have Jewish ethnocentrism, why not Rajput ethnocentrism, Alamanic ethnocentrism and Inuit ethnocentrism. Therefore, I understand the reasons for the decision on VfD. And even if I didn't understand them, I would hold that they should be honoured. I still don't see the harm in a redirect to Culture of Critique, though, since, say someone wants to know about this term that popped up somewhere, typos it into WP, and voila he is taken to an article that reveals the neo-nazi parentage of the term. reliable information served. dab (ᛏ) 00:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there cannot be an article Serbian Catholics that explains that the term is used by a certain category of people in the context of ethnic hatred or to have the corresponding subsection in a larger article, with Serbian Catholics redirecting there. Don't you see the similarity with the one existed like only 50 years ago, when you could not find a dictionary with the word shit (or at least could not easily find). We do have Nigger article, don't we?... Let me check...Yes, we do. And Black Panthers are not after our asses yet :-). And your argument about "culture of c." is exaclty my point, presented at 2-3 places, but patiently ignored. Mikkalai 00:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem to feel that you are authorized to substitute your judgement about these matters for the consensus. If Nigger were submitted to VfD and the consensus was to delete it, would you then proceed to recreate the article, with content you deemed "different", because you felt the VfD voters were misguided in deleting it?  Administrators are supposed to be the servants of the community.  Someone with so little respect for the consensus of the community does not inspire confidence in that role, I must say.  --BM 01:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't buy your sarcasm. Speedy deletion policy provides for this case. I were feeling the article is "different", but if it were easily seen that it is not different at all, my version may be quickly and lawfully deleted. If I were persistent in this respect, I could be warned that my actions are considered harmful. Instead, the "community" preferred to bully me right away. Good luck to live in such community. Mikkalai 01:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then go and argue that point at the VfU. That is where this discussion belongs. Mikkalai is trying to circumvent the vote. SlimVirgin 00:49, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm in BM's post. I would argue that you are the one who has engaged in bullying. SlimVirgin 02:25, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I was not talking to you. But since you semm to like to have the last word, then please explain what quotes in "different" mean. Are you saying there is no difference betwenn the phrases you deemed "different" and you deemed different. Please don't tell me it was a friendly wink. Also, did I threatened someone to block or to report incident or accused of vandalism? Nice try, lady, won't work. The only personal thing I allowed myself was to suggest to master someone their computer skills. In particular, please learn how to use indents in chains of discussion. You are free to ignore this suggestion or threat it as an offense.  Mikkalai 05:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps BM was quoting a previous post of yours when he placed inverted commas around "different". There are many reasons for doing this in English; it needn't denote sarcasm and this is another instance of you assuming the worst of people. As for indents, the "rule" (non-sarcastic use of inverted commas), insofar as there is one, is that the first person doesn't indent, the second indents once, the third twice; then when the first person replies, they don't indent, and the second sticks with one indent, and so on, so that at a glance, people can see who has written which comment. As you can see, few editors, if any, have stuck to this, yourself included. I find your personal attacks and aggressive tone quite depressing, and so I don't think I'll be responding to you again. SlimVirgin 06:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Mikka:
 * I agree with you, and would have voted for a redirect, too
 * I missed the VfD, too
 * if I would care enough, I would try to convince the community to reconsider the vote
 * you, on the other hand, used your admin privileges to unilaterally enforce your view. This is not what these privileges are for. this is the point under discussion now, not whether there should be a redirect.

 * How many times I have to repeat in various places, I did not use my privileges to enforce something. Only once I reversed illegal protection made with violation of policy. The relevant piece of log is presented on this page. They smear me with dirt from the very beginning of the incident, and then saying I am raping and bullying them, and nobody reads what I am saying. Mikkalai 17:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You keep making this bogus claim, that my blanking/protection of the page was a "violation of policy", and that's complete nonsense. When a page which was deleted via the VfD process is re-created despite attempts to keep it deleted, blanking the page and protecting it is the standard response. See, for example, Shawn Mikula, which was blanked and protected (by no less than one of the current ArbComm members, to boot). Please stop making this offensive and insulting claim, or I will have no recourse but to file an RFC to make it definite that what I did was not a "violation of policy". Noel (talk) 17:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Here is the log.
 * 23:25, 13 Feb 2005 . . Mikkalai (Reverted edits by Mel Etitis to last version by Mikkalai)
 * 23:29, 13 Feb 2005 . . Jnc (Article was deleted per vote on VfD. Stop re-creating it.)
 * 23:30, 13 Feb 2005 . . Mikkalai (this is not re-creation. This is a totally different article, about the existing term)
 * 11:30, 13 Feb 2005 Jnc protected Jewish ethnocentrism (Deleted per vote on VfD, people keep re-creating it, blanking, protecting)
 * 23:34, 13 Feb 2005 . . Jnc (Reblank)
 * 11:35, 13 Feb 2005 Jnc protected Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/previous (Prevent vandalism by people who keep re-creating the page)
 * 11:37, 13 Feb 2005 Mikkalai unprotected Jewish ethnocentrism (protected with violation of rules: by atricle's editor)
 * 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 . . Mikkalai (rv. This is a *new* article. Protecting an article by an editor is still another violation of policy.)

 * An inspection of superimposed edit/protection logs shows that a possible misunderstanding happened because of timiong and logging bugs in wikipedia software. The log shows that Jnc protected the page twice before I unprotected him (once). Also, my edit time and his protection time coincide at 23:30. Therefore to me Jnc's action at 23:29 looked as edit, not edit/protect. Therefore hereby I withdraw the accusation of Jnc violating the protection policy and apologize.

 * But this still gives no explanation of another violation, namely speedily deleting my new article is violation of Speedy deletion policy. The policy says: qouting: #5 Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy.. I did not repost the content of the deleted article. Therefore deletion of my text was illegal and I was not obliged to comply with your twisting the policies to your likes. But I did. And I did not call anyone vandal. What is more, when AndyL reprotected the page, I did not file complaint against him, because he is also the editor of the page. See, e.g.,

 * 15:30, 25 Dec 2004 . . AndyL (googling "jewish ethnocentrism" returns its use on sites such as the "vanguard news network")

 * Instead, I twisted the policy in your favor and considered that AndyL edited the deleted article, not the new one. Mikkalai 18:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You have misread the log; I only protected Jewish ethnocentrism once. The second protection (at 11:35, 13 Feb 2005) was of a different page, Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/previous, which is where I had set Jewish ethnocentrism to point to. Noel (talk) 18:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, still another misreading in the hasete, even now, while cutting and pasting. I saw only words "Jewish ethnocentrism" until you pointed out it now that there were two different kinds of them. The time frame was so narrow that I got an impression that you edited twice before protection. Apologies again. Mikkalai 18:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * take it easy. It's only the internet
 * I am not losing my sleep over this. I've spent enough time here, but I will respond to every piece of dirt put onto me. Mikkalai 17:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * dab (ᛏ) 09:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the meaning of VfD
since this is a full-blown rfc with evidence collecting and all, by now, anyway, couldn't we as well move to rfc? At the core of this is a disagreement about the meaning of VfD. If we put all personal sensibilities to rest for a moment, we can discuss that: does a succeded vote for deletion mean that there should be no article, ever, at that title, or does it only refer to the content of the article that was deleted. I was of the impression that VfD's are about article titles exclusively, and not about article content (which can always be fixed without VfD). dab (ᛏ) 18:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * speedy deletion policy says it in an unambiguous language: #5 Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy. It speaks about "content", not title and about "reposting", not "recreating the article". And this not accidentally. And there are plenty of cases of rewriting of deleted articles. And doing so never required RfU. RfU is for "undeletion", i.e., "restoring". Please think of the used language of the policies. In some places it is deliberately vague, while in others it is deliberately precise. These policies passed (and periodically retried) a tight scrutiny, please believe me. Mikkalai 18:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Mikkalai, you keep hanging your hat on the word "content" in the speedy-deletion policy. However, it is clear to everybody but you (and I'm not sure you aren't just being argumentative) that the VfD/VfU policy and procedures make no sense at all if anybody can just recreate an article that has been VfD'ed simply by providing different content than was deleted.    To dab, I would say that the VfD process isn't so much about 'titles' as it is about 'topics', although the difference may not be clear.  If there was a VfD on an article under the title X, and it was deleted for not being encyclopedic by VfD, and someone came along and wrote another article under that title on a completely different topic (same name, different person, for example), I don't think people would object that deletion policy had been circumvented, although there might be some confusion initially.  On the other hand, if some came along and tried to create an article on Jewish ethno-centrism (same topic, but not quite the same title), we would still be saying that this flouts the VfD vote. --BM 19:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I myself deleted articles when the same content was reposted at modified name, in perfecst accordance with speedy deletion policy. But I disagree with your extending its language onto "topic". "Topic" and "content" are very different words. Please feel free to request an update of the speedy deletion policy, and I will comply with the updated version. Mikkalai 19:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ok, there are two clear cases: now for the cases less clear:
 * 1) VfD passes, somebody reposts the same article -- speedy delete.
 * 2) VfD (or possibly nonsense-speedy-deletion, and example off the top of my head is battle-axe) passes, somebody reposts completely different material, on a different topic (like, different person, same name) -- legitimate.
 * 1) vfd passes. somebody reposts a slightly rephrased version.
 * 2) vfd passes for non-notability. somebody reposts a much better, rephrased article about the same topic. Will the non-notable verdict not still apply?
 * 3) this case: vfd passes, explicitly declining even a redirect not to give credibility to the term. rephrased article is reposted, linking to the articles for which the redirect was declined. Clearly a repost of the same topic, and clearly a repost of some of the rejected content.

I do realize now that WP:DP does not anticipate 'inherent bias' in "Problems that may require deletion", though. But I really doubt that "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." was written with titles like Jewish inferiority in mind. dab (ᛏ) 20:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please realize also that these policies went thru long and painful and heated processes in attempts to deliver better and clearer rules. They are not like some obscure articles about Baba Yaga. Of course, it does not preclude the possibility that one may propose a better solution, but it must be in the policy, not it its interpretation. When in doubt, the preferense is to allow rather than to forbid and in favor of creation rather than deletion. Mikkalai 22:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC).
 * I understand this very well. I also understand that policy without interpretation goes nowhere. My interpretation of "deletion" is delere, annihilate, wipe off the face of Wikipedia. My interpretation of the VfD on "Jewish ethnocentrism" is that the community said, "we don't want no bloody Jewish ethnocentrism article". I claim that deletion policy could be clearer, because it does not unabmiguously differentiate title, topic and content, and I am pretty sure many people voting on VfD have no clear idea what they are voting on. This doesn't change the simple fact that people decided against a JE article. dab (ᛏ) 07:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfD means different things to different people, and sometimes even means different things to the same person. Sometimes an article is deleted because no good article can be written with that title. Sometimes the only problem is the content. Sometimes people want to delete everything of the category on which the article is written. In purely technical terms, I suppose you could say that VfD only sets a binding precedent on the actual content of the article (and even then, what happens when the content changes during the vote?) But VfD isn't a technical page, it's a discussion page. In the end each VfD vote means whatever the admins in charge want it to mean. (152.163.100.6 20:54, 15 Feb 2005)

 * Please sign your post. Mikkalai 22:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm just not buying this. Mikkalai is basically saying that the VfD policy is that once an article is deleted, anybody can recreate an article of the same title and on the same topic, even minutes after the administrator has deleted the old one, and that as long the text is different from the text of the article that was deleted, the only thing that anybody can do is to submit if for VfD again, whereupon it gets another 5 days, and that a such a recreation action would be perfectly reasonable and within policy, and in fact any administrator who tried to stop it would be out of line, would be overstepping his authority, and would be subject to discipline himself. Mikkalai is pretending that anybody who disagrees with this interpretation is just a newbie who doesn't understand the delicate, solomonic, balancing process that the ur-members of Wikipedia (including him, of course) went through to arrive at the current set of rules. This is nonsense, and the fact is that nobody shares this interpretation of the policy, which Mikkalai knows perfectly well. --BM 01:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I truly don't think there is a hard and fast rule here. That's one of the reasons why VfD discussions usually include comments, not just votes. Sometimes it is simply about a title, and the article can be moved, intact, to an unobjectionable title. Sometimes it is about this being completely the wrong article to be at a title: for example, deleting an article about a non-notable individual doesn't mean we can't write an article about a more famous person with the same name. And certainly a deletion for failure to demonstrate notability doesn't preclude later demonstrating notability, especially in changed circumstances. For example, a typical deleted "band vanity" article becomes something very different if they get a major label contract and put out a generally distributed CD. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:23, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

That may well be, and I am not saying anything different. But that isn't what Mikkalai is saying. He is saying that the only case where the recreation of a VfD-ed article can be speedy-deleted is when the recreated article text is the same as the deleted article. (Compared to which version, and how different it has to be to be different -- he hasn't said)  Otherwise, if anybody wants to delete it, he has to go back to VfD again, even if it is only minutes after the previous deletion. For example, if the Stormfront troopers came in right now and recreated the Jewish ethnocentrism article with different text -- lets say it was even worse -- Mikkalai wouldn't speedy-delete it as an administrator, and in fact, he would feel justified in undoing the speedy deletion of another administrator, as overstepping the CSD policy. Of course, with the current state of play the Stormfront guys couldn't do this because the article exists already in the blanked/protected state, and Mikkalai has had his wrists slapped a little for messing with this. But Mikkalai has been saying that this is wrong and a misinterpretation of policy. --BM 02:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of cases when "bad gyus" argument was invoked, but rejected; firearms and pornography, to name a few. At the same time, I agree that a community may impose its own. stricter, rules for what it wants to have. But this must be done by proposing the corresponding language in the relevant policy. Otherwise your interpretations are just as valid as mine. And your slapping my wrists is nothing but bullying me into your POV. I am repeating again and again. There are plenty of touchy topics in wikipedia, and to forbid them for the reason that they may become a playground for neonazis, islamic fundamentalists, KKK, white supremacists, purists etc., is not acceptable. All of them were dealt with pretty successfully so far. Mikkalai 18:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * so at least it is obvious the policy needs a wording less ambiguous. It'll not do to have people disagreeing to such an extent over the meaning of a policy. Your "wrists were slapped" because you disregarded community 'consensus' (majority desicion rather, one I disagree with as much as you do), and especially for using admin powers to do so. dab (ᛏ) 18:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My admin powers were used solely to remove what I thought protection policy violation. It turned out that the problem was wikipedia database timing problem, recorded in the logs: I edited the article between the moments when Jnc blanked it and his protection was recorded/enacted. Therefore it appeared to me that
 * Jnc edited the page,
 * then I edited it,
 * then he protected the page,
 * which would be a clear violation of the policy. After careful investigation I detected my error and apologized before Jnc for false accusations. When AndyL protected the page again, I did not do anything, although formally he also violated this: he is one of the active editors of the deleted page. But I twisted the policy in his favor, since he did not edit the new version.  So much for my abuse of admin powers. In my experience  most complains about abuse of admin powers comes from people who are eager to censor, delete, forbid, and punish someone right away, on the spot. Mikkalai 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We aren't really talking your abuse of admin powers any more. I shouldn't have brought that up again with the wrist-slapping crack.   Please answer the question: Is it not so that you consider that an article recreated after a VfD cannot be speedy-deleted as long as it is recreated with a different text than what was deleted, and must therefore go through VfD again?    And, is there a single other person who agrees with this interpretation?   --BM 20:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In my spare time I will strain my mind and present the case at the policy talk page. I want to do it without hurry, since I am not that eloquent in legalese. We shall see there how many are on both sides of the fense. As for "single other", there is at least one at this page and one at my "illegal" repeated vfd page. See you in the court:-) But as a courtesy I will say "yes, I consider so". Also, here is a preventive answer to the following natural sequel question: "What if this guy replaces the word "shit" by "crock" and reposts the piece?" Answer: That happened. Speedily deleted with no objections. Wikipedia is swarmed with crackpots. Every day I revert a dozen or two of vandals. But for some psychological reason they don't have ehough persistence to become really unbearable and unbeatable. Also, I remind you, there is an ultimate resource against really tough cases. Mikkalai 23:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfDs without closure
Going through some past VfDs, I noticed articles Nican Mopohua and Ø£Ø·ÙØ§Ù& have come to a consensus, but nothing has been done. The former is on Votes for deletion/Old, but the Arabic one seems to not have been posted anywhere. (Note, the links in the Arabic one's VfD are wrong because ? is in place of some unusual character.) I don't know how to deal with them, or if I'm posting this message in the right spot. Someone please give some insight. —Mar·ka·ci: 2005-02-13 12:51 Z

 * I've got this one. Noel (talk) 13:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I closed and processed (deleted) the one in Arabic; clear consensus to delete. The other one, a lot of people want it moved to the Nahuatl Wiki. It's listed in the "Transwiki" section of VfD/Old, so I left if there for someone who understand the Transwiki process better to deal with it. Noel (talk) 13:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rollback requested
Can someone please rollback the edits at Special:Contributions/66.66.69.79 (and delete any links to travelconsumer.com, though I could do the second part myself after the first part is done)? --SPUI (talk) 19:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Someone seems to have rolled back all this stuff. I told User:66.66.69.79 to stop spamming, or they'd be blocked. Noel (talk) 19:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Complaint about abuse of admin power
WP:AN says this is the place to bring complaints about admins abusing their powers. This is a complaint about User:Mikkalai, who is an admin, and has used his admin powers in relation to an article he has edited. I proposed Jewish ethnocentrism for deletion. See Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/previous. The vote was clearly in favor of deletion. Only two editors voted to redirect. AndyL deleted it. It is now on the list of pages not to be recreated. An editor put it through a VfU, and the vote to keep it deleted was confirmed. See Votes for undeletion User:Mikkalai recreated it yesterday, as a redirect to Culture of Critique. Andy L deleted it again. MIkkalai recreated it once more, and this time started rewriting it. He then pasted a fake VfD notice on the page, in order to try to force a third vote, moving the vote that was at Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism to Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism/previous. An admin deleted the fake deletion notice and protected the page to stop him reinserting it, but Mikkalai used his admin powers to unprotect it. He has also deleted comments of mine about this situation from Talk:Jewish ethnocentrism and from Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism. Could an admin please block him for engaging in what is effectively vandalism and for abusing his admin powers to unprotect the page? SlimVirgin 21:34, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * False and misleading description.

 * 1) I dis not "recreate" the article.
 * 2) VfD policy does not give you a power to forbid a page forever. New content must be voted separately.
 * 3) VfD was not "fake". It was 100% real and explained.
 * 4) An admin, who blanked my contribution, i.e., edited the article, blocked it in voilation of the policy. therefore I unblocked it (explained in Talk page and in comments). When another, independent admin re-blocked it, I didn't unblock.
 * 5) I did not delete anyone's comments. See the history and master your computer skills, buddy. Mikkalai 00:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid the blocking policy doesn't cover admin abuse of power. Seems to me the best step would be to file an RFC. — Dan | Talk 21:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Then what is the purpose of WP:AN saying this is the place to bring this type of complaint? And surely your blocking powers do cover vandalism? SlimVirgin 21:47, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, actually WP:AN says:
 * If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so there (but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both). (emphasis mine)
 * In other words, we can all read what you have to say, and then indicate to another admin in words that we think they are not using their power properly, and hopefully they will listen to the rest of us.
 * However, if they choose not to listen, there's not anything we can do about it. Admins don't have any power, technical or in policy, to discipline other admins (except in cases of 3RR violation). In other words, if complaining here doesn't get any result, the next step is the formal route of either RFC or RFAr. Noel (talk) 21:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Noel, I recall you quite recently arguing that there is no problem at Wikipedia with admins abusing their power. SlimVirgin 21:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, where would that have been? I ask because I do recall saying things like "out of control admins are not the most serious problem we face", but that is not "there is no problem". Perhaps your memory has conflated one into the other? Noel (talk) 22:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * All I know, Noel, is that if an ordinary editor had behaved like this, s/he would have been blocked, probably for vandalism. There's another discussion at 3RR about an admin being unblocked after a couple of hours for having violated 3RR. Reasons given for the unblock were that he didn't mean to do it, hadn't done it before, all of which I support. But I was blocked once for 3RR. I didn't mean to do it, hadn't realized I'd done it, had never done it before, and wasn't warned on my talk page. But my block was not undone, and I had to sit out the full 24 hours. As I recall, the context of your remarks about there being no problem, or it not being a serious problem (I don't recall where this discussion took place so can't look it up), was editors complaining about admins being treated one way by other admins, and ordinary editors being treated another. And here we have two classic examples of this, on two consecutive days. I also heard an admin refer to ordinary editors as "mundanes" recently, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I feel incredibly disheartened by this incident, and the lack of response to it. SlimVirgin 22:23, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I want to clarify what I meant by a "lack of response." In fact, several admins have been very helpful in getting rid of the page Mikkalai tried to restore, including User:AndyL and User:Curps, and Curps has also tried to reason with Mikkalai. What I meant by lack of response was the failure to block him for vandalism. SlimVirgin 01:12, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * We've been over this territory before (at WT:3RR), and I don't really have a better answer now than I had for you there. I generally prefer not to get involved in enforcement issues, because all you get is grief. Trust me, if I had to do it all over again, I would not have gotten involved in this one. Noel (talk) 22:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Then, with respect, why are you an admin if you don't want to be involved in enforcement issues? I found the comment from you I was referring to: "I am really tired of the constant moaning about "out of control sysops". If you think someone's displaying poor judgment, we have a mechanism to deal with that . . . Noel (talk) 21:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)" . But as this incident shows, we don't really have such a mechanism. We can try to get rid of them, which I assume would require evidence of multiples abuses, but there's no fast way of dealing with one incidence of abuse, as there is with 3RR, yet surely admin abuse is a more serious problem than reversion. If you really are hearing "constant moaning about out of control sysops", then perhaps it is a serious issue. Admins really ought to have the power to block other admins briefly for abuses of the type Mikkalai has engaged in over the last 24 hours. SlimVirgin 22:59, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * False and misleading statement. Also, I find it indecent and dishonest to discuss me somewhere without notifying me and giving me a chance to defend myself. Mikkalai 00:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I accepted being an admin because there are other admin-only tasks I do like doing, ones which I find a lot more congenial - deleting erroneous redirects, occasionally helping with holding-pen entries on TfD, etc. I have little (and declining all the time) interest in being involved in the behaviour enforcement end of it because no matter what you do, you get grief. Block someone for 24 hours for 3RR, you get grief for being too harsh. Block someone for less, and you get grief for that. You can't win.
 * Admins didn't create the system for dealing with admins who don't use their powers properly. It was created by a combination of the Wikimedia powers-that-be (originally, Jimbo, now the Board of Trustees) and the user community as a whole. If you think it needs an intermediate level (between the informal complaints here, and a full RFC/RFAr), the admins don't have the power to add that - that power lies elsewhere. Noel (talk) 01:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize admins didn't create the system and I should clarify that I wasn't intending to have a go at you with my "why do you want to be an admin then" question. I do think the power should be created for admins briefly to block other admins for examples of a clear abuse of power; and to extend that block if they unblock themselves, and I'm going to find out what would have to be done to get community consensus on that. SlimVirgin 01:57, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've seen plenty of trigger-happy ones to come and go, eager to add more and more punitive policies. In their great majority they were pretty intolerant to other's opinions. Mikkalai 01:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that I'm with SlimVirgin on this. At least one admin seems to agree (see Sam Spade's comments on Talk:Dnagod).  Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Sam Spade is not an admin. RickK 23:15, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry — I don't know where I'd got the idea that he was. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Heaven forbid. ;-)  SlimVirgin 23:28, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I urge Mikkalai to refrain from such comments as I believe they detract from solution to the dispute. El_C 02:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I wrote several times, I am no longer at a dispute. If the newcoming "community" likes to twist the rules to their likes, I am not going to pee against the wind. There is plenty of work around. And I have no reason not to express my disgust with respect to people's behavior who discuss me behind my back. Only by a sheer accident I stumbled upon this page. And I repeat it again: I find it disgusting, disrespectful, dishonest, uncooperative. And the idea of censoring article titles, i.e., terms, attempted to promote here is uncivilized, nazist, communist, etc. It is against all spirit to forbid neutral articles of exsting topics. This effectively tells go read neo-nazi pages instead of wikipedia, if you want to know what Jewish ethnocentrism expression is about. Mikkalai 02:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it means not giving such terms the color of authority that Wikipedia would provide, even as a redirect. --Calton 02:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This position is understandable. Mikkalai 02:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I notice that you, like me, voted for deletion of Helen Keller in jokes. How would you feel if, once it had been deleted, someone created a page with the same name, but with different jokes?  Isn't it in part the very idea of such a page that's the problem?  And Helen Keller jokes certainly exist – the page lists some of them – so your arguments seem to commit you to believe that there should be a Wikipedia article on them. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There should also be pages on "the glass mountain" and "it's five o'clock on the sun" if the existence of a phrase requires there be an article about it. Wikipedia gone on holiday, as Wittgenstein might have said. ;-) SlimVirgin 23:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't. I never said "requires". My whole long point is "cannot be forbidden". So no holiday for wikipedia, only infinite battle. Mikkalai 00:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (To Mel) Helen Keller: the page was judged by content. The article was a mere list of jokes, with no encyclopedic content. Suppose some guy printed a book that analyzes the history of such sicko jokes, like dead baby joke, helen keller joke, etc. and their underlying psychology, this would be a basis for a perfectly valid article, HK being a valid redirect to it.  Mikkalai 00:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I, again, urge Mikkalai to tone down the heated rhetoric and avoid biting the newcomers, at least, generically, as a group. It is ironic that I agree with his position as for the need to have JE reinstated (I actually provided more scholarly references than eny other editor as to its notability: references are located here – I merely take issue over his methods). Now, Dbachmann has already made it clear his mild contempt for newcomers' involvement in this noticeboard, which I have taken him to task over, and I wish to prevent a reoccurance of such insinuations from other admins. If Mikkalai feels he was treated unfairly by not being informed of the discussion here, that's fine; but, I challenge that the heated rhetoric and personal comments are not appropriate. Of course, to many (but far from all) I am largely wasting my words here as I lack the sufficient status along the Wikipedia hierarchy, nonetheless, I still have the opportunity to make comments here (though possibly not for long), so I wish to make the most of it for the benefit of the community. Thanks for taking the time to read my comment, I do see issues, but I am still confident that goodfaith resolution can prevail. El_C 03:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, wow, is Mikkalai still making personal attacks a lot? Man, I haven't dealt with him in ages, but this has been going on for months if he's still at it. Go RFAr him already. Snowspinner 05:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Spinner, buddy, long time, no see! Any new policies about nasty admins around lately? Mikkalai 00:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made clear my mild contempt for fatalistic sarcasm, not for newcomers. But El C has forgiven me after taking me to task over it, or at least that's what he said,. As I told Sam earlier on this board, I'm all for editors keeping a watchful eye on the doings of admins. I just wish it could be done in a more grown-up atmosphere. dab (ᛏ) 19:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * [Inserted after the comments bellow were written] An apology he would "not lose sleep over," folks. An apology that had be qualified in not being actually an apology (or a partial one, at best). Anyway, I urge everyone to thoughtfully look at the contents of issues rather than merely commenting for the sakes of commenting. El_C 08:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I said I wouldn't lose sleep over your disliking me. Sheesh, man, get a grip. Is this Schoolyard taunting now? Do you even realize I'm on your side on this, issue-wise? Get over it already and go write some articles. dab (ᛏ) 10:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I know what you said, and I read your (currently unsigned) comment, too, in support of my position. But it was placed after I complained about commenting for the sakes of commenting and urging editors to look at the issue closely and not superficially. At any rate, I have no intention of engaging in a battle of wits with your or exchanging allegations, but I stand by my points. It isn't a big deal, though, and whether I do or do not need to 'get a grip' is not the issue. El_C 01:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, SlimVirgin has taken at face value that this is the page to complain about abuse of power by an administrator, and presumably to enlist the administrators to apply moral pressure on a colleague, without having to go through the RfAr process. I notice that people have dodged the issue of Mikkalai's behaviour. Aren't any of the esteemed administrators going to comment on their colleague's behaviour in this instance, or does it seem to the assembled administrators that his behaviour was beyond reproach? --BM 01:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe it was poor judgment on Mikkalai's part, and mentioned it to him on his talk page. We did apply "moral pressure" as you say, and various people undid what he tried to do, and the dust seems to have settled.  Now, if you are asking for penalties to applied against Mikkalai, well I don't think admins have the authority to do that.  For editing (breaking the 3RR rule for instance), admins can be blocked like any other editor; but for re-creating a page? Official policy is pretty much entirely lacking... it's not a grey area, it's pitch black. So it's really up to SlimVirgin to take it to RfArb if he wants to take it any further.

 * Or anyone else who wishes could do so. After all you don't need to be an admin to file an RfArb. Once again, various admins did counteract the re-creation of the page, but I don't think we have any policy authority to apply sanctions against Mikkalai (and I personally don't feel this is for me to judge). -- Curps 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Small point of information for future reference, Curps: I'm a she. ;-)  SlimVirgin 04:41, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * It is unfair. I spend much, much more time than Mikkalai trying to prove the notability of the term to voters in that VfD, I do research, I engage in dialogue and try to persuade everyone to vote for redirect, and I fail. And then, here comes User:Mikkalai, and with zero effort, simply turns it into a redirect. What makes him so special that he does not need to go through normal consensus lengths (rhetorical: answer is administrative powers). If only he could approach it this way instead of being so defensive and seeing conspiracies everywhere. Rather than the instant antipathy, some sympathy (possibly even empathy) with lowly 'editors' is due. El_C

 * Wrong. I didn't use my administrative powers, except once, for removal of illegal protection by a person who edited the article before, see log somewhere on this noticeboard page. Mikkalai 08:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This is not the first time when a bunch of newcomers tries to twist and bend the long-established rules to their likes, the emphasis and efforts being mostly on forbidding, deletion and punishment. Your sarcasm is misplaced, believe me. You will see it sooner or later by yourself. Mikkalai 08:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I would prefer not be addressed in this manner. If User:Mikkalai cannot respect my wishes on this front, I will withdraw from this discussion. I also request that he leaves the text of comments I place here intact. Thanks. El_C 09:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For quite a long time I didn't do anything against your wishes. I withdrew myself from the moment when the article was protected by an independent admin. Also, it is a common practice here to insert responses under the relevant pieces. The indentation keeps track of your speech. Mikkalai 17:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * [Insreted after comment bellow was placed] I have no problem with that normally, in article talk pages, but here I found it hindered the flow of and diluted my points (had you addressed these directly, though, I would have no problem with indentation). Also, your first comment baffles me: you have never done anything against my wishes. To my knowledge, this is the first time we ever spoke. Anyway, I only wished for you to see my side (of course I agree with your position as per the content issue, and honestly, everything you said on that front –all correctly– are thoughts I already expressed in the VfD). Well, I did try; which isn't to say that I did try. El_C

Are there two Mikkalais? One who screamed at me because I'd added my comment above his (because I was answering an earlier remark), and one who lectures El C about the common practice being to do just that? It would explain a great deal of this debate. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is one and the same me, but cases are different. I don't know how long have you been around, but the rules of talk threading are very simple and pretty reasonable, in view of absense of automated thread tracking tools available for newsgroups. they also differ from the rules used in e-mail-based discussions. I will not take space here, but if you wish, I can explain on a couple of examples on your talk page. OK? Mikkalai 01:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Small interjection. I have compilied a complete log of events as to what has happened with this article. Please see Votes_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism/Logs and judge for yourselves who is wrong. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Complaint about re-insertions of LaRouche original research
The Arbitration Committee adopted this enforcement decision on 2 August 2004, in the previous Larouche arbitration:

 * Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense. Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions.

There is evidence that User:Herschelkrustofsky (HK) has re-inserted verbatim text LaRouche into two unrelated articles since August. In both of those cases HK attacked the other editor, user:Adam Carr (AC), for removing the material.

This is in addition to numerous initial insertions of LaRouche theories, links, and verbatim text into unrelated articles since August that HK has not re-inserted when they have been deleted.

I contend that the re-insertions, one of them occuring just a few days ago, are violations of the August 2004 enforcement decision. If that is true then I request the decision be followed. -Respectfully submitted, -Willmcw - (Originally submitted here Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision on 6 Feb 2005, resubmitted to this page 04:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC))

 * Issue being addresed by ArbCom. -Willmcw 00:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

William Spence

 * On 31 Oct 2004 editor HK created William Spence, and on 3 Nov 2004 he copied verbatim text from a copyrighted LaRouche site into it. Dif -Google cache Some of the text is purported quotes from the subject, but which have no source other than a LaRouche article.
 * On 13 Nov 2004, editor AC removed the LaRouche-sourced text. Dif
 * An intense and unproductive editing session followed for the next month, with the material repatedely removed and re-inserted. During that time, HK posted two messages on the talk page.
 * On 13 Nov 2004, HK wrote:
 * Adam, I am at a loss to see why you would find it necessary to delete the quote from Bill Shorten about the Eureka Stockade, the quote from Spence himself on the Common Good, or the reference to Spence's collaboration with King O'Malley on the Commonwealth Bank. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC). dif

 * On 3 Dec 2004, HK wrote:
 * Are you disputing the accuracy of these items, or are you making an ostentatious display of contempt for the Wikipedia NPOV policy? --Herschelkrustofsky 21:53, (UTC) Dif

 * Some of the LaRouche text was re-inserted as recently as 15 Dec 2004, and again was deleted immediately by editor AC. Dif

King O'Malley

 * On 29 Oct 2004, HK created the King O'Malley article, and on 4 Nov 2004 he pasted verbatim text from a copyrighted LaRouche site  into it. Dif -Google cache. Some of the text is purported quotes from the subject, but which have no source other than a LaRouche article. The text of the article was the subject of an intense and unproductive editing effort with AC, in which the same text was reinserted over and over.
 * On 3 Dec 2004, HK wrote on the talk page:
 * Adam, you have repeatedly deleted the following information from this article:
 * disputed blocks of text cited.
 * Are you disputing the accuracy of these items, or are you making an ostentatious display of contempt :for the Wikipedia NPOV policy? --Herschelkrustofsky 21:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * On 18 Dec 2004, AC deleted the text most recently. dif.
 * On 31 Jan 2005 editor HK once again restored the text in King O'Malley (edit summary "restore material deleted by Adam"). Dif

Response from HK
I'd like to think that Willmcw is doing me a favor here, by demonstrating the somewhat obsessive nature of the Jihad being waged by the anti-LaRouche faction. The two items being contested in the King O'Malley article are a reference to the fact that O'Malley campaigned to elect James Garfield as President of the U.S., and a direct quote from O'Malley. These are presented as evidence of a vast conspiracy to insert LaRouche POV. This is probably Adam Carr's contention as well, although he has never taken the trouble to explain his deletion of this material. --HK 15:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No, HK, this is not about whether O'Malley campaigned for Garfield. This is about whether you've been violating the August 2004 prohibtion on edit wars over LaRouche material. You reproduced a purported O'Malley quote from an article in the Executive Information Review, including ellisions, with no reference as to the source, which appears to be an effort to hide the source. You copied other material as well, including O'Malley's supposed interest in the American System, some of which you paraphrased and some copied verbatim. And most importantly, when another editor removed it, you reinserted it again and again. Regarding O'Malley and Garfield, Google finds only two webpages that have both names in them - both are LaRouche sites. Google search Can you provide us with the non-LaRouche reference that you used to support your quotes and your Garfield factoid and if you can, why haven't you cited that material before? -Willmcw 19:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anthony and Mikula
I tagged User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula as a CSD, but I'd rather not delete it myself because I already banned Anthony for 24 hours for creating it as per his standing order. So I thought I'd peg it here and let someone else decide on it. Basically, the article was deleted. Anthony listed it as a history only undelete, insisting that no vote was necessary. This was inaccurate, and I removed it for that reason. (The article was deleted, but then created blank and protected to guard against recreation vandalism) He relisted. I removed and gave him a 24 hour troll ban. This went around a few more times before Dpbsmith was snookered into giving him the content. He then recreated the page in his userspace. Someone want to chime in and delete the damn thing? Snowspinner 05:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * What harm is it doing there? It's not in the article space, right? People preserve choice bits of deleted content all over the place (BJAODN, clever nihilartikels, content from banned users, etc.), and I rarely see complaints about it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Does Google record User space articles? RickK 06:27, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, but I didn't see that subpage in any of the 200-odd unique hits for Mikula's name. . Anthony's userpage is around #46. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Because those users don't have a standing injunction against trolling, and those users don't lie to people to get the information they want to preserve. Snowspinner 13:12, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * If there's nothing about the content on the page which would cause problems for Wikipedia (e.g. libel, or some violation of law), I don't see that there's a problem with it. Of course, the general stricture that Wikipedia isn't here for people to store arbitrary amounts of junk always applies, but there does seem to be a real Wikipedia connection for this content. Noel (talk) 13:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fishy doings on someone's user space
Would someone mind taking a look at User:Fvw/proxytest2? It's a page I encountered while looking at the history of someone who was leaving spam links on the Viagra page. I am a techno-idiot, but it looks awfully fishy to me. --Calton 13:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd ask Fvw. He's a pretty reasonable guy, and can probably explain its function. Snowspinner 13:24, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * He's on indefinite wikibreak, but the purpose of this page is to test open proxies. He wrote a bot to find and block them, but due to a software bug he couldn't continue doing so. I assume as soon as the developers fix the bug and he returns from break, he'll block all the proxies with which he edited the page. — Dan | Talk 13:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, okay. See, I told you I was a techno-idiot. --Calton 13:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, probably the spammer used some of the same proxies that Fvw's bot found, is all. Noel (talk) 13:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:203.116.214.2
Three revert rule violation on Bahá'í Faith. [ hist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=203.116.214.2

Comments:

Forget diffs just look at user contributions. User is an open proxy. If the user is not blocked within 45 minutes I will carry out the block myself (8 reverts to one article in 24 hours ok I'm impressed)Geni 16:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked indefinitely as anon open proxy. Proteus (Talk) 16:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith
Yet another anon user User:82.101.129.92 seems to have magicaly found this page and put the picture back in for the nth time. A number of the previous anons have been open proxies this is getting silly.Geni 17:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cantus and Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg
As a result of an editing dispute, Cantus has replaced the color photograph with the black and white version of this picture (which already exists under a different name). I understand that he is still on revert parole and this may constitute an attempt to circumvent that.

The file is on Commons. This seems like underhand behavior at the very least. Is there something that can be done about it? I do not want to get involved in silly edit wars over this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73
Szczecin [ hist]: I clicked on the rollback link on Szczecin by mistake, hence violating the 3RR. I reverted my revert immedeately. This note is here to clarify things. While I think a block is not needed, I leave this to the digression of other admins -- Chris 73 Talk 03:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you self revert your own revert presendence says that that means the original revert did not count. Geni 04:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. If the article is in the same state as before, then there is not an issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rollback is an admin tool provided only to quickly deal with vandalism. It is completely inappropriate to use an admin tool to assist in an editorial dispute. Use of it outside of dealing with vandalism is an abuse of that function, and also implicitely fails to fulfill the policy which states "Always explain your reverts". -- Netoholic @ 04:42, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

 * It may be inappropriate but it is pretty common. The line between extream/ultraminority pov and vanderlism is rather subjective so as long as an admin doesn't go over the top with it I don't care (heck even without rollback I can revert a page in under 10 seconds).Geni 11:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The line is not that subjective - vandalism is pretty well defined. In this case, it is apparent that Chris73 reverted via normal means the first few times, and then resorted to using his rollback ability to push his version though.   This all may be common, but it is highly harmful and should be discouraged actively. -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

"...It is 3 reverts per anticle not per version. Blocked for 24 hours Geni 02:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)..." quote by Geni. Chris 73 broke the 3rr per article, (mistake or not, everyone - after breaking the 3rr can say - "ups sorry it was only a mistake..") he should be banned. Its very clear that he broke the rule.--Emax 13:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I am very aware of this of course. However the mistaken revert was undone within a minute. Bluntly no harm no foul. It takes me ~10 minutes to cheack out a 3RR report in full if you can correct your error in that time then I'm not going to block you (obviously if you have reverted 5 times there is zilch you can do). I admit that getting into a situation where this could happen is worrying. Looking at the edit history I suggest an RFC or mediation.Geni 14:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. How about a little common sense. There was no harm done. It was an accident. The technical transgression was recognized by the person who did the revert and then self-reported. There's no need to block for this. As for using rollback for something that is not vandalism--that can be pursued through an RFC, but it is a separate matter from the 3RR. Sheesh, people seem to be more interested in the uniform application of an arbitrary (blunt force) rule than in common decency, dialog, building networks of trust, etc., etc. This page (Szczecin) is a candidate for protection (yet again) -- there doesn't appear to be any dialog going on at all among the participants in this edit war. older ≠ wiser 17:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with you that the uniform application of the rule it unwise, but historically any attempt to apply it with discretion has met with extensive complaints (see, e.g. this incident). So it's no wonder that admins who do enforcement (I won't, any more, because I've have had it with taking grief from kibitzers) fall back on applying the rule in a Procrustean fashion.
 * As to not using roll-back except for true vandalism, I originally took the position that it didn't provide any end result that wasn't available to non-admins, so what was the problem? However, I have since changed my mind, and feel that the minimal extra work (a couple of extra clicks) makes it worth it simply to avoid the appearance of power abuse. I keep meaning to bring this up on WP:AN, but I'm waiting until we have a quiet period (hah). Noel (talk) 15:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think WP:3RR says anywhere that a user must be blocked for breaking the rule. My impression is that in practise it is nearly always exercised with great discretion; I've seen so many exchanges on user talk pages where someone has reminded someone else of the rule, and the user has simply said thanks and promised to watch his reverts in future.  Nothing more comes of it, though sometimes it does.  The threat of blocking hanging over edit warriors sometimes has a good effect, making them reform their editing behavior, but sometimes it leads to gaming the system--a practise which if kept up leads quite surely to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams
Please see this. She is threatening not only to vandalize Wikipedia, but to bring in others to do the same. It's time she goes, permanently. RickK 07:58, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ya, I saw that. I've requested an urgent injunction on this issue already. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * istn't there one already? You are allowed to rollback every one of her edits. dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is?! I didn't know that! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that's what I gathered here. dab (ᛏ) 12:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regrettably, I agree that she has gone too far. She has made it quite clear on the RfAr page that she does not have any respect for the Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo, the arbitrators or the Wikipedia community generally. No-one is forcing her to edit this site, and if she does not like how it is run, she should go: I'm sure a hard ban would have wide support amongst the Wikipedia community, jguk 12:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that she should be hard banned. I also will unblock any block put up against her while she is before the arbcom, because she has every right to defend herself. When the arbcom case closes, should it end with a hard ban, neat. Otherwise, I will support a community effort to hard ban. Snowspinner 18:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Er, if it's a fait accomplice that she'll be banned after her arbitration, why are we bothering with it? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But while waiting for the inevitable ban, we can roll back all of her edits except those to her User space and to the RfA pages? RickK 19:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, there's not really a ruling saying you can... but I'm certainly not going to stop you, so much as applaud you. Snowspinner 19:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

If you're in a rolling-back mood, you might start with: linked to the RfC page. --Calton 20:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_comment/Varius
 * Requests_for_comment/Tirrany

 * I'm sorry, but was my post inappropriate? Why did Dbachmann remove it? --Calton 21:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Probably just caused by an edit conflict - I have restored your comment. Noel (talk) 22:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, sorry, technological glitch I suppose. I didn't consciously remove it. dab (ᛏ) 11:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:NSM88
You should all be aware that I have blocked User:NSM88 for being a Nazi and having a picture of himself wearing a Nazi armband addressing a meeting. I didn't do it for any other reason. If someone wants to berate me for it, go ahead. But I refuse to apologise for this. I've never blocked anyone like this before, and I don't intend to make a habit of banning people just because I don't like their views, but this is just too much. If someone would like to desysop me for it, then please, by all means go ahead. In this case, I'm going to stand by my principles and oppose this user. Might not be NPOV and it might be over and above what I can do as an admin. I don't care. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I feel that is wrong. A person may at times be punished for certain kinds of behavior, but one's views should not be cause for punishment, even if we do find them abhorrent. I won't unblock him personally, but I'd like to see some sort of community recognition of the principle that we should block only based on behavior and not views. Everyking 11:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Unblocked. Strangly I can't find any policy on blocking people with terminaly stupid political POVs.Geni 11:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * He may be a Nazi, but if he's willing to make NPOV contributions (which remains to be seen), blocking him is against policy. Let's see if he continues to make strong POV edits, before blocking him again. We shouldn't block people based on their views -- political or otherwise. Mgm|(talk) 11:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * its disruption, and it was a new account, so indefinite blocking is defensible as within policy. It's disruption because such self-representation will only sicken and distress users, and lead to endless disputes-rather-than-editing. Its not his pov, Geni, it's his image of himself in full nazi uniform on his user page. We cannot work together with people like this. Better block them now than after weeks of bureaucracy. reblocked (wee, my first controversial block; I will leave it at that, though) dab (ᛏ) 11:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Argghh!! I don't know. At this stage his behaviour hasn't merited a block. If the picture is the problem then we should deal with that. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Unblocked. Block is dissputed (I'm not the only person to unblock this guy) therefor the person remains upblocked. If the guy edits with a strong nazi POV we can get rid of him pretty quickly anyway (apart from anything else I want to block anyone who supports animal rights extreamists doesn't mean I think I should be allowed to)Geni 12:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * did you listen to me, Geni? it's not his pov. Anyway, I will now warn him to remove his image or face a block for disruption. He can be a Nazi all he likes, but the image is out of line. If he refuses, I will issue a short block for disruption and remove the image myself. I hope we can agree this is within policy. dab (ᛏ) 12:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No need. I've already deleted the image in question. Let's stay calm. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If nothing else you can justify that by claiming copyvio from NSM88.com. violet/riga (t) 13:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I also disagree with this guy's blocking. No one should be blocked for any belief(s) they hold. I agree that a temporary block based on repeated POV pushing would be warranted, but never a block because he's a Nazi. - Vague | Rant 12:19, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * what do you think his 'contributions' will be? Let's agree here and now that we'll slap him with a day's block for every "alleged holocaust" he inserts to article space. I agree that he too deserves a chance to get to know the workings of WP, but honsetly, I see about as much hope here as for CheeseDreams . Anyone into going to ask Jimbo for his opinion? dab (ᛏ) 12:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * btw, I'm not trying to pose as a sort of court-martial arbcom-surrogate here. I just sincerely believe such blocks would be in line with the 'disruption' part of blocking policy, but would like to hear other views to prevent further block-warring. dab (ᛏ) 12:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Dab, I realise you didn't mean to do this, but please don't compare this guy to CheeseDreams. I'd defend CheeseDreams right to free speech in a heartbeat (though I'll continue to correct her POV pushing). She is nothing like this guy. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * ah, sorry, I see what you mean. I was talking about degree of stubborness. I retract that, thanks. Anyway, Theresa thinks he's a sockpuppet/troll having fun with the recent neo-nazi-induced tension around here. I think she may be right. Sorry if I lost my countenance for a minute there ;o) dab (ᛏ) 12:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries. I thought I'd just point this out. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * CD's right to speak freely is unimpaired anyway. she can stand on a soap box in Hyde Park anytime. She just cannot exercise it here, any more than accross my cellphone. dab (ᛏ) 13:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for being a Nazi. What his contributions are is irrelevant. ta bu himself has asked us over IRC not to defend his block under other reasonings. He was blocked for being a Nazi, and that's what I don't agree with. No one's opinions of his contributions come into it. - Vague | Rant 01:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Vague rant is correct. Just thought I'd verify this. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunate, then. There were many reasons to block this account. I support blocking this account. This was not among the reasons to do it, however. Snowspinner 01:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

His behaviour after being blocked is quite instructive. He appears to be very familier with wikiprocesses, he talks about our policies, he found vandalism in progress very quickly etc. In fact if you look at his editing behaviour as a whole it becomes crystal clear that this is not a new user, probably not actually a nazi and is in fact merely someone trolling. David Gerard has blocked the sockpuppet as a troll and i support the block. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In that case, may I suggest we get a developer find out whose IP he shares with? If it's obvious it's another Wikipedian, they should be at least warned. - 12:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That is of course possible, but I don't think we should block him in the absence of proof. Theoretically this logic could be used against many people, and quite unjustly. We need to be more careful than that. Everyking 12:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it's a hoax. He simply made up the "Tampa Bay chapter" stuff. go get his IP and find out whose sockpuppet it is. :o) dab (ᛏ) 13:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) :::Take a good look at his editing behaviour. Surely that's proof enough. What new user ever behaves as he has done? Thbeoretically this logic would not apply to many people at all, only those who create sockpuppets account in order to have somw fun at others expense. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While people with strong beliefs (however right or wrong) can be capable of NPOV editing I think it's clear that this guy isn't able to maintain that. Would've been nicer to have more rules broken in order to fully justify this in peoples eyes, but I think common sense has to prevail here. violet/riga (t) 13:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When there is a known campaign of vandalism and trolling against Wikipedia, which there is right now from Stormfront, when someone shows up with an offensive picture and a username that includes "Heil Hitler" (the 88), and/or when someone generally makes it clear that they're at Wikipedia to be a Nazi, I do not think a block is unwarranted. Even if they have good intentions, which seems a remote but existant possibility that we need to allow, the combination of factors will not allow that particular editor to edit effectively. They will not be able to edit without the perception of being a troll and a vandal. In essence, this amounts to a special case of offensive user names. We don't ban the person - we ban the account. In this case, the block applies to a username that says "Heil Hitler" and a profile that displays a wealth of offensive images. Snowspinner 15:58, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Where a username is banned, I think it's good to invite the user to participate in a more appropriate manner (that is, we make it plain that we're not banning the person). Although this was a pretty clear troll, I think this should also probably be done in this case.  Someone who trolls occasionally may yet be capable of contributing good edits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it is necessary to wait for this person to do an unacceptable POV edit to block him. Posting a picture of yourself in a Nazi uniform on the Wikipedia (even if it was on a User page) is an unacceptable edit of the Wikipedia.   The picture announces, "I'm a troll",  and "I don't care about your community norms", and "I am up to no good."   It is a challenge.   Time spent by admins and other editors following the guy around to make sure that he doesn't do any harm is time that might have been used on something useful.  Block him.   On the remote chance that he was well-intentioned, he will be back with a different user-name.   He will probably be back anyway.   We have to start acting a lot less like dupes when it comes to trolls.   --BM 19:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * /applaud. Snowspinner 19:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * From User talk:NSM88 "I've blocked you for being a hateful individual. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)" - isn't that a personal attack which is contrary to Wikipedia policy? Also how about "You should all be aware that I have blocked User:NSM88 for being a Communist and having a picture of himself wearing a Communist symbol addressing a meeting." - would that be an acceptable line of reasoning too? Djbrianuk 15:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes Ta bu shi da's block was against policy, this was delt with very promptly by somone unblocking him. It was only later, once it was realised that this was a troll account that a block stuck. So the wiki method worked just fine. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 16:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am an african american and half jewish, and even I feel that this banning was way out of line. I've had my fair share of racism, and such actions are no different than those who called me a "n*gger" and "f*ggot." Banning a user for having a political opinion is no different than the time I was violently turned away from the voting booths because of the color of my skin. When you censor anyone for having an opinion or having beliefs that don't synergize with your own you are essentially becoming the bigot, not them. I am disgusted at such behavior and I wish that the administration can correct such corruption. --Iconoclast 23:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hear, hear! Intellectual honesty and full access to info is why I'm here on the wiki in the first place. We have many communists and anarchists and homosexuals and who knows what all that might offend someone or be considered disruptive by being themselves. When you ban somebody for being a nazi, your worse than they are. At least their making the gesture of wanting to become a part of our community, assumably to take part in learning and sharing knowledge. Your exclusion of them based on their politics and attire is repugnant and anti-wiki. I don't want gay users banned, I don't want communist users banned, and I don't want nazi-users banned. Lead by example, rather than stooping to the level of those you dislike. Prove them wrong with citations and logic, rather than proving them right by living up to their worst expectations. If you think their bad, be better than they are, not worse. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I recently went to the IRC channel on freenode to discuss the issue, and I was treated badly and the people in the room could't get past the fact that he was a supposed troll, and ignored the intent on why he was originally banned. It seems they cannot grasp the situation in an ordered sequence and can only see the original reasoning as being the very last reasoning.  The room seems to be full of people commiting ad-hominem attacks and mockery instead of any real discussion.  It's pathetic. --Iconoclast 01:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Out of interest, was I online when you were there? If you did get treated badly, then I apologise for this! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * #wikipedia is a horrible place, unworthy to spit in, much less look for help or well reasoned discourse. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That's a horrible thing to say, Sam. Maybe I've joined it after you got badly treated, but I've always been treated with some degree of respect when I've been there, even though my views may not always align with others. I, personally, would love to see you there again when I'm also online! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've made a note on my talk page explaining my position on Nazism. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * from our article on tolerance: "a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, which would destroy it." -- any opinion is welcome, except the opinion that other people are subhuman. Posing in a nazi uniform is a powerful statement of such an opinion. This refers to the hypothetical case that we were dealing with an actual nazi rather than with a troll. dab (ᛏ) 06:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * And let's not forget, although he was blocked for being a nazi, he was, almost immediately, unblocked for the same reason. So what are we discussing here? The wiki process worked. TBSDA didn't reblock so to my mind there is no question of abuse of admin powers. There really is nothing to worry about. People with strong political opinions are not only tolerated, the are welcomed. No one will ever sucsessfully be hounded out because of thier beliefs or opinions. There are too many admins to undo blocks. Had NSM88 been for real, he would still be editing now, I am sure og it. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 07:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * note that even tbsdy's and my blocks were not about him being a nazi, ontologically, but because he decided to take a provocative stance about it (such as, posing in nazi uniform on his user page). we are not the thought police blocking you for evil opinions. we react to provocations. dab (ᛏ) 13:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert Kraft, Robert Kraft/Temp
Greetings. In an effort to expand the Wikipedia, I began an entry for Robert Kraft. I cut and pasted a great deal of information from a site at the New England Revolution, which he owns, and on which the copyright notice prohibits use for commercial purposes only. As the Wikipedia is not commercial, I didn't think it was a big deal. Within seconds, the page had been flagged for copyright infringement. Obviously, this was done with a bot and there has never been a human review of this issue. Regardless, I've gone ahead and begun a stub at Robert Kraft/Temp. Could this stub please be moved to replace the ugly copyright infringement page? Thanks. Daniel Winter 17:22, 15 Feb 2005

 * It was not done by a bot. Are you not impressed by how quickly our editors review things? Although Wikipedia is non commercial we allow our content to be used commercially (see GFDL for details of the licence we used. If the stub is not copied and pasted stuff you can replace the copyvio notice yourself. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead and replaced the copyvio notice for you. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Goatse image on RC?
I'm not sure how it happened, but the Goatse image (yes, that one) appeared on Recentchanges a minute or two ago. Is there a way of preventing this from ever happening again? I can only imagine if a teacher was showing WP to his/her students. Carrp | Talk 18:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The only thing we could do would be to protect that page. But that would mean that non admins couldn't change the contents. There are many legit reasons for changing the content of recent changes- updating the requested articles as they get created, adding messages to inform people of wikimeets, important votes and so on. Protecting the page is overkill. The page is looked at very frequently, vandalism is reverted in less than a minute usually. Reverting and blocking the vandals seems to work pretty well. It's not 100% perfect but it's better than protecting the page IMO. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 19:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm generally not an advocate of protecting pages, but the incident today demonstrates the damage that vandalism can cause. Recent Changes is not a page where you'd expect to see an objectionable image (or any image at all). As you said, Recent Changes is looked at very frequently. Thus, it is a target for vandals. Until today, I didn't realize that the page wasn't protected. Since admins are essentially janitors, shouldn't they be in charge of tasks such as maintaining Recent Changes? Carrp | Talk 19:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I just checked the history and found that in the past 10 days, the page has had a total of 41 minutes with some kind of image or vandalism on the page. Protecting the page to deal with this level of vandalism is overkill IMO Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The vanderlism levels of the templates on the frount page were pretty low as well for quite a long time.Geni 19:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I suppose 41 minutes in 10 days isn't too much. What got me all fired up was the shock of seeing that picture on what I consider to be a "safe" page. I've calmed down now, and I do agree that it would probably be overkill to protect the page (unless the level of vandalism increases). Thanks, Theresa. Carrp | Talk 19:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Forget "wasn't protected", I wasn't aware that the header for "Special:Recentchanges" was even editable! It's one of the few pages I considered safe to look at from anywhere, along with the main page, my watchlist, and the top section of any page showing a diff. --Carnildo 20:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I suspect that quite a number of people never realise that it can be edited. It is not at all obvious how to do it. I suspect this is the reason that it suffers relatively little vandalism. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit wars in the Caucuses
User:64.136.2.254, likely Rovoam, is making a whole slew of changes/redirects related to Nagorno-Karabakh (or Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh depending on the millisecond). Attention from a wider audience requested. — Davenbelle 21:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

user:Xed
I blocked user:Xed for a single nasty remark. Now I'm thinking this may not actually be allowed under current Wikipedia policy. After the fact, upon reading the relevant policy pages, it's starting to look like a case of "blocks that, while possibly wise, lack policy basis". Should I undo the block? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * In this case, it's especially difficult, as I think it's fair to say that Xed has often been at the center of turmoil (and unpleasantness, on occasion). I would agree, though, that an unblock is a wise idea -- as much as I admire Slrubenstein, I think his remark about Xed's mind is itself a less confrontational personal attack (or at least a remark that he knew would incite Xed).  Had Xed made the remark he did in response to, say, Slr editing an article in a way Xed didn't like, I think the block more justifiable, but since the attack was more retaliatory, I might simply warn both sternly and leave it at that.  More fireworks from either side, and I'd say both need a little cooling off.  Just my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 22:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocks for personal attacks in general have not achieved consensus support because the criteria are too subjective (i.e., require application of an actual clue). That said, I recommended WP:AN to Ed because it's useful as a sanity check. I suspect that egregious and repeated personal attacks would get a block that wouldn't be reversed by someone else - David Gerard 22:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Since he was responding to an insult, I don't see how a block could be justified. And as an aside in response to JW, I doubt blocks ever actually cool anybody off. I think they fuel flames. Everyking 22:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In my experience the opposite happens - 24 hr blocks for gross personal attacks, particularly in edit summaries, do wonders to moderate some editors' conduct. I'm very annoyed the policy wasn't considered sharp enough to be ratified - David Gerard 22:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, they may improve outward conduct through fear, but they deepen animosity. Everyking 22:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You make a perceptive comment, Everyking. On the other hand, it could be argued that the rule of law does little to limit criminals' thoughts and desires, even though it may keep them from actually stealing/assaulting/cheating/etc. out of fear of being punished.  This is not the fault of the rule of law, nor is it a wise reason to choose not to convict a criminal ("well, even if they get locked up and decide not to shoplift anymore, they'll be real unpleasant to me and all shopkeepers from now on...").  Personal attacks at Wikipedia, in that they are poisonous to community development, are essentially violations of the rule of law here.  If we do not block the most egregious offenders, others will make similar attacks, and the discourse will degenerate into....well, just about every other bulletin board/chatroom/discussion area on the Web.  That's my perspective. Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The vote, at 2/3, was a non-trivial amount of support, however, and other things (Notably the no personal attacks policy itself) do suggest to me that sometimes a personal attack block is warranted. This seems to me a case of this. Snowspinner 22:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * In response to David Gerard - With Xed I'm afraid the opposite is true. Due to a mistake I blocked him some time ago for a 3rr violation, when in fact he he had not violated it explicitly. I apologized for my error, though other admins might still have blocked him for violating the rule in spirit. He nursed a grudge against me and "left" Wikipedia for a while in protest of my unfair block, so don't be surprised if he does so again, and if he returns shortly thereafter. — Dan | Talk 22:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutrality blocked me recently for two or three days for a 3rr violation, which l hadn't violated. I didn't cause a scene at the time partly because I didn't have the energy, but also because I very little faith in Wikipedias rules and regulations. The admin driven processes seem not only corrupt, but also beyond reform. Once I realised this, these things tend to bother me less. - XED . talk  23:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Wisdom trumps policy to my mind. Xed is, frankly, a continual cycle of aggravation. It was a personal attack. Xed has a history of causing problems. Calling him on that is reasonable. Keep the block up. Snowspinner 22:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Blankfaze unblocked Xed's user name, moments later I unblocked his IP and told him so via private e-mail. *sigh* Live and learn. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Love and kisses all round - XED . talk  22:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I want to thank Ed and others for responding to Xed's comments on my talk page. I admit that I started the exchange by saying he has "a small and petty mind," although I do think that his response "Fuck off you little shit" was disproportionate. In any event, I didn't think it was worth bringing up here. However, I just got a personal e-mail from him which might call for some action; I forwarded it to the listserve. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  22:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Anyone capable of making both humorous (mirth-provoking) and insulting (anger-provoking) remarks, can learn to get along with others - if they're willing to make the effort. My communication skills have improved vastly in the last three years, thanks to my involvement with Wikipedia. Our project is really a combination of a Product (the articles) and a Process (the art of working together). I'll do whatever it takes to improve either of these. I appreciate everyone's guidance. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:37, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cantus
Seems to be violating his revert parole (one revert per day?) by edit warring over which version of image:autofellatio.jpg to display. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) disregard. My mistake. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)