Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive106

So Doc Glasgow is a stalker? Then why did he delete his userpage? Because he was the victim of stalking? Or because he is hiding what he has done? On the internet, stalkers and their victims can become muddied to the untrained eye. Think carefully before presuming who is the guilty party. 203.122.194.131 16:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The guilty party? I try not to attend any other kind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

While checking into a possible sockpuppet situation on RfA, I discovered that Y-y-yoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DavidOr tiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both blocked exicornt vandals, are sockpuppets of EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was suspected in the mass-exicornt vandalism on several other Wikimedia projects. Both had already been permablocked for exicornt vandalism, but a decision needs to be made on what to do with EddieSegoura. The floor is open for suggestions. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure connection? An indefinite block would seem clearly called for. See above section. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, how reliable is the connection? IIRC, the vandalism was done through AOL, so a CheckUser could be unreliable there. I would support an indefinite block if it were the case, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If it were AOL, I wouldn't have reported it as a confirmed result; I am aware of the proxying behavior of AOL, and the unreliable nature of thier IP shifts. The above named accounts are not using AOL, they are using a static non-AOL IP, they are the only users using it, and they are using it in a manner that dispells any suggestion of dynamic assignment. They are the same person. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If they are the same person, then indefinate block is in order. He has been trolling for way too long.

X

04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been roughly six months of trolling, FWIW. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've applied an indefinite block; further review, as always, welcome. Now I'm going to try not to get too maudlin about the whole thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I took the unusual approach of overturning Bunchofgrapes' original block and replacing an identical one of my own. I left some rationale behind the decision here. At the moment, I think we need to decide what would be the best thing to do. At the moment, I think what would be best to do is to leave the block as is, and any administrator who wishes to take responsibility for shortening the block can do so at their own volition. At minimum, the block should stay for a little bit, but in deference to the original blocking sentiment, I'd like to get more opinions and see what others think about the situation. Thanks for your time and responses. --HappyCamper 06:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The recent activities of his sockpuppets show that he still doesn't understand how to work within Wikipedia, or else he's been trolling us all along. And the cross-project exic*nt fun suggests the latter. But in either case, it's been six months, and I think the community's patience is thoroughly worn out. The block should stand, in my opinion. FreplySpang 06:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. Any others? --HappyCamper 06:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

<--- unindenting... Block fully supported on my end. I've dealt with this user before, and he has really, really worn out the patience of a lot of us, both here and at Wiktionary.

I agree in that the block should stand; I also agree that Eddie's been trolling the crap out of us since the original Exicornt debate. He was fully aware that sockpuppets were the wrong way to go about things.  RasputinAXP  c 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block too. Just wondering, is there any way a steward can check the IP range from this report on other projects, to be make a case for a Wikimedia-wide ban? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That would require a separate checkuser on every project; if there is reason to think he's active on another project, then I'm happy to hand the IPs off to a steward so they can check, but outside that, I doubt you're going to convince a steward to set permissions on hundreds of wikis and spend several days checking each. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

He also uses AOL, wth which he's been evading his block/ban.

T+C) at 01:02 UTC (2006-05-27

)

He's prolly upset over the whole ordeal and is sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 May 2006

Too late now, Eddie. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Never. What have I done to wrong you, Calton? I never attacked You or messed up Your edits.

Don't make it personal, Eddie. Besides, it's what you've done to Wikipedia that's at issue, namely, trying to hijack it as a vehicle for promoting a word you made up. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

While the small handful of users wants Me to quit editing WP, I will continue working without an username. I am willing to negotiate and agree with a shorter "Block" but if My username is locked indefinitely, what have I got to lose by contributing more edits if they're productive. Besides, this discussion is over fact I have more then one account that posted content that another user rejected. --[Eddie] 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Actually by 207.200.116.138 (talk · contribs)

While the small handful of users wants Me to quit editing WP... Eddie, you're community banned. You've exhausted the patience of multiple editors and admins, not "a small handful", and your recent edits have been anything BUT productive. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if I did drive some people crazy, it's never too late to ask them for forgivness. Its a shame You feel I'm a terrible user. --[Eddie] 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually by 152.163.100.65 (talk · contribs)

Eddie, quit trying to foist off the responsibility on others: it's your bad behavior that's at issue. Your apparent inability to accept that doesn't help you. --Calton | Talk 06:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blaming others, I'm just asking for forgiveness. --[Eddie] 11:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you were "blaming others", I was saying you were trying to foist the responsibility for your treatment on others. "[S]mall handful of users", "What have I done to wrong you[?]", "Even if I did drive some people [emphasis mine] crazy"; all these are ways redirect blame from yourself, as if it's the reaction of others that's the problem. And more to the point, you haven't said more than a generic "I'm sorry" without the least acknowledgement of why you're supposed to sorry. So, direct question, Eddie: why have you been community banned? --Calton | Talk 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well according to this discussion it's because either I have more than one account or because I posted a redirect under a word that was reject by other users. Some said that I've been "

trolling" but that's not true. I don't harass members. Besides, I would not have been forced out of a username had it not been for this discussion. It will be archived soon so unless You're offended by Me interacting with You, I'll have to email You. --[Eddie

] 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well according to this discussion... The moment I read that, I knew I was in trouble, and the rest was just confirmation. No, you don't understand at all. --Calton | Talk 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is still going on? Don't feed the Eddie, folks. It's what he wants.  RasputinAXP  c 02:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it is, I will continue to dispute this whether you likt it or not. I'm not stupid. --[Eddie] 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

i created a user sub-page to gather information, NOT to create dialog, and MONGO just deleted it outright. Could somebody undelete it? Is he allowed to just outright delete my userspace sub-article just like that? --Striver 00:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a good reason to delete this subpage, which is that it can be used for vote stacking to support a certain POV. However, that's

WP:MFD business, so as there is no other discussion here I've restored it. Ashibaka tock

02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this: [1] . Can a admin behave in that maner?--Striver 09:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm always concerned about the govement. --Golbez 09:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make a list, get out a piece of paper. --mboverload@ 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it twice now. If it is deleted again you will have to use

Thank you. --Striver 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO put it for MFD, another admin speedie keept it [2], MONGO unanimosly undid the other admins desicion: [3]. Or did i missunderstand something? --Striver 19:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the diffs...that was seperate vote that was moved to Tfd.--MONGO 19:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? (I feel stupid...) --Striver 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody had added a malformed deletion vote to another article that was moved to templates for deletion.--MONGO 19:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like some help on Talk:Rape -- in particular, Michael D. Wolok (talk · contribs) is turning it into a soapbox about what should be considered rape and what should not. Having someone else step in would be a very good thing, I think. --Nlu (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How about putting in a

Request for comment to get third party involvement? Tyrenius

07:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's already

one there

:

Talk:Rape Whether the current lead-paragraph definition of rape should be replaced with a definition that Michael D. Wolok (talk · contribs) proposed. 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius 07:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have 24 hour banned this character in the past for 3RR, which apparently caused him to call Jimbo's cell phone while Jimbo was sitting down to dinner with his parents [4]. Pretty hilarious. Anyway, Wolok does not "get" wikipedia, I can say that for sure. -

Anyway, it's unfortunate that RfC did not have much effect, but is there any administrative action to be taken here? It seems to me that Wolok has learned not to violate 3RR, and you're just stuck with a stubborn user. Or maybe there is something I'm missing? -

talk +

09:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article RfC isn't getting enough response, have you considered trying mediation? If its just the two of you, you can always go for a third opinion as well. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 09:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the article talk page. The lead paragraph doesn't follow style guide at the moment. Wolok is right to be dissatisfied with it. Tyrenius 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

His discussion about the lead paragraph is fine. It's Wolok's subsequent diatribe about how people should be allowed to have sex with partners who are asleep, intoxicated, &c. that's causing the talk page to deteriorate. That discussion doesn't belong on Talk:Rape because Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. In effect, Wikipedia is about what things are, not what they should be. --Nlu (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Those are pretty far-out things to be pushing on Wikipedia, and you might be able to get action on it (Mediation, Arbitration). In the mean time, I might suggest simply ignoring his diatribes on the talk page. Perhaps push them to a designated subpage, or to Wolok's own userspace (they can certainly derail existing constructive conversation which the talk page was meant for, so this is a good idea). Only if he tries to push his outlying views into the article is there a real problem, at which point, revert, and block for 3RR if necessary. This strategy worked well against Wolok at

talk +

10:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, can help myself :) Who is this Wolok and why does he have Jimbo's cell #?? (that call at diner was funny) He is VERY new here, not like I am ANY veteran, but from the threads, he seems sincere and technology aside, seems like he wants to help. All the policies ect, can be overwelming. I might suggest that he tries to work on topics that he isn't so passionate about so he can learn the processes and inner workings of this project before trying to edit what really interests him. Maybe I'll do that now. Sorry for the interupption, carry on :) --Tom 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just left a welcome note on this users page. Thinking about it more, it seems like the bans, ect are pretty harsh. This users is GREEN, like really green, SO WHAT!?! I remember my first days/weeks/months, come to think of it TO THIS DAY, I still strugle with all the policies/guidlines/afds/rfcs/wpbios/nors/npovs/ YADDA YADDA YADDA. I haven't looked at this guys edits because to me thats not the point. From the thread you can tell he CARES and he isn't (ok I am guessing here) a troll. With all the trolls and anti-WIKI and admins blanking their user pages we NEED to be more welcoming it seems. OK, I am done rambling and preaching, this really ain't my style. I would be HAPPY to work with this guy and I don't know him from Adam. Cheers! --Tom 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that Wolok is not a troll. He has good intentions. I disagree with most of the rest of what you wrote. -

talk +

19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I can understand someone being mad with drunken sex being defined as rape (I am), that is not the legal definition as far as I know, and does not belong there. Does the user understand this? Then again, advocating for sex while a person is asleep to be legal is pretty strange. I get images of necrophilia in my head just thinking about it. (person doesn't respond) --mboverload@ 10:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I know how to indent.

Hi Folks, Thank you Tom, for pointing me here. First, of all, lets get something straight. I NEVER said having sex with someone who is asleep is not rape, nor did I ever say it is rape. I said it can be rape or not, depending on the circumstances. Nlu apparently disagrees and maintains it is always rape to have sex with someone who is asleep. He apparanlty has arrived at his belief by misunderstanding something he read. If someone has sex with their wife, and they know their wife wouldn't mind, and they are right, I doubt many people would call this "rape." Moreover, I don't think there is a court in the world that would call this rape. Apparantly Nlu disagrees with me. The issue is relevant to the article because we are trying to define "rape." I suggested rape is non-consensual penetration. Then I questioned my own definition. I am not convinced that every case where there is not express consent is properly called rape, such as the example I gave.

Actually, both Nlu and Lethe are arrogant, partronizing, condescending, insulting, and belittling. They each insist on forcing their view by reverting additions without discussion, by not making any attempt to edit additions but reverting them in their entirety. Lethe claims he doesn't read what I write on the discussion page, still he reverts everything I write. I need an advocate and moderation or mediation.

I inadvertantly violated the 3RR on my very first edit, because I did not know Wikipedia had this rule. After I learned this rule, I did not violate it again, though Lethe claims I did.

Lethe claims everything I wrote is wrong. I sent my additions to a world renown phyicist and cosmologist, Max Tegmark. He is a Ph.D. professor of physics at MIT. He listed my additions one at at time, and after just about each point I made, he agreed with me. Still, Lethe again and again removed them all from the article, even after other editors left them in with just minor modifications. I independently discovered Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I never made this claim before, and I don't expect anyone to believe me. I arrived at the interpretation strictly from logic.

I tried to imagine a perfectly logical nascent universe. I realized that such a universe would be in the exact same position as Buridan's ass. I couldn't see how a perfectly logical universe could again and again choose just one path out of many equally good paths. The Copenhagen Intepretation of Quantum Mechanics would have us believe that the universe just takes one single path out of a near infinite number of equally good paths. I then asked myself what would happen if the universe took every possible path like electricity takes every equally good path. I immediately realized if the universe did in fact take every possible quantum path, it would answer all but one of the paradoxes and difficulties of Quantum Mechanics. Every proponent of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics agrees with me. I believe it is important to get all the advantages of the Many Worlds Interpretation listed in the artlce. Lethe disagrees with the Many Worlds Interpretation, and doesn't see why those who favor it see the problems they do. The Many-Worlds Interpretation addresses most of Einstein's objections to the theory. Any objective party would agree with this, but Lethe disputes every single thing I say.

'Subject: Re: Greetings Earthling! Prof. Max Tegmark

Date: 5/19/2006 9:54

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Hi Michael, Thanks for your message and kind words. Alas, I'm too swamped by various deadlines right now to respond in detail to your MWI questions or accept your intriguing trading offer. As you know, I'm a strong supported of Everett's MWI. My opinions are well summarized in the two articles at http://space.mit.edu/home/ tegmark/everett.html and http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/ quantum.html.

> I claimed Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation

> offers the following advantages over the Copenhagen

> Interpretation.

>

> 1. It more simply and more naturally resolves the

> paradox of wave-particle duality.

I agree.

> 2. It justifies the anthropic principle.

I agree, but only partially, since Level III adds nothing new over Level II - see http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html

> 4. It automatically generates Feynman's sum-over-histories.

> The Copenhagen interpretation does not generate

> Feynman's sum-over-histories.

>

> 5. In other interpretations Feynman's sum-over-histories is

> a mere mathematical quirk, because in these interpretations

> every path is not really taken.

I don't quite agree here, since many of these histories are far from semiclassical "parallel universes".

> 6. It simply explains Schrodinger's Cat paradox.

Certainly.

> 7. It returns Quantum Mechanics to a deterministic theory.

> God does not play dice. By doing this, it makes

> Quantum Mechanics more compatible with relativity

> which along with all other scientific theories are a

> deterministic theory.

Agreed.

> 8. It eliminates the problem of trying defining what exactly

> constitutes "measurement."

Agreed.

> 9. It eliminates Von Neumann's boundary problem: where

> to draw the line between the micro world where Quantum

> Mechanics works, and the Macro world where it doesn't.

Agreed.

> 10. It eliminates the special place for an observer and

> human consciousness.

Agreed.

> 11. It restores objective reality to the universe between

> measurements.

Yes.

> It seems Einstein's main objection with Quantum mechanics

> had to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation and not the

> theory itself.

I agree.

Best wishes,

;-)

--------------------------------------

Prof. Max Tegmark

Dept. of Physics, MIT

70 Vassar Street Rm. 37-626B

Cambridge, MA 02139

Lethe claimed everything I wrote was wrong. Max Tegmark clearly disagrees.

Proponents of The Many-Worlds Interpretation claim if it were true, it would yield ten or so benefits. I want to list all these benefits in the article. I sent an email to a world famous cosmologist who is a major proponent of The Many-Worlds Interpretation, and he basically agreed with most of the points in my list.

Some editors are strongly opposed to the Many Worlds Interpretation, and don't want the public to know why those who favor it do so, because that would lead to further support for theory. They are vehemently against the theory on principle because it can't be falsified. I understand this objection and think it is a good objection. But I think Ocaam's Razor favors the theory, others say otherwise.

Before I personally knew anyone had proposed the theory, I independently realized what the theory would accomplish, if true.

I also want the article to include the fact that the theory was initially rejected and virtually forgotten. And I want the article to include the fact that Everett left the field of physics because of the poor reception it received. I think any objective party would agree that these undisputed facts would be of interest to the general reader.

Lethe removes whatever I contribute without bothering to read the support I produce for my claims on the discussion page. Instead of editing my contributions, he just removes them in their entirety without comment and asks others to do the same. He claimed every single thing I wrote is wrong.

He maintains this even after a world famous cosmologist explicitly agreed with just about every point on my list. It seems to Lethe's hostility to the theory is effecting his judgment, or maybe he just disdains me because I am not a physicist.

In any event, his conduct appears contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. I don't know who Lethe is, but he has been very insulting, hostile and patronizing from the get-go.

At present, the article contains a lot of irrelevant equations. All the equations in the article are unnecessary because every equation in the article is equally shared by all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. The value of of Hugh Everett's theory is not in equations, because Hugh Everett's theory does not add or subtract one single equation from quantum mechanics. Everyone agrees to this.

What Everett does is reinterpret the equations of quantum mechanics. If Everett's new interpretation didn't accomplish anything but generate countless universes, his theory would have no value, and violate Ocaam's Razor. The value of Hugh Everett's theory comes from my list of benefits. These benefits are accepted by all those who favor the theory. Leaving out one or more of these benefits makes Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation less desirable.

At one point, Lethe was insisting a "Paradox" could not be a "seeming contradiction," that the word "paradox" and "contradiction" mean exactly the same thing. He quoted the definition from a third-rate, obscure dictionary. I maintain that "wave-paticle duality" is a paradox even if it is not a contradiction, and even if there is an explanation for it. The mere fact that it seems paradoxical to the layman is enough to allow it to be called a "Paradox." Borh and Heisenberg called it a paradox and gave the controversial "principle of complimentarity" to explain it. Richard Feynman said it could not really be understood. The Many-Worlds Interpretation makes this paradox evaporate from the get-go. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation and "the principle of complimentarity" energy and matter act like either a wave or a particle depending on the exact manner of observation. "The principle of complimentarity" makes reality dependant on observers. Between observations, the "prinicple of complimentarity" says nothing exists. If we don't accept the principle of complimentarity or the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, we are left with a contradiction. Einstein rejected the claim that reality is dependant on our observation. He said the moon exists whether we look at it or not.

Michael D. Wolok 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if you know nothing about physics, you can understand what I am trying to do, and why I am trying to do it. In the 1920s, Neils Bohr and Warner Heisenberg created a theory we know today as Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics seemed to have some queer features that made it different from all previous scientific theories. For example, every other scientific theory is completely deterministic. Quantum mechanics is not a deterministic theory. According to quantum mechanics certain things seem to happen randomly such as the exact moment particles decay. In response to this randomness, Einstein said, "God does not place dice with the universe." Another strange fact of quantum mechanics is sometimes light acts like a wave and sometimes it acts like a particle. Likewise according to quantum mechanics, sometimes electrons act like a wave and sometimes they act like a particle. Einstein argued with Bohr and Heisenberg. He said, quantum mechanics is likely an incomplete theory, that with better understanding of the universe we would eventually eliminate the randomness of quantum mechanics. The theory that Bohr and Heisenberg created had other problems. Together Bohr and Heisenberg came up with an interpretation of quantum mechanics that addressed these issues. This interpretation by Bohr and Heisenberg became known as "the standard model" or "the Copenhagen Interpretation." This interpretation by Bohr and Heisenberg had a few problems. One, it proposed there is no such thing as objective reality between measurements. Einstein was very critical of this contention. He said the moon exists whether people look at it or not, that humans are not necessary for the universe to exist. The Copenhagen Interpretation had many other problems as well such as how to define the concept of measurement, why measurement should effect reality, where to draw the line between the microscopic world where quantum mechanics appears true, and the macroscopic world where it doesn't. The Copenhagen Interpretation led to a famous paradox called "Schrodinger's Cat Paradox." In the end, Richard Feynman a famous physicist who refined quantum mechanics said, "You are not going to be able to understand quantum mechanics, nobody can." But as time went on, physicists stopped looking at the philosophical problems the Copenhagen Interpretation seemed to present. The theory worked, and as far as most physicists were concerned that is all that mattered.

At this point, somebody by the name of Hugh Everett came up with another interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation our universe is the only universe, and nature just takes one quantum pathway out of a near infinite number of equally good quantum pathways. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, when the universe comes to a fork in the road, it randomly takes one path or the other, it doesn't take both. According to Hugh Everett's Interpretation, when the universe meets a fork in the road with two equally good quantum pathways open to it, it takes both pathways, not just one pathway. This implies the universe splits at each quantum juncture. That is why Hugh Everett's theory is called: "The Many Worlds Interpretation." Now, if Hugh Everett's theory just predicted the existence of countless extra universes we can't ever detect, it would violate Ocaam's razor and it would be a silly theory.

However, a remarkable thing happens if Hugh Everett's theory is true: all the philosophical problems created by the Copenhagen Interpretation automatically evaporate. It is not so much that Hugh Everett's theory proposes an alternative answer to these problems, but rather the philosophical problems don't arise in the first place. If Hugh Everett's theory is true, it answers Einstein's main objections to the theory, it makes theory deterministic like all other scientific theories including special and general relativity. If Hugh Everett's theory is true, it restores objective reality between measurements. It eliminates the need to define what constitutes a measurement. It eliminates the need for the universe to have observers. It does away with the need for human consciousness. It solves the Schrodinger Cat Paradox. It more simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. It does away with the need for the "principle of complimenatrity" and simply and naturally explains wave-particle duality. Just about every physicist agrees with these claims. Max Tegmark a famous proponent of Hugh Everett's theory agreed with these claims. I want to put them in the article in the form of a list, because these are the reasons why those who favor Hugh Everett's theory do so.

Lethe doesn't like Hugh Everett's theory. He sees no problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. A lot of physicists agree with Lethe. The philosophical problems Einstein, Schrodinger, Dirac and Feynman had with the theory don't bother them. Einstein said, Bohr and Heisenberg brainwashed a generation of physicists.

So we are at an impasse. I think the article needs to do a better job explaining what I wrote here. I think the article should include a list of all the advantages proponents of the theory claim for the theory. And I think the article should note that Hugh Everett left the field of physics because the Many Worlds Interpretation was at first ridiculed and rejected by all who saw it. I think the article should include the fact that his theory started gaining popularity in the 1980s. As time passes it has gained more and more adherents. Today most cosmologists favor the theory. Today, it is considered a mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics. Lethe doesn't want readers to know about this trend because it favors the theory, and Lethe opposes it.

I need your help to request moderation. As the article stands, now, it is essentially incomprehensible to the layman. No layman would gather the above from reading the existing article. I can't improve the article with Lethe deleting every single word I add, and disputing every single claim I make even though I supply ample support for all my claims.. If you read the article's talk page you will understand the hostility I am up against. As it stands now the entry is biased against the Many Worlds Interpretation because it does such a poor job listing the reasons why those who favor it do so.

Presumably, you can help me by bringing in more editors, and by helping me request moderation.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael

PS. If I had the support of other editors I would completely rewrite the article so it could be understood by everyone. I would like to note, that the article does not need to contain a single equation, since every equation found in Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation is also found in the Copenhagen Interpretation and vice versa. Of course, physics students may be curious how Everett interprets various equations in quantum mechanics, so they can be left in for physics students. But any bright physics student ought to be able to read my explanation of Hugh Everett's theory, and figure out for himself how to interpret the standard equations of quantum mechanics.

I have a special interest in this article because in the 1980s, I independently discovered Hugh Everett's theory. I had never heard Hugh Everett or his theory. I imagined the nascent universe being in the exact same situation as Buridan's ass. I asked myself, how could a perfectly logical universe devoid of free will choose one single path over a near infinite number of equally good paths. I then asked myself what would happen if the universe took every branch open to it like electricity takes every branch open to it. I immediately realized if this was the case, then all the philosophical problems posed by the Copenhagen Interpretation would automatically disappear. Many years later I learned Hugh Everett had proposed this exact idea in 1958. I discovered this by stumbling across Michael Clive Price's famous Internet Hugh Everett FAQ. It just so happens that Michael Clive Price is another editor involved in trying to edit this Wikipedia entry. I think by-and-large, Price and I agree on just about everything.

Michael D. Wolok 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Advantages of MWI

Proponents of MWI believe that it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Coppenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Coppenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Coppenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. It more simply and naturally resolves the paradox of wave-particle duality. By doing this it simply explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. It simply explains Schrodinger's Cat paradox.

Based on the above advantages, it seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself[citation needed]. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle[citation needed].

Michael D. Wolok 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the way Wiki works here. It is not a question of two (or more) editors battling out their definition and interpretation of a subject—it is about finding what other sources and authorities have to say about it, and representing those. If there are conflicting authorities, then a balanced representation of the conflict should be given. If the policies and guidelines were followed, there wouldn't be this problem. Read, study, digest and apply the following:

Footnotes. It will make life a lot easier for all concerned. Tyrenius

02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I need your help to request moderation. See

talk +

03:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You sound like you need someone to hold your hand and read out loud to you the instructions on the various dispute resolution pages. Perhaps you will find someone at

talk +

04:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael D. Wolok 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We all apreciate Sandover's thousands of contributions, but that does not give this user a pass to insert POV material into a topic which I am clearly more familiar with. I urge you to see the talk page and read it thoroughly, not skim it. Regardless of this user's contributions, and regardless of mine, I am still the pillar of logic and context with regards to the Laura Ingraham page. I welcome Administrative assistance. Haizum 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now read Haizum's discussion page in detail — I confess that I didn't know his history before reporting my particular encounter with him. Since the latest block, Haizum has deleted a great deal of unflattering talk and commentary relating to previous incidents (see here for comparison). While I'm not an Admin, I do know human nature — as I see it, any user who has shown this level of dishonesty and disingenuousness, and who has been blocked four times(!) for similar incidents, is unlikely to change his habits in the future. How will a less experienced Wikipedist, or perhaps someone just beginning to explore this medium, deal with Haizum in the future? Very possibly by giving up on the medium altogether, which would be a great shame. Just my $.02. Sandover 17:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Liftarn

Liftarn (

Blocked Will (^E_@) T 22:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Without reviewing the diffs on this case, I highly recommend that this block be reviewed as from my own personal experience relative to User:SirIsaacBrock it is likely that User:Liftarn was removing commentary of a personal attack nature left by User:SirIsaacBrock. Netscott 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As a subscriber to the WikiEn-I mailing list I was independently contacted by a fellow editor who had this to say:

SirIsaacBrock is up to his usual self. People who remove his comment -- the same comment you warned him about! -- are getting listed by him as vandals on the administrator noticeboard, and are getting blocked from editing wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Liftarn This is the same stunt he pulled on me in the past. If you are an administrator, any help you can offer to users like Liftarn (I dont know liftarn, and have never crossed his path until 5 minutes ago) and others who are getting blocked because SirIsaacBrock labels them as "spammers" and "vandals" is much appreciated.

Netscott 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

These are the diffs in question: Talk:The Holocaust, Talk:Jew. In both cases SirIsaacBrock posted the same message trying to find people who would support him adding the category

talk

) 00:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, see further discussion below. --

talk

) 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:SirIsaacBrock regarding Barnstar group

Greetings, User:SirIsaacBrock is in the process of personally attacking anyone displaying a barnstar that is awarded to those who've made beneficial edits relative to topics on Islam. He refers to such individuals as anti-semites. He has been impinging upon the reputations of those displaying the Islamic topics barnstar in several talk pages, most related to Jewish topics: [5] [6] [7] [8].

I became aware of this thanks to the currently blocked

He responded with [10]:

Ki$$ - U know what u can kiss and don't post anymore spam on my talk page ! SirIsaacBrock 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And was subsequently warned by User:Timothy Usher [11]

Mr.Brock, in reference to your recent personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. It's that simple. Don't make them.Timothy Usher 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Whereupon he removed my warning and User:Timothy Usher's warning with personal attack editorial commentary:

"Remove anti-Semitic spammers"

And he subsequently "warns" User:Timothy Usher re Timothy Usher's NPA warning :

Warning - Please do not post any further comments on my talk page or you will be reported. I am not interested in reading McPinions on any topic. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Now ordinarily I'd request that this user be warned but as I've personally warned him and he's been warned independently by User:Timothy Usher at this point he should be warned and blocked to prevent his further personal attacks. Netscott 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• User:SirIsaacBrock has been notified of this report. Netscott 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one week, becuase it seemed to me pretty aggravated and nasty. However, I have one of the barnstars on my page, so if anyone wants to unblock or shorten the block, I will not object. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus has blocked him for two days; I support that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I support either block. From all the evidence you've shown, it's quite clear this was neither a misunderstanding nor a one-time slipup. --InShaneee 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been independently contacted by an additional user on WikiEn-I about User:SirIsaacBrock (see User:Liftarn's report above). I'm going to have to agree with User:InShaneee and say that the week long block should be re-instated (save the threat of a wheel war). Netscott 00:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the one week block. --

talk

) 01:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Brock refuses to apologize for his actions, reiterates his contention that Tom harrison is an anti-semite, and pledges to return after his block, presumably to resume his personal attacks[12]. Additionally, he continually removes warnings from his talk page, calling them “spam”, and those who placed them “spammers”[13], [14], while branding Tom harrison as “incompetent”[15].

He should be prevented from editting his user talk page during this period, to prevent him from removing relevant warnings, and as it has itself become itself a forum for personal attacks.Timothy Usher 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you bainer for your diligence in this matter. :-) Netscott 01:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now unblocked Liftarn also. --

talk

) 01:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page; whether he should be blocked indefinitely, as he seems to be requesting, is an open question. Kirill Lokshin 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well judging by his final editorial commentary and talk page comments this user may indeed be incorrigible and perhaps should be given the permanent block he's requesting... I suspect he'll show up as a sockpuppet shortly regardless. Netscott 01:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC

The attacks seem unusually child-like. Are we sure there is not more than one person using this account? Not that it matters much I guess. --mboverload@ 01:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to admit it but the possibility of child-POV editing had crossed my mind. Netscott 01:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying, can you reword that for my simple brain? =D ANYWAY, Holy. Crap. Maybe he suffers from some mental problem? To go from a content dispute to a full-out "tantrum" (sorry) seems suspicious. Again, I don't even know why I'm talking about this since it hardly matters.--mboverload@ 01:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was just commenting that this user's commentary was indeed much like that from the point of view (POV) of a child. Netscott 01:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There was still a block conflict on the log, with a one week followed by an indefinite. I just unblocked and reblocked indefinitely. Based on everything I've seen, that's appropriate. If he ever decides he wants to chill out a little bit and edit constructively, he can always email someone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty sure no one is going to contest it =( --mboverload@ 01:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an open question at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/WritersCramp about whether User:WritersCramp and User:SirIsaacBrock are the same editor. There was a suggestion that checkuser be applied to verify or refute a sock-puppet association (from 20 March) but no result of the checkuser inquiry was reported. My thought is that it would be useful at this point to complete the checkuser test and report the results. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is only for difficult cases. This one is not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you check the IP addresses you are just guessing. I wouldn't think that one would want to come to the conclusion 'well, these two users sound alike so they must be the same person' when tools are available to take some of the guesswork out of the equation. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even a brief perusal of the history of User:WritersCramp's talk page shows this to be the same user as User:SirIsaacBrock, regardless of what IP(s) he is able to edit from. And even if by some infinetessimal chance it weren't the same user, User:WritersCramp is disruptive enough on his own to merit banishment.Timothy Usher 21:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. There is always a point of diminishing returns and I do usually err on the side of excessive evidence, which isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't stand in the way of consensual progress and community activity. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely banned User:Almost Famous. The major reason was that he emailed a threat to User:Econrad, but what's more he was confirmed via that email as being User:Ericnorcross evading a ban. See Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Ericnorcross. I'm leaving this note here because I'm pretty sure there's going to be off-wiki harassment going on.  RasputinAXP  c 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question Has his IP also been blocked? Seems to me another of his socks (
  talk · contribs)) got it unblocked the last time by claiming it was public. (That ID also claimed elsewhere to be his roommate, but the edit history and behavior pattern was too similar. Besides, two people like that could not cohabitate without homicide resulting.) Fan1967
  02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Without a checkuser we can't pop the IP address either. I'm inclined to ban "Katherine" as well.  RasputinAXP  c 02:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • RFCU has been entered.  RasputinAXP  c 02:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I've had some experience with him when he wasn't logged in. He's just as charming then. [16] - Fan1967 02:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment on RFCU results. My, Eric has been an extremely busy boy. Buh-bye. Fan1967 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a log of Wikimails sent? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 17:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hganesan continues to use sockpuppets to circumvent blocks placed on him. I believe he is now using User:Bucsrsafe as a sockpuppet, and also posting messages between the users to give the impression of multiple users. The choice of edits on Steve Nash is very suspicious. Simishag 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

According to [17], he's supposed to be blocked for a week, which doesn't end until tomorrow. Was he unblocked? Simishag 20:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:12.134.204.214 (previously identified as a sockpuppet of User:Hganesan) removes sockpuppet tags from User:Hganesan and User:Bucsrsafe within a few minutes of each other. What an amazing coincidence. Simishag 20:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And now he's tagged me as a sockpuppet of

Moving discussion from AN/3RR. I believe it was appropriate to post there since another edit war started as soon as he was unblocked but I will keep the discussion here. Simishag 21:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

original discussion from AN/3RR:

User:Simishag is accusing me again and I am angry about this

User:Simishag continuously is claiming User:Bucsrsafe is me when he is not. Please warn Simishag. I am very upset he is wrongly accusing me. Please tell the other admins about this. It is frustrating. He is just upset that there are people who want to get rid of the extreme nash bias on this site. I just logged on here for the first time in over a week and took time off, now I come back here and this guy is falsely accusing me. It is frustrating. Hganesan 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Reported by: hganesan

Please see [18] and [19]. User:Hganesan and his many IP addresses have been reported and blocked by at least 3 other admins in the last 2 weeks for repeated edit wars, use of sockpuppets, uncivil and threatening statements... all of which is centered around an agenda on Steve Nash. He has now gone so far as to tag my user page as a sockpuppet despite the total lack of evidence to support that. I stand by my reports and I think the evidence shows a pattern of rude, petty and uncivil behavior. Simishag 21:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah last TWO WEEKS we're talking about. YOU simi, tagged MY username and said I had abusive sockpuppets. That is why I tagged yours. I took OVER a WEEK off. Now you are accusing me again. There is no rude, uncivil behavior RECENTLY. Stop it. Face reality.Hganesan 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Err, what? There was no uncivil behavior because you were blocked? And now that you're unblocked, it's started again? What a coincidence. Also, I wasn't the only one who tagged your username. I did a fair amount of research to track down all your sockpuppets and keep an eye on them in case you came back. Now you've admitted that you tagged my page just for revenge, to get back at me for tracking down all this evidence. That's vandalism. Simishag 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have removed the sockpuppet tag from my user page, which perhaps shows some degree of maturity but might just be covering up evidence of your vandalism. The relevant diff is [20].

Listen you call yourself mature??? When you just accuse someone of being a sockpuppet of mine just because he posts similar facts to what I posted??? You are lying, you call that mature?? It's very uncivil and immature. I just got back at you. here is the vandalism BTW he FIRST put on: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hganesan&diff=56713872&oldid=56712336 I just came back today and he just put that back on. VANDALISM. Hganesan 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

What you are doing is uncivil, accusing him of being a sockpupeteer. That is what's called UNCIVIL. ALSO, deleting EVERYTHING and all the facts is uncivil, and you edit warred with the other guy too just recently on that page. That is also called UNCIVIL. Hganesan 21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

If you didn't have a long and illustrious history already, maybe I'd look the other way. But your actions are simply too obvious and too obnoxious to ignore. I made only 2 reverts to

argumentum ad nauseum on the talk pages. Simishag

21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted it, and SIMISHAG IS LYING, that is why I originally put one on there. I was supposed to be unblocked on the 29th. IF YOU CHECK, my last post on this account was on the 19th, and another user said my block was extended a week from the 22nd. Another lie. He is just wanting to promote his agenda and he doesn't want people to get rid of the propaganda he has spilled on the articles. It is frustrating. I am trying to contribute now that I took OVER A WEEK off and he is accusing me like this. VERY uncivil. Hganesan 21:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

According to [21], you were blocked by User:Jossi for 1 week starting at 22:06, 28 May 2006. That means your block isn't up until 22:06, 4 Jun 2006 (about 24 hours from now). Simishag 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Long history??? I just started editing again TODAY. And you come here and complaing for no reason. Liar. You lied. Hganesan 21:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Where did I lie? Your "long history" includes 10 blocks by 6 admins over the last 3 weeks (since 16 May 2006). That's just for User:Hganesan and doesn't include any of the IPs you used. I don't think taking a week off means we should ignore that history. Simishag 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You lied because that is not my sockpuppet. How many in the last week liar? That guy is not me, you lied. My other sockpuppets were ALL IPs from berkeley, TWO WEEKS AGO. Liar. Hganesan 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Yeah and you also lied by saying my block was not up. It ended on the 29th, SEVERAL days ago. Another lie.Hganesan 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Simishag and his lies

He is continuously claiming User:Bucsrsafe is me when he is not. Please warn Simishag. I am very upset he is wrongly accusing me. Please tell the other admins about this. It is frustrating. He is just upset that there are people who want to get rid of the extreme nash bias on this site. I just logged on here for the first time in over a week and took time off, now I come back here and this guy is falsely accusing me. It is frustrating. Hganesan 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

YOU simi, tagged MY username and said I had abusive sockpuppets. That is why I tagged yours. I took OVER a WEEK off. Now you are accusing me again. There is no rude, uncivil behavior RECENTLY. Stop it. Face reality.Hganesan 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

BTW give me an example of uncivil behavior in my POSTS from today. you cannot. You and the others vandalized the entire steve nash page while i was gone. Now I'm back and you start accusing someone I don't even know of being a sockpuppet. BTW how many USERNAMES before this were accused of being sockpuppets of me?? NONE. I only have this ip and my username. I did not edit on this site here till today. You're lying and you know it. And he lied. MY block was already up. It has been OVER 1 WEEK, I just came back today. HganesanHganesan 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Plus the other guy has just been editing Steve Nash. And barely. I had edited a LOT more than that, like Kobe Bryant, ballhog, and the other articles. This is NOT ME. Simishag is LYING.Hganesan 21:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Neither of you are being civil, neither of your are calm. Do you actually want something done about this are you just going to argue with each other for a while? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I was uncivil (I disagree with that assessment, but okay). This is essentially a repeat of previous incidents involving User:Hganesan and suspected sockpuppets, beginning on 16 May 2006, and continuing every time he was unblocked. I don't really know what else to do other than post it here, as it's becoming a long-term issue. I do not believe this is a simple editing dispute; it's a repeated pattern of boorish behavior (rants, threats, vandalism, sockpuppets). I have never been accused of such in the year I've contributed here; he's been blocked 10 times (by 6 different admins) in the last 3 weeks, and he was even blocked from WikiEN-L. I stand by my work, and I think other editors and admins will support me on this one. Simishag 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're right, you didn't seem to be uncivil. Sorry, I must have read it wrong. I really should be asleep now, oh well. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The guy Simishag is accusing of being my sockpuppet is NOT, I don't have any sockpuppets now. He is lying here, and is trying to get me blocked again. I was blocked over a week ago, and I just came back today and signed on. Then all of a sudden this guy just accused me. That other user is NOT me. Hganesan 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

You didn't answer my question. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing should be done about this complaint because it is an OUTRIGHT and OUTRAGEOUS LIE.Hganesan 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Calm and civil? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing everytime??? Do you notice I only went to those other ips when I was blocked??? Simishsag is lying. How many times have I been blocked in the last week and a half?? ZERO times. The last time I was blocked was may 21 or 22. Now it is June 3rd. History does not mean anything, I just got back here and started editing. He has no proof, only speculation. And school ended for me, so I am back at home now. I do not have access to other IPs, and that account was created while I was BLOCKED.Hganesan 22:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

You do realize that by insulting this user constantly here you're violating policy on a page read by dozens of admins? --InShaneee 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for another week. Will (^E_@) T 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

At some point, an indef block of the user as having exhausted the community's patience might be in order. I think the user can become a valuable contributor, and I think we ought to work with him toward that end, but the user seems unwilling or unable to comport his editing with our policies and guidelines (most notably, even irrespective of POV/OR issues, with respect to style and the necessity that one affect a formal tone) and certainly has had a deleterious effect on the articles he has edited. Once more, I don't think an indef block is now appropriate, and I am eminently confident that we can help the user to edit productively, but it should be noted that, thus far, his editing and presence, taken cumulatively, have been more disruptive than constructive. Joe 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser result

Simishag asked me to check whether Bucr and Hganesan were the same, so I forwarded it to RFCU, in which the result was that the two were unrelated Will (^E_@) T 20:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't exactly know where to ask this sort of question, but........

Should this article be cleaned up, or should I tag it for AFD and place it in BJAODN?-- The ikiroid  21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean up and expand using info from here, for instance. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

At Talk:Barnes, a concern is raised about what seems to be an advertisement on the Barnes Page. I wasn't sure whether this is a problem, or what to do. Thanks Jfr26 00:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with on the article's talk page. Joe 03:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See [22]

I checked some of the other edits of Black Sword (talk · contribs)... couldn't find anything else particularily out of order, but the insertion of a third son of Lucius Julius Caesar II, with a name that has nothing to do with the Julii Caesares family ("Quintus Lutatius Catulus") is difficult to see as an "accidental" error. --Francis Schonken 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing something about this vandal fly by on ANI a while ago, but I'm not sure of the entire case. A couple days ago, I blocked a

I had at the same time a look at the same editor, and there seems to be several sleeper accounts that did pretty uch the smae thing shortly after each other. I feel that there need to be some more indef blocks for vandalism sockpuppets. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the Fall_Out_Boy history], the target, I think we might want to full-protect the page AND the image for a while. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've also full protected

AmiDaniel (talk

) 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a very recent ANB/I discussion. It can be summarised with MONGO's comment

My inclination, along with Tony Sidaway, is that there is strong circumstantial evidence that Davebelle and Moby Dick are the same editor. I have reviewed the evidence posted and have discussed this matter with one other editor and I see a preponderance of evidence that indicates that not only has Moby Dick wikistalked User:Cool Cat, but User:MegamanZero as well, and that Moby Dick is a sockpuppet of Davenbelle.--MONGO 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick was overal warned not to continue stalking. Since the warning on 20 May by Tony Sidaway, Moby dick has:

...gotten involved with the poll on Talk:Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict (opposing me on all of the vote options)

...gotten involved with a cfd nom someone else started after I voted. Also being somewhat disruptive... --Cat out 04:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Among over 1.1 million articles I do not see how we can meet so frequently, given Moby had minimal edits.

--Cat out 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Without being familiar with this specific situation, I will say that it is not necessarily unusual that there will be many editors interested in and editing a handful of articles, given the subject matter, and it is not necessarily unusual that many of them will adopt the same stance on many issues. --

talk

) 04:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Earlier evidence points out the frquency (see this section on ANB/I archive) rather well. I do not believe all that is just random concidences. Am I supposed to get stalked another month before something is done? I am just uncertain of the procedure. --Cat out 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I still agree with my earlier assessment.--MONGO 10:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind, either. I believe Moby Dick is highly likely to be Davenbelle, even though for technical reasons it can't be proved 100%. On May 20, MD was formally warned by Tony Sidaway to "keep away, as much as is reasonably possible, from articles, talk pages and other pages edited by Cool Cat".[23]. This doesn't look a lot like keeping away. While there's possibly room for some doubt, both about the Davenbelle identification and the more recent stalking (there's no doubt at all about the stalking before the warning was issued), I think this is what we have an ArbCom for. You should take it directly to them. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

See this request for arbitration which I have just opened. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If required, I am most certainly willing to construct a statement on the arbitration page in view of this situation. -

Talk

15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the arbcom page. Here's Zarove's edit, which he titled "GO AHEAD AND BAN ME FOR TWO WEEKS". ^^James^^ 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a page for this. There's a link to that page up the top of this one. Try there.

T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t

11:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:The Mad Bomber has put a hideously sick picture on the top of his user talk page. Warning: Do not go to that talk page unless you are very hard to gross out.

The picture has nothing to do whatsoever with his user page or Wikipedia. My guess is he put it there as a way to get back at anyone who would visit his talk page to lodge a complaint against him.

I don't know if a situation like this has a precedent.

I posted a message of complaint on the talk page in question. The Mad Bomber responded by calling me a Nazi and calling the image "a beacon of free speach, sexual liberation, and equality."

I have no desire to return to The Mad Bomber's talk page to argue with him. But I would like some advice on what to do. Thanks -- Mwalcoff 04:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He appears to be using a public domain image from the article,

Prince Albert piercing. Seeing as this image is part of the encyclopedia proper, and Wikipedia is not censored, he's not outwardly defying any policies. -- Longhair

04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol, adding it MediaWiki:Bad image list, similarly to such memes as Autofellatio_2.jpg would be an option, especially if he starts incorporating it into his signature. — Jun. 4, '06 [04:56] <freak|talk>

Well, I don't know about "hideously sick." This image, of a common male genital piercing, is used in article space. Clearly the user is just trying to be clever, but I don't see a big problem with it. Exploding Boy 04:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)FWIW, I think the locution hideously sick picture to be a breathless overstatement; I'm inclined to think that most, as I, won't be off-put in the least by its inclusion on Mad's talk page. Nevertheless, because it will likely offend some and thus disrupt the collaborative process on which the encyclopedia rests, the image should be removed. Free speech and sexual liberation aren't really the salient issues here;

Wikipedia is not a venue for one to proselytize with respect free speech and sensibilities (which I note even as I think Mad and I are likely of one mind apropos of most issues), and, where one's comments/expressions with respect to off-Wiki issues disrupt the project, comments/expressions can and should be limited. Joe

05:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hyperbole. However, I'd support the addition of this image to MediaWiki:Bad image list per Freakofnurture, it seems to be consistent with the images already there. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One problem is that it has overexposed highlights but I think that is irrelevant to the discussion here. But it would be good to correct if an image of this sort is to be retained. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) While we do not have a specific policy forbidding PA's on talk pages, removing the image would be a cooperative and helpful thing for The Mad Bomber to do. It certainly does interfere with using his talk page to communicate with him. If people who do not care to view the image need to talk to him in the meantime, they may want to disable image loading in the Preferences or Options dialog for their browser. FreplySpang 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Grow up guys. I think it's beautiful, though a bit small and thin and I wouldn't do it to myself. Mccready 06:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think most of us agree with you, as evidenced by the general rejection of the proposition that the image is particularly inflammatory. WP, though, is frequented by some who think differently, and the image is likely to prove disruptive to them if they should attempt to collaborate with Mad. Even as I have difficulty understanding why one would be disturbed by the image, I understand that some (possibly a good portion of regular editors) are disturbed, and, where there's no overarching encyclopedic purpose for its inclusion, it's likely better that the image be removed. As Freply notes, though, it'd be most decorous of Mad to do this himself. If he wishes to advance arguments with respect to free speech and gender equality, the community might, consistent with

WP:USER, permit him to make such arguments on his userpage, provided that he otherwise contributes to the project, but disruption must be de minimis; for a community to exist, collaboration must be facilitated, but so must one's ability to let others know who he/she is, and text can serve each purpose in a fashion that the image cannot. Joe

06:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Mad Bomber's behaviour is a little worrying. If he truly thought the picture was beautiful or important or some other real reason for having it there then he would respond accordingly. Instead he appears to be deliberately escalating things by have the picture appear multiple times on his talk page, by posting it on other people's talk page and by putting vandal notices on experienced editors talk pages because they removed it. Taking AGF to stretching point I have removed the duplicates but left the original (for now) asked him to explain why he wants the picture there and asked him not to engage in behaviours that serve to escalate rather than diffuse. Hopefully he will do the right thing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is such a blatant case of malicious editing that I've warned him he's in for a block if he continues. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Won't work. He would still be able to edit the talk page.Geni 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well at least it would prevent him from posting that image on other people's talk pages.[24] AnnH ♫ 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule usertalk pages should be safe for work. If they are not it reduces their usefullness.Geni 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions he appears to be GNAA. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo what Geni said—user and user talk pages should be 'safe for work'. We follow what is sometimes described as a 'Principle of Least Astonishment' in determining whether an image is appropriate on a given Wikipedia page. If someone is going looking for information about a Prince Albert piercing, it's not utterly unreasonable to expect a picture of one. If someone is looking to discuss articles with an editor – or just to find out more about him – that someone shouldn't encounter a large, naked, pierced penis. I mean, if an editor wanted to announce that he was a

It's not the nature of the talk page, but the pattern of behavior. He's trolling and vandalizing. As to blocking him "not working", a simple protect of the talk page for the duration of the block would take care of that. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user at 74.52.14.138 vandalised User talk:TruthbringerToronto TruthbringerToronto 08:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• He's repeatedly vandalized articles, mainly by blanking and replacing with "anal sex." See contributions. – Lunarbunny 08:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, please report vandals to

The user is spamming users to try and get a skewed vote to save his page from deletion [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30],

Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. WP:Spam#Internal spamming--Jersey Devil 11:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This IP continues with vandalism. Edits have been reverted by bots and also manually. Today this IP inserted a fake notice about the death of Sylvester Stallone with went unnoticed for 1 hour. The IP has been blocked twice already, maybe it should be blocked longer or even forever. Thanks. -- 80.139.244.182 16:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 1 week. In the future please report vandals to

WP:AIV. JoshuaZ

17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please can somebody intervene? This user is massively placing personal attacks.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [31] 69.46.20.59 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how is that redhandidly using sockpuppets? Perhaps he simply forgot to log in. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the entire seciton Nescio was editing. It was a WP:ANI report about an anon editor that Nescio was suggesting is Merecat when in fact Nescio's edit proves it was Nescio. Nescio was asked about this 4 times previously by MErecat and each time refused to answer. Not only was Nescio sockpuppeting, but he was falsely acccusing Merecat for edits that he himself had made. 69.46.20.59 17:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I did read it. The ANI report was about someone called User:IworkforNASA not an anon editor as far as i can see. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody remove the personal attacks by Merecat (talk · contribs) and block this IP he is using in an attempt to be disruptive.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the matter Nescio? Don't you want the admins here to see the proof of what you've been up to? 69.46.20.59 17:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any proof here. What exactly are you accusinng him of doing? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are asking Merecat's sock, in that case he can't answer since the IP has been blocked for trolling. Quelle surprise. The proof is I edit other people's comments. Only recently I corrected the link to Merecat's RfAr on the current RfCU involving him. Since the original post was by Mr Tibbs, the logic advanced proves I am a sock of Tibbs. It would be funny if Merecat hadn't been exceedingly dispruptive with millions of IP's.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalize pages like Moldovans. --168.126.28.25 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh* Bonaparte... —Khoikhoi 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He has no proof. But he use this as pretext to revert any work on

anti-romanian! --168.126.28.25

18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA, impending block. --InShaneee

18:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User is adding pornographic links to articles as can be seen here [32] and here [33] OF their 4 additions to the Wiki, 2 have been clearly vandalism and one an attack on me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If that is an example of an attack you will agree your comments on my person warrant the same description.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: Aparently 3 were vandalism see here [34]--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please report vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism rather than here. Thanks. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone just now deleted the

It was deleted by

Bruns himself was editing the article and fighting with you over the content. I'll invite Phroziac to explain the deletion here. Postdlf

02:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

18:53, May 31, 2006

Phroziac deleted "Brian J. Bruns" (Inane junk to make brian look bad) You might want to discuss it with him. User:Zoe|^(talk)

02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't inane junk and I uploaded a copy of page one of the extended TRO on Bruns: Image:Fss vs bruns tro ext1.gif --Chakabuh 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the TRO that was dismissed when the rest of the case was? Perhaps if you actually read the court documents, you'd not be trying to tell me about a case that you have no involvement with.

Brian

02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that indicates the TRO was dismissed. Please direct me to the document that shows this. --Chakabuh 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the TRO is disrelated to Bruns' indictments. Bruns had 2 seperate indictments, per a plea agreement, one was dismissed, the other was not. See Image:Brian Bruns Indictment 2423-02.jpg, Image:Brian Bruns DA Press Release.jpg, and Image:Brian Bruns re Indt 2423-02 and 1577 02.jpg --Chakabuh 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A blind man would see they are completely separate from one another. The incidents happened 3 years apart. Either way, between lying through omission, and twisting the truth to your own vision, you've made yourself look like a sockpuppet for some really nutty kooks.

Brian

17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian, your believe your rhetoric is against wikipedia rules about getting along with other contributors. There is no lying through ommission, only confusion on my part and the other contributors parts in trying to understand these court papers. --Chakabuh 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I said that the cases are seperate because some of the other editors seemed to think there was only one (the case filed by Scoville). We can now see you were indicted for hacking and software piracy both of which are felonies. The hacking crime was dismissed, I don't know why, but others say because you made a plea agreement and we have nothing to see so we can't make a determination here in Wikipedia until we get documentation. But the software piracy was not dismissed. Calling you a felon is not an attack or libel. It is true and cited to a reliable reference: a court doc from the court in New York Image:Brian Bruns Indictment 2423-02.jpg. --Chakabuh 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Phroziac mistook a vandalized revision for an attack page. Ashibaka tock 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only vandalism I saw was the blanking by Bruns. --Chakabuh 02:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That must be what happened. I know Brian, and he was trying to explain the situation to me, and I was in a rush, saw the page, and thought he meant it was an attack page. I was in a rush to go to bed early (we had a huge run with 600,000 impressions the next day), and he wanted me to do something about it. I really don't think he's notable though, AFD perhaps? --

♥♥♥♥

22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Constantly blanking and placing speedy delete tag

Brian Bruns keeps editing his own article, blanking and adding sd tag. --Chakabuh 02:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I protected the article, it's a content dispute (although I don't see what the big deal is with the deletions and all). Please use the talk page. Ashibaka tock 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In this rare case, the editor who's editing an article about himself appears to be in the right. It strongly appears that a previous editor was trying to use the article to forward a factually erroneous claim -- namely, that Bruns is currently under a court's restraining order. Removing an erroneous claim is simply correct.

Moreover, considering the history of the case (with which I have some small passing familiarity) it seems likely that the article was created either as an attack or a prank. The first revision describes Bruns as leet; other early revisions claim Bruns to be a convict, and to be under a restraining order. Neither of these claims are substantiated.

It is far better that Brian Bruns ask for the article to be removed (by proposing it for deletion) than that he, e.g., go to the press and denounce Wikipedia for libelling him, the way that some people have. :) --FOo 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol, FOo, the claims are susbtantiated. There is no libel, I uploaded scans of the court documents, see above. And the article is protected in a state where none of this is mentioned. If Bruns goes to the media denouncing Wikipedia for libelling him, it will only make him look silly since we have court citations to back up what we write. --Chakabuh 08:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OH :) The TRO is baby stuff. The indictments are more interesting. Foo, inform yourself before attempting to make "factual" statements please. --Chakabuh 08:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That's the TRO that was vacated when the case was thrown out of court, right? My statement stands; you're using Wikipedia to attack someone. That's simply not allowed here. --FOo 08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you still dont get it? Forget the TRO, the indictment over hacking are more interesting and I've uploaded scans of the references. No one is attacking anyone, just getting knowledge into Wikipedia. Bruns doesn't seem to like that. You really shouldn't be supporting vandalism and "autobiography". --Chakabuh 08:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

An indictment that was dismissed, and far from notable (unless suddenly wikipedia decides to document every indictment/dismissal against every person in the world). An indictment that many kooks try to say is a conviction in an effort to discredit and ruin my reputation. I corrected your statement in the article about me before wiping it out completely in the hope that you'd see your mistake. However, you didn't get the clue, and kept stating as a fact that I was convicted of hacking even when the paperwork involving the case was right in front of your face and said contradicted your assertations.

Brian

17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes the hacking charge was dismissed, but you still were indicted, just not convicted. It is notable, so notable that even the DA's office made a press release about it. Again, your rhetoric about "kooks" is not appropriate in Wikipedia. It is true that they are incorrect in saying you were convicted, as you were not convicted and the charge was apparently dropped. However, you ommitted the fact that you were convicted of software piracy which is a class E felony. I and the others have made mistakes because there is some confusing information about your cases and Scoville and Schwarz haven't presented all relevant documentation. But your person attacks on me are unacceptable. Yes I made some mistakes and I have corrected my data. Now stop posting ad hominem and lets get the correct information into your article. And if you have anything positive about you, please give us references so that we can also write about it. --Chakabuh 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are very few people out there that are qualified to write a bio on me besides myself. There's been a few news articles that were done with quotes from me (mortgage lender newsletter, lightreading article on WASTE/P2P, and a few smaller things), but I don't think that or my association with the SOSDG/AHBL makes me notable and worth anything beyond my personal user page.

Brian

17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, autobiographies are severely frowned upon in Wikipedia. But please give us those references so we can add mention of them to your article. I don't want you looking only like a software pirate because you are a young person obviously with a lot of talent. NPOV. --Chakabuh 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no further interest in discussing things with you. It's painfully obvious that you are doing this to instigate problems. Hell, it looks an awful lot like you're obsessed with me. I'm surprised you're not stalking me in real life, considering how deep your obsession is getting.

Brian

19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian, stop making uncivil accusations. --Chakabuh 21:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request that an admin rereview my request to delete the article and associated talk page.

Brian

19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You already tried that. Articles aren't deleted just because the subject of the article wants it deleted. --Chakabuh 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Chakabuh has not shown that I am a notable person, other then in his mind and the minds of other people

Brian

19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As the owner of SOSDG/AHBL, you are as notable as SOSDG and AHBL. Anything that can be verifiably referenced can be added to article within Wikipedia. I uploaded scans of your indictments. Again, stop making uncivil accusations. You were indicted on two accounts, only one of them was dismissed because you made a plea bargain. --Chakabuh 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If Chakabuh is really interested in my accomplishments, he should go research that information, then come back and recreate the article when he has valid information which makes me a notable person.

Brian

19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're notability has already been explained over & over, in my opinion you are more notable than some of the other people who have articles here in Wikipedia. I am trying to find more information about you and it will take time. Please help us by directing us to any reliable source that has written about you. --Chakabuh 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please review this threat made against me by User:Mikkalai: [35]. Just forewarning that I will consider any actions he takes against me as wikistalking. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, tremble. Very smart of you to know policies that work in your favor. How about following them in applying to other people when executing your admin rights? `'mikka (t) 03:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rogue admin sounds about right though I hadn't heard this term in reference to Zoe before,

SqueakBox

03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zoe doesn't contribute to Wiki with anything. Their entire talkpage is about people who complain to them about removing material from articles. This user doesn't know how to add footnotes to articles, but wants to make them mandatory. This user blocked me for asking a relevant question on ANI about the Wiki policy; they called it trolling and being disruptive. --Candide, or Optimism 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, that was no threat. There is nothing wrong with admins keeping an eye on other admins, it ensures the accountability of administrative actions. And, remember, also, that Wikipedia has to be transparent, and that any reasons for blocking must be clearly stated and the user has to be warned beforehand. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has had several warnings and knows full well why he was blocked, his claims of innocence notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem are still not getting my main point: this is not between you and anittas. Yet another admin put it in a differeyt way: your actions must be transparent. This is all what I wrote about this case in several places: without spending significant time for a research the whole episode shows that several non-frashman wikipedians acting really ugly. I may well believe this was the very goal of Anittas, so what? An admin has to have higher standards of behavior.`'mikka (t) 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What did I do that was not transparent? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Cyde. Please always take concerns about user behavior to their talk pages in the first instance unless there is an urgent problem.

Wombdpsw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is soliciting votes on the talk page of John 3:16 to influence the outcome of TdF-vote of Template:John316. -- ActiveSelective 02:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No solicitation of any kind has been made. It was only after some editors objected to my user box on the grounds that I was the only one using it (and other grounds), that I made a single post to a single talk page mentioning the existence of the template. Frankly, in my view, ActiveSelective is flat out twisting the truth. He knows darn well that his post here is far more likely to attract "voters" than my single post on an article talk page. This kind of blatant harassment by Active reeks. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to construe one post on one talk page as disruptive spamming. The template in question will be fine, in user space, where they're setting up directories already, per

Wikipedia:The German solution. -GTBacchus^(talk

) 03:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolution: see here. And please, Womdbspws, I've been very civil with you. Stop picking on me. -- ActiveSelective 05:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Active, if you think you are being "picked on" I'd like to know why you think that. Please explain on my talk page. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my conclusion, based on his contributions and recent nonsensical spree, that either

If it were not Curps doing this, I would have already blocked the account, but because of the long history and the other services Curps provides, I wanted to raise this issue here first. Dragons flight 22:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Curps' page move bot? That's been around for ages. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not page move. He appears to be doing vandal rollbacks with a bot as well. Dragons flight 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

God, I'm stupid. Sorry, I'm exhausted... yeah, that is a bit worrying. Perhaps we should block the account pending a response? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My first instinct was no, but on the other hand if Curps (the human) is around then a block would force a response, and he can be unblocked straight away. If it is an unauthorised bot, then it should be blocked. So go ahead (I'd do it, but I'm off very soon, and it wouldn't be fair for me not to be there to unblock if needed).

Petros471

22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him pending an explanation. As always, anyone can reverse it. Will (^E_@) T 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I will reverse it, it doesn't seem to have done much in the hour prior to blocking so wasn't being disruptive as such and we know the general benefits, so short of a major malfunction blocking it would appear to be potentially more harmful than beneficial. --pgk^(talk) 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It also strikes me that Curps has been handing out an awful lot of blocks with the generic reason of "vandalism". If he is in fact using a bot to both rollback edits and autoblock certain editors, that strikes me as a more serious thing. Dragons flight 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that there are a lot of people handing out blocks with that same generic reason. --pgk^(talk) 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But to that extent? I mean, my initial response to this was going to be a link to my block logs to illustrate that I do as well, until I saw that. That is very generic. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 23:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, however the issue which prompted this, rolling back edits to Wikipedia didn't result in any blocks, which if you believe the rollback is automated (like other bots) suggests the blocking for same is not. --pgk^(talk) 00:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I am sooooo not thinking logically tonight. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 00:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if he is not autoblocking, and is only a single individual, then he seriously needs to sleep more. Between 9:47 May 7th and 1:00 May 10th, he issued 307 "vandalism" blocks with the largest gap between blocks was 2.1 hours. Between 10:03 April 19th and 1:00 May 10th, he issued 1452 "vandalism" blocks with no gaps larger than 4.4 hours and only 4 gaps larger than 4 hours. I don't know about you, but I need more sleep than that. Dragons flight 00:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Polyphasic sleep :) Will (^E_@) T 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Insomnia? (I got amnesia and insomnia mixed up before... guess we know who's the insomniac here). --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)