Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive112

The user User:Kizor has been edit warring the preserve original research at the page Male pregnancy, refusing to provide citations from notable sources or in some cases any sources what so ever.

I've corrected the tags and added {{citeneeded}} where I feel a

WP:RS is lacking. RadioKirk (u|t|c

) 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The author of this message, presumably the same person as

the sources I supply and operating under his own, personal definition of 'notable'. He's called for aid multiple times but engaged in next to no actual dialogue with me. --Kizor

20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, he apparently finds the statement that a male pregnancy would have to be an ectopic pregnancy to be unacceptable OR. An ectopic pregnancy is defined as one outside a womb. Men do not have a womb. In case that wouldn't be enough, I gave him a link where Lord Winston - one of Great Britain's prominent fertility specialists - specifically mentions this. Several days later he deleted the statement and several others with the edit summary 'rvv'. --Kizor 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, I am not the poster to whom you originally refer. A simple check with ARIN and similar sources reveals the original chap to be an American, and me to be British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

81, You're also responding to me and acting politely, so you can't be him. Sorry. Sorry. And damn; jumping the gun when my credibility is a vital issue! Here's my side of things. What I said earlier stands, except for the striked-through part -

" and "ricidulous". He's snide and insulting in his few talk page messages and edit summaries. He's not elaborating on his problems beyond saying that what he doesn't agree with is nonsense, and has made no acknowledgement of the sources I've provided. There is no original research in the article, at least not by me or in the parts he's attacking and I'm defending. I gave an elaborate summary 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The snopes link you provided appears to debunk your entire article's human component.

Not really. It examines the present state and says that it's doable, not yet practically feasible - and the Wikipedia article agrees by describing it as doubly foolhardy. Snopes.com's description of how a male pregnancy would be done corresponds to Winston's statements on the issue. The Snopes link finishes by saying that it could become reality in the future. The article and the source seem to fit nicely to me. --Kizor 11:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Male pregnancy is not even feasible at current (as stated by snopes), the article's human component is merely speculative, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

Please take this discussion back to the talk page of the article. This is not the place for content discussion between editors. Sam Vimes 11:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, we have a need for other editors to go and look at the article in question and weigh in as currently Kizor has been tailoring it to his views, it seems there is a need for other opinions on these views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

The place to go then is Wikipedia:Requests for comment (more specifically: [[1]]), since this discussion does not require administrator action, merely input which any editor can provide. Sam Vimes 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have copied the ongoing part of the discussion to Talk:Male pregnancy, which should be much better suited for talking this out. --Kizor 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User is not

) 04:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Salk died 11 years ago, is there really a concern about them mixing up? Would there be a concern if a user named himself PaulRevere? — Mike • 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No problems with me. I do not think that 11 years ago is a "recent death" so I am ok with the name. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Me either. It's not like he's new either. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably okay. -- Samir धर्म 07:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We can probably open this discussion up again should we ever get a legal notice from Zombie Salk. --InShaneee 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Salk = twice the mold of a normal zombie? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being late in reporting. See this user's conributions for all his/her edits based on huge POV. Lot of his/her edits seem to be ridiculous. See Talk:Vedic religion and other Talk pages where he shows his hatred by saying -- HINDUISM IS NAZISM --. He needs to be banned. Babub 08:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted this at AV but it was delisted and the admin apparently did not contact the user.

Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing my comments from several pages.[2][3][4][5][6][7] He keeps deleting other peoples edits despite me asking him to stop. Please review this editors behaviour.

Can somebody look into the matter, and comment on whether or not deleting comments by others in a poll is allowed. See previous question above regarding editors reframing a poll to suit their needs.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

May I thank those that looked into the repeated delketion and manipulation of polls and decided no comment was needed.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the poll, you cannot change the contents after people have voted. I dont know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Your political opinions are not what the poll is about and you have no right to attempt to make it about them after people have voted.

WP:POINT. If you do not like the questions then simply state you do not, do not disrupt a process to make your political point clear. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|}

15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If Nescio was commenting within the text of a poll question after others had voted, that seems like a no-no to me. However, you could have moved his comments to another section rather than deleting them.

Thatcher131

17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both users for six hours (3RR breach on the page). I think what is happening is that the

22:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

El, I haven't followed this very closely, but do you think it's a good thing that you did the block? You seem to have some involvement with that page. Arkon 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing. El_C 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

71.193.138.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

His talk page is filled with warnings and vandal marks.

Davetron5000 14:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk just blocked him for a week, for the string of recent vandalism. --TeaDrinker 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP appears to resolve to a single user (certainly, the pattern of vandalism is the same) in Salem, Oregon, USA. Next time, this one gets 3 months. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy says a max of 1 month blocks for static IPs. Prodego ^talk

15:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have sworn it was 3... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, policy needs to be changed then ... one month clearly isn't long enough for habitual offenders. --Cyde↔Weys 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy is wrong then, I have rightly with community support blocked a static IP before for 24 months. --Golbez 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it means 1 month without having first received support for longer. Shall I consider this support? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not an administrator, I do lend a hand with vandalism removal from time to time and agree that 3 months is a reasonable length of time to block pathological vandals operating from addresses that have been blocked repeatedly in the past. If it turns out that there is a collateral damage issue they can send an email to OTRS, the blocking administrator, or issue an {{unblock}} request on their talk page and it will be quickly reversed. How can our blocking policy be updated? Yamaguchi先生 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As per the discussion a couple of threads below, if it's habitual, and a static IP, then blocks in excess of a month are appropriate. Particularly as blocks can always be overturned later. Indefinite is not permanent.

type

09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Arvatov continues his campaign [8] [9] [10] [11] of trolling, near-fascist PoV and vandalism [12], [13], [14]. I think permanent ban is in order. Duja 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Although most of those edits are now quite old, two are recent and, I believe, justify a re-blocking. I am loathe to go to a permanent block (though I acknowledge it may prove necessary in the end) so have placed a 1-month block on User:Arvatov instead. --AlisonW 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I provided the old links just to establish the earlier pattern of behavior, which sadly continues. Duja 09:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be going on a vandalism rampage today. See the Contributions page at [15] and all the notices at User_talk:62.171.194.5. As above, it might be that a permanent ban is requried -- going through and changing all these little things in so many entries is going to be a lot of work. -- Tenebrae 16:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits for that IP and also the related IPs (as per talkpage). Given that the long-term repeated warnings have had no effect on all the IPs I concur that, regrettable though it is to have an IP permablocked, there is no alternative. 62.171.194.4 - 13 and 62.171.194.36 - 45 have now been permablocked. --AlisonW 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses should not be permablocked unless they are open proxies. See

WP:BLOCK. Prodego ^talk

17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. An IP is never eternally owned, so it shouldn't be eternally blocked. Geogre 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a difficult problem to conclude the best response to. Each of these IPs has been used for extensive vandalism, indeed that is *all* they appear to have done. Over many months many editors have warned them and given "final" warnings with short-term blocks. As such, and unless we want to be seen to be toothless, we have no further options left but to permablock. Yes, of course, the IP allocation should be checked at intervals to ensure it hasn't changed hands so "eternal" is inherently wrong. It is a bit like someone being detained "at her Majesty's pleasure". We shall review the blocks but setting a specified period is clearly not going to solve the problem. --AlisonW 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See

WP:BLOCK, which states that "For static IPs, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month". Please change your blocks. Prodego ^talk

18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a very selective quote from

WP:BLOCK. I am sure you would agree that "should" is a fine word, but I'd point out that this isn't just about vandalism (where your brief extract is taken from) but also about the extensive and regular disruption that this range of IPs is causing to Wikipedia generally. Look in that section and you will note: "For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time." (my bold) These are static IPs and blocks of increasing length have been tried over more than a year and have clearly failed despite clear and many-times-repeated "final" warnings. The policies of Wikipedia are there to assist the project, they are not a bureaucratic straightjacket that prevents us dealing with issues however. I would really like an alternative to permablocking these addresses, but there just isn't one. We have to be realistic about that. --AlisonW

22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, see discussion here and this related TfD. Prodego ^talk 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this, so long as each IP address has a note on providing reasons why the IP address is on a long-term / indefinite block, and the procedure to get the block rescinded if an actual contributor strays onto the IP address. Which at the moment seems unlikely, as those addresses have provided nothing but vandalism, but may change in the future.

type

09:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ned Scot had been repetively opposing me on a range of articles lately. I find this to be most disruptive borderlining

if not crossing. Examples of behaviour:

• Air template revert war
• List of Air episodes revert war
• oposing the format I introduced to Naruto episode list with uncivil comments
• Fullmetal alchemist featured list candidacy oppose
• Opposing practicaly everything I was doing on Air

--Cat out 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather trippy Dutch alternative to my username... for a sec I almost thought that I was the one being discussed here. :-) Netscott 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I actually though we were talking about you...I should read closer....name is too similar... --mboverload@ 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me as a content dispute for the time being, especially since these reverts are being discussed, and are on similar topics. However, comments such as "I'm not required to follow guidelines and I don't unless I agree with them" from Cool Cat do make me a bit nervous. --InShaneee 03:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No a case of guideline enforcement. I will post a more detailed explanation of my stance on your talk page. --Cat out 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The account "Peter Snoufax" is making very bizarre edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonnzy (talk • contribs)

"Wikipedia is Communism" vandal impersonator. Indef-blocked by me. Jkelly 22:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As was Fonnzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made the report above. Jkelly 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

originally posted @

My log says I created User:Red Frog, although I did not. I asked earlier about what I should do, what effects it will have on me, etc. I know who created it, so if he changes his username, will it help anything? Green caterpillar 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Answered on user talk page. --pgk^(talk) 06:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki user06 (talk · contribs) seems to be another vandalism-only account. /Magore 07:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV, please. El_C

08:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

DoS from AOL 207.200.116.*

As reported in

) 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

About the AOL image vandal...and me

I have given up. I'm not going to revert any more AOL edits like this one. I'm going to skip right past.

The feeling of hopelessness is immense. I'm sitting there with Vandal Proof watching edits by that user go by faster than I can revert them. I don't even bother leaving warnings. He will just change his IP with the next edit anyway. I just try and reduce the damage. It's a whole IP range. I jump the hell on IRC, yelling for someone to help me but no one does. An admin finally blocks it, but I see other admins seeing the same vandalism as me, reverting the same vandalism as me, and they don't do anything. What kind of climate are we living in when a sophisticated vandal with an efficient system (3+ vandal edits every 30 seconds, or an edit every 10 seconds) wrecking havoc with our encyclopedia gets to scare off our administrators just because he uses AOL? Even when the range WAS BLOCKED, it was ONLY FOR 15 MINUTES. The vandal promptly started up again and that's when I decided to throw in the towel. This isn't just some kiddie at his school putting in "omg lol" into articles. This is a determined vandal who knows our system with its red tape and silly rules can't stop him. He has the power and he knows how to exploit it.

"But mboverload," you say, "obvious vandalism is easy to revert and it only took a few minutes even if you had to look on in horror as thousands of peoples' work was being destroyed." Well, why don't we just let stupid criminals out of prison after 15 minutes? They learned their lesson. Stores can always get their money back from insurance and it's easy to spot them with the security cameras, right? Even if that were true in real life, it still wouldn't be acceptable. People hate being violated and they want to protected.

I don't know what's wrong with me. I'm supposed to be understanding about this. But maybe I'm just the cop that realises that it's a completely hopeless battle; we will never win. Every day we go back out there and we hand out warnings and we watch as they commit more vandalism and we hand out and other warning and then we watch them do it again, all in the name of due process. Criminals don't get 4 warnings. They get TASERed. Maybe I'm burned out. Maybe I need a wikibreak. Maybe I don't care enough about all the good that comes out the the AOL IP addresses with 8 blocks. Maybe I need to calm down. Maybe I need to think of the children. Maybe I need to shut the hell up and make a sandwich. --mboverload@ 07:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

if not enough people willing to spend their time reverting this are online, the entire range should be blocked. It's not like we'll get enough worth to counterbalance the damage out of the AOL range in the meantime. AOL either needs to collaborate in preventing this, or live with their IP range blocked much of the time.

dab (ᛏ)

07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...tough luck I say...editing here is a priviledge.--MONGO 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious vandalism. Easy to revert and the collateral damage would be huge. Seriously, but you're the only one with this huge obsession with this vandal. I'm content with the edits being reverted. The good coming out of the AOL IP's vastly outweighs the bad, blocking that range would be more disasterous then any vandal could possibly be. Our ultimate goal is writing an encyclopedia, not being elitist towards anons and AOL in paticular. As long as those using AOL contribute towards that goal, we just need to revert the vandals. Denying millions of contributers access fundamentally diverges from the wiki philosophy. -

M^ask

07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When I come across more vandalised pages by accident (i.e. while not on RC patrol or looking at my watchlist), I might get behind a block on an entire ISP, but right now in my whole time reading Wikipedia I can only remember coming across three vandalised pages by accident, and I can't even remember what they were, though I do remember all but one were very obscure. Sure, if you go looking for vandalism, you will, shock horror, find lots of it, but that's not the impression the average reader will get.

I'm fairly understanding of those who block shared IPs for long periods, but people who are blocked at school can just go home - when people are blocked at home it's a major inconvenience. Roll on

WP:BPP... --Sam Blanning^(talk)

08:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Any time the vandal's giving you trouble, mboverload, drop a note on my talk page, and if I'm on I'll block the range for 3 hours. I'm truly not afraid of blocking AOL one bit for as long as need be, and have blocked that range for relatively long times before (as far as I know, my blocks of this range have never once been undone), and I truly don't think that many users are that harmed by it, with a couple of

) 09:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your post AmiDaniel, thanks. I get mad at the regular vandals but I'm fine with that in the long run. It's just these people who take advantage of an ISP that doesn't care is what makes me mad. Even madder at someone who is this smart (I have heard that he must have found a special way to get a new IP address each time, it's not the regular behavior usually). And when we block a range he can just disconnect and call another number. God...I hate dialup. Maybe I'm madder at AOL than the actual user. It's just so awful that there is a stereotype of the AOL user, and they seem to reinforce it to me every hour. Thank you =)--mboverload@ 09:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One more time: blocks of AOL should never exceed :15. The bad outweighs the good? Hmm. Let's see: yesterday I wrote two full articles with references, cleaned out some CSD's, and added to four prosody articles. I mediated the behavior of someone about to get a block, and I tried to put the brakes on some overzealous blocking on this page. Sure, I can see why you might think that the bad outweighs that tiny amount of good. This is not a debate: our policy says that you will not block AOL for longer than :15. If AmiDaniel's block hasn't been overturned, that's just luck, because, although I've not before wanted to get involved in unblocking and wheel warring, the kind of attitude I'm seeing from you people is enough to pull me off the sidelines. If what I'm saying is changing tone too many times, just remember this do not block AOL for longer than :15. Oh, and you can put your prejudice aside. Your denunciations of AOL are as well reasoned as meeting drunken sailors and concluding that all the people of a nation are hideous. If you don't know who the AOL contributors are doing any good, it's because you're vandal hunting. Geogre 11:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocks of AOL should be based on preventing vandalism from AOL. It should be as wide-ranging and as long as necessary to accomplish this goal. Since AOL is making it impossible to lay a narrowly-targeted block on an AOL vandal, AOL users have no reasonable expectation of not being blocked. The problem here is with AOL's conduct towards the rest of the Internet, not Wikipedia admin's conduct. AOL's randomizing proxies are a big fat "screw you" to anyone who's trying to deter vandalism, harassment, or other abuse and criminality. --FOo 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this policy which says no more than 15 minutes?

WP:BLOCK doesn't mention it, the block page says "Please keep blocks in these ranges to 15 minutes or less" that isn't a never. The reality if the blocking should be proportional to the issue, in this case it appears to be bot like rapid vandalism e.g. 20+ edits per minute, in which case a range block does seem in order. If initial 15 minute blocks don't stop it then increase in length does seem appropriate. --pgk^(talk

) 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, and here I thought the block page had precedence over zeal. You know why you think AOL users are a problem? You are vandal hunting. If you clean septic tanks all day, you'll be convinced that no one does anything but poop. Do you think Time Warner AOL will be harmed by your virtuous scourging of its users from Wikipedia? Do you think that the users will either gain the money or expertise necessary to switch ISP's? Do you believe that other ISP's will suddenly appear with dial-up connections in their areas? No, in fact, reverting vandals is not sufficient justification for wiping out an entire ISP. Do you feel free to ignore policy, consensus, and practice and block entire school systems? They do more damage by far. If not, then please drop the anti-corporate attitude when it means blocking innocent contributors. Geogre 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The semi-block idea sounds very interesting. Yes,something must be done about AOL vandalism, and waiting for AOL to do it seems a forlorn hope. I put my faith in the clever developers giving a software solution top priority now. Meanwhile, do you rangeblock enthusiast really know the situation of the good users being affected by the AOL blocks? And what the encyclopedia loses through that situation? Do you see, above, that the fine admin and exceptional Featured-article writer Geogre can barely edit at all nowadays? I know him, so I know his situation. I also know the equally virtuous and even more unfortunate User:WBardwin, who was invisibly pipelinked to in AmiDaniel's post above as one of "a couple of exceptions [to the rule that three-hour blocks of the whole range aren't much of a problem] for whom solutions are typically found quite quickly". Really, a solution has been found for WBardwin? No, it hasn't. His polite, resigned unblock requests still pop up on my watchlist most days. This amazingly patient editor still tries, and to a certain extent manages, to edit Wikipedia--if I were WBardwin, I would have given up long ago. Take a look at his talkpage, and click from it to his special subpage about his AOL blocks: it's horrendous. So, just by accident I know two users who are hugely impacted by the AOL blocks. This suggests to me that there are many, many more. PLease keep AOL blocks to 15 minutes or less. And PLEASE work on a software solution for the vandalism! I find the pointlessness of blocking vandals or edit warriors when they come in from AOL as frustrating as anybody. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

I don't understand why logged-in users have problems with AOL blocks. I never do, I must just be lucky. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is luck, Zoe. (Gasp! Another admin using AOL? But, above, we were told that AOL is far and away more evil for Wikipedia than good!) I've been stuck with Netscape ISP for over a year and a half. Netscape is owned by AOL, so it runs my IP through its pool. For 10 months or more, I never had collateral damage. In the past 6-8 months, though, I find myself blocked at least twice a day. Being an admin, I can get around it, but the kind of shotgun approach to vandal fighting being actually encouraged in this thread is simply ignorant. Geogre 18:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

At a guess I would say it is due to not useing the AOL browser.Geni 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I use Mozilla and don't use AOL. I simply have an ISP (Netscape) that's owned by AOL. That means my IP's don't roll with every single page load, but they roll pretty darned often all the same. I don't like the practice any more than anyone else, but the answer isn't to go to scorched earth policies. We need that earth. Geogre 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

for the record, I never meant to suggest we should block the entire AOL range for long periods. I meant to suggest that if there is an auto-redialling vandalbot run on AOL, we should block AOL for :15 without remorse, and for another :15 if it persists, and for yet another :15, and another :15, essentially amounting to a permablock for as long as the wanker continues to run his bot.

21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's tedious and laborious, but I think you're right Dab. If it's an image popper, we can certainly make the image unavailable for the duration, as well. However, I think this particular vandal knows full well that he's causing collateral damage and is, in fact, using that damage as part of his vandalism. Geogre 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the software solution easy? Give MediaWiki the range of AOL proxy server IP addresses (these are well known), and if the IP address is blocked but the user account isn't, let its edits go through. This is a sort of "semi-block" that allows registered users to edit. Also, disable autoblocker on these ranges. --Cyde↔Weys 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody needs to do something about those "ceiling cat" AOL vandals who keep inserting Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg. I've blocked 152.163.0.0/16 several times, but they just didn't seem to stick. Have I used the range block suffix incorrectly? In any case, they've been doing a lot of damage recently. -- King of Hearts 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving your comment to

incidents. You'll get a quicker response, and it appears from your message that this is an urgent issue.--Ikiroid

23:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde blocked 152.163.100.0/24 for 3 hours at around 23:07 UTC, so it should stick now... Bornhj 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the image. Why didn't anybody do that before? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it a few times, showed it to my kids, and we all had a giggle. Was it a deletable image? If so, fine (and honestly I find it difficult to imagine that it had an encyclopedic use). If not, it could have been put into the bad images file. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't prove it but it had every sign of being a copyvio (user with few edits uploading an image that has serious circulation in internet pop culture).Geni 01:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, but adds no value to the encyclopedia, tempts the idiots to put it in articles, and is dubious copyright-wise as well. That says delete to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt that they are actually a "they", the thing that people don't quite seem to understand about AOL is that contrary to myth, AOL isn't actually filled to the brim with thousands upon thousands of vandals, there's simply a hand full of idiots, who unfortunatly get new IPs every page, so it seems like a much more prolific problem then it really is. I mean there are millions of registered users on AOL, if even 1% of them were actually vandals, AOL would be a MUCH larger problem then it really is--64.12.116.65 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL isn't actually filled to the brim with thousands upon thousands of vandals I disagree =D --mboverload@ 03:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the account Googleyii (talk • contribs) is intended only for vandalism (disruption of Wikipedia, as for example a malicious AfD nomination of France, and adding of nonsense to other articles in general) as well as harassment of other editors. Why not ban this user permanently, instead of letting him or her return to cause more damage after each block expires, before someone adds another block? /Magore 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an editor who got off to a bad start editing articles about his home town and his school. He got into some wrangles about it with User:Adolphus79 and responded inappropriately, and it kind of spiralled out of control from there. I disagree that it's a vandalism-only account; more of an inexperienced and immature user who got burned and is lashing out. A friendly personal comment on his talk page might do some good; stop signs and stern warnings will only guarantee he continues along his current path. · rodii · 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? By the law of Userbox Ratios and Averages, where the likelihood of creating a valid edit is inversely proportional to the number of userboxes you have on his page, I don't really see anything good coming from this user. Not until he grows up and matures a bit out of this spoiled myspace mentality, at least. --Golbez 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't deny he's created more disruption than value in his tenure so far. But he has tried to add good information to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania (see [16]) and Battle of Gettysburg. Not the highest-quality edits to be sure, but not what I would characterize as a "vandalism-only" editor either. · rodii · 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, his edits (and userboxes) betray some similarities to Griffjam aka Dormantsoviet, so who the hell knows? Maybe I'm a sucker. · rodii · 18:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe the question is what will happen when the current block expires. And as stated, this user has done far more to disrupt than to contribute, and although I might be wrong in my assumtion that this is a vandalism-only account (I didn't go that far back in the history of this account), that might be the only use from now on. I see no reason or gain in being lenient towards vandals, not when it's so obvious that the edits have been made in bad faith. /Magore 17:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently, I am discussing matters with this newly-registered user, who is rather hostile. His edits on this article, to my judgement, can be considered as vandalism, a charge which he denies. From the attitude of his messages, he has even reverted an NPOV notice (see history [17], which clearly reflects his NPOV behaviour

but currently he has refused to change for a better to edit in accordance to at least a near non-NPOV and wikipedian style. Unnecessary notices, such as "Information here is from his official website, byj.co.kr. Google is not a verifiabe source of information on Bae Yong Joon. " is pasted on the article, a behaviour reflected on , words, amounting to abusive criticism, like "cowardly" and "doesn't make you morally superior." have been used against me. I have pasted a replica on Bae's talk page.

For more information, please refer to

14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have posted messages to User talk:Centrx in response to Fabshelly's second time of removing the "dispute" and "cleanup" templates while he pasted up the notices. Apparently this user has strong NPOV/non-neutral feelings while editing the article, which is against wikipedia's policy. Thus admin judgement and/or dispute resolution against him is necessary to calm matters down. Mr Tan 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(Allow me to interject) Fabshelly's edits is clearly an evidence of a violation of Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, a segment page of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is official policy. Thus appropriate disciplinar actions enforced by admins is essential if he continues to violate policies and guidelines imposed by wikipedia. Mr Tan 03:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good day, all. This user has been (for about a week now) unilaterally slashing out the "spoiler" tags from at least a hundred game-related articles. He doesn't use the talk page, and doesn't give any explanation in his summaries. His removal of the tags is wrong in all of the instances he's done it in (for example, in the Resident Evil 4 article it talks about the specific death of a main character during the course of the game), and there are elements within those storylines that a user casually reading the article might not want revealed to them without prior notice. Other users have asked him to stop repeatedly, but he hasn't listened to them, instead filing false "Request For Investigation" [18] attempts and trying to get Mongo involved in order to "get his way". So far I've managed to repair the damage that he's caused via reversion, but trying to fix everything is getting to be really, really aggravating.

As evidence, I present the articles relating to Resident Evil 0, RE1, RE2, RE3, RE: Code Veronica, RE4, as well as pages directly associated with characters in those series, including Luis Sera, Osmond Saddler, Leon S Kennedy and Bitores Mendez. 24.19.96.143 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]

This is a content dispute. Take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Tony Sidaway 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've been doing it for quite a bit longer than a week. -

Talk

10:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Happycamper has been reverting a persons comments off talk pages. you can see complaints on User_talk:Michael D. Wolok. Please take appropriate action.

01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be on par with Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming; no further action is needed. El_C 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User Terminator III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits the same pages, has the same uncivil behavior toward User:Hamsacharya_dan (putting a photo of feces on dan's userpage), and has the same style as indefinitely blocked user NoToFrauds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It seems he's evading his block. 66.132.130.15 01:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I see some similarities, but nothing conclusive. Have comparative diffs? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is odd;

incivil messages (here and here) left by User:NoToFrauds, and both IPs have been tagged as suspected socks of User:Hamsacharya_dan. Yet, 66.132.130.15 (whose only contribs are here) suggests User:Terminator III is a sock of User:NoToFrauds? Something isn't working... RadioKirk (u|t|c

) 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Permanent deletion of malicious identifying information?

I know this can be done because I have seen it done. Basically one editor has abused the edit summary facility here in an attempt to maliciously post identifying information about me, I would very much like that permanently deleted if it is possible...no point sanctioning the user because he never comes back on the same IP twice these days. --Zeraeph 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Eugène van der Pijll 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :o) --Zeraeph 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please move

15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" -- Reinyday, 15:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's been moved. I'm going to remove Hephaestos' comment. -- Reinyday, 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Also, User:Sleehw added "Wheels wheels wheels!" -- Reinyday, 15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't Hephaestos. The real Hephaestos wouldn't be nearly as whiny. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What I want to know is why Curps's bot didn't block him for pagemove vandalism. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose that Frater_FiatLux (

16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Any such follow-up should be at

dispute resolution system. Thanks. Jkelly

17:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. The RfC is here. ---Baba Louis 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems we have a return of the ceiling cat vandal, this time in the 152.163.100.* range. Just thought everyone would like to know that. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He/she is also vandalizing from the 207.200.116.* range again as well. -Big Smooth 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been reverting a ton of this in the last few minutes. I'd suggest blocking the range for a few minutes. --Alphachimp ^talk 02:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 152.163.100.0/24 for 15 minutes. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry I was so angry, above. This is how to handle the situation, exactly, as those are (sigh) the AOL ranges. I even have a sneaking sensation that the vandal operates at relatively predictable times. I wish AOL didn't do things this way, but I also wish Microsoft weren't evil. Geogre 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Anger means you're passionate about protecting wikipedia. --mboverload@ 03:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we block AOL for :15 in response to an AOL vandal? (Half-serious, but vandals seem to jump ranges.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this, but User:Naveen Sankar had an infobox on his user page, which falsely claimed him to be an administrator. I removed it. Based on editing history, I suspect that this user and User:Aanand Pranav Sharma are the same person, and that the same person also uses many other usernames and IP addresses (e.g. User:Wiki Administrator of Physics and User:Austin Maxwell.) Amusingly, the user pages of the first two accounts I listed seem to have based their opening paragraph on the one from my own user page.--Srleffler 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I had a similar thing with User:Notanerd, which copied my user page in whole, and the talk page of another user.--Pharos 07:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This user has been involved in a number of controversies and I now request that he/she be blocked for the following three reasons: A) They engage in blanking and vandalism (example example2 B)They engage in personal attack on talk pages example C) They have removed allegations of vandalism and other things on the now blocked Moderator3000. Which makes me think they could be a sockpuppet of Moderator. example Thank-you. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Twenty-four hr block, for now. El_C 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a slight disagreement with

23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems we've come to an agreement. Deizio talk 01:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's not really necessary to rush to the notice board for minor disputes over verifiability of trivia. As noted at
  WP:AN, "Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour..."--Leflyman^Talk
  01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked Biff loman9 indefinitely. This started as a personal attack case, so I blocked him for 24 hours. Almost immediately, he started using socks to get around the block. So I blocked him for 3 days. So then we got this, we went up to 9 days. And then he pledged to continue using socks. So I blocked him indefinitely. And this is just a small sample. All of the contributions of 67.71.143.54, 67.71.142.157 and a bunch of other IPs in the 67.71.143.* and 67.71.142.* ranges. I ask that others watchlist Thanos for sure. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The user in question just kept on trolling. The block is entirely legitimate given the circumstances, in my opinion -- Samir धर्म 03:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He uses a dynamic IP so stopping him is going to be a challenge. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A Sister and a Lover (talk · contribs · logs) I'm concerned by this username and the edit summaries to some articles. Yanksox ^(talk) 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Me thinks this could be related to Incestuous amour (talk · contribs · logs), blocked indef, who edited these pages above. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit summaries are telling and sway the balance to indef block in my opinion -- Samir धर्म 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's him. Note the null edits, only changing like 1 space. --Rory096 07:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I have no objections to raising blocks above 15 minutes for persistant AOL vandalism, the current block of 1 week [28] seems extreme. Since I can't find any mention of this 1 week block I am loathe to remove it without knowing what escalation in problems caused it. And as I am not going to be around I can't unblock and monitor it. Can someone look into this. --pgk^(talk) 07:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Already unblocked by Dmcdevit. If this was for the Ceiling cat dude, there's no need to block for a week, he's constantly changing ranges. (Oddly he usually waits the 15 minutes until the block expires, though.) --Rory096 07:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am off to bed, but I'd appreciate it if someone could watch

t

08:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever blocked for a week was way out of line. Vandalism is bad. Contributors are better. Geogre 13:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been times where I have been forced to range block an AOL range, though I only do it for 15 minutes (usually makes them stop) and only in an emergency. That time it was a person creating talkpages of pornographic spam, while constantly switching IPs. 1 week is excessive though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit together with the vandalism on William Clarke College suggests to me Encyclopediabaxter (talk · contribs) and Reecenelson (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of each other and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. Is a checkuser to find any as of yet undiscovered vandalism by other accounts from their IP appropriate? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For the second time one editor has abused the edit summary facility here in an attempt to maliciously post identifying information about me, I would very much like that permanently deleted...no point sanctioning the user because he never comes back on the same IP twice these days see:

11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Note that the anonymous editor seems to come from a narrow IP range, so perhaps an IP range block is in order. I'm not too familiar with that, though, so I will leave that to someone else. Eugène van der Pijll 13:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And once again thanks, for such a swift response --Zeraeph 13:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have entered the

(a big mistake)! I am not able to defend myself against 02:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• What the hell are you talking about?--64.12.116.65 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • talk · contribs) has a total of one post of one sentence. A little hard to see how they can be attacking you. Fan1967
    03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the subject of a current

Thatcher131

13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User 213.232.79.149

There are multiple warnings and block messages on this users talk page. (I hope this is the correct place to put this note up) Again, this morning the user vandalized another page. This time another User's page. Not sure what is done to mulitple offenders but will place here to find out! Lsjzl 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 2 months (previous 1-month block failed to get the message over). In the future, please take these to

WP:AIV. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c

) 14:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In the last 2 days or so,

14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See the user's talk page as well. Multiple other users have left comments on either recreated categories (previous deletes) or circular categories. Lsjzl 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I already posted a complaint regarding the blatant manipulation of a poll. Nobody responded. The RFC I started was deleted, after restoring it the same editor is altering that RFC.[29][30][31] Can somebody please interven, since when I deal with this vandalism I get blocked! Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not a RFC first of all, I have told you that numerous times. Second you are attempting to classify everyone vote on a semi-related poll to fit your interpretation. I removed your commentary on what you feel those people were saying with their votes and added the vote count + the questions. Which is more appropriate then you summarizing what you think those 10 people were saying into 1 sentence. You also removed the comments I added to that poll when you first completely misrepresented what was even being asked in the poll. The polls are about infoboxes not about the general question of if the WOT and War in Iraq are related, no matter how much you attempt to slant it to be about that. And stop posting your NPA / Vandalism tags on my page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You also removed my comments from it [32] You did not want to mention that did you? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is then me being called a zealot. [33] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How can this not be a RFC when it is filed as such? Please somebody interven. This is ridiculous, this user is gaming the system, deleting every comment contrary to his political view in a RFC and I simply do not know what to do next.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a straw poll ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That right there is the problem with this user "contrary to his political view". Your political opinion does not belong on Wikipedia. NPOV. My political opinion is not what can be supported by facts, and so I do not force it on others. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If political view is not important than you sure3ly do not object on any RFC trying to ascertain the facts. Do tell why you nevertheless feel the need to rewrite the RFC to suit your political view.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So, your complaint is that User:Zer0faults has been deleting your comments from Talk:Iraq War, thus: [34], claiming that they are "a straw poll"? Is that the issue? Deleting of other's comments from an article's talk page is almost never acceptable. FeloniousMonk 16:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is why I post it on AV and here. Again Zero did the same several days ago (see history for my comments on it on this page) and got away with it since nobody feels it needs intervention. Interestingly I got blocked for 3RR when I restored my comments at that time.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, looking over the Usertalk page of Zer0faults, here and here, it appears he has an longstanding and ongoing personal grudge against you. Viewed in that light his actions at Talk:Iraq War are petty harassment. That needs to stop. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at Nomens page and see people asking him to participate instead of reverting? Did you look at what he was adding in? a misrepresentation of peoples votes in a poll. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

His petty comments on my person I have no problem with. Some people never grow up. However, the repeated removal and alterations of my comments I do object to. Al I ask is for somebody to step in and stop his vandalsim.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

removed duplicate

He has now been warned by FeloniousMonk. I think further "harassment" actions will warrant test warnings, and a block when he reaches test3 or test4 and still continues the same behaviour. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but how dare you take his side simply because I remove NPA tags he puts on my user page. This woe is me act also involves him removing my comments from Iraq War talk page. Did anyone look into that before making a judgement? Did anyone look into his vandalism of WP:WOT? I highly doubt it, perhaps the admins here should research all points before making decissions based on his ability to put tags on my userpage as harrassment. This user also calls me a zealot and I get accused of having a grudge? Disgusting. Did either of you even look up his talk page and see people attempting to discuss the issue with him? He constantly ignores you and just reverts and I am harrassing, he violated NPA by callnig me a zealot, did he recieve a warning? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore his comment "Some people never grow up" on this very page is a violation of NPA. Yet noone wants to point that out I see. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking anyone's side, but if I were to, I can do without these indignant "how dare you" comments. I'm just responding to what FeloniousMonk said. Well, I suppose if you want to get technical, I am taking FeloniousMonk's side, because I trust his judgement, and he has looked into this case. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This isnt about Felonius, its about Nomen, and he insulted me right on this page, yet no warnnig is being issued to him for 2 violations of NPA. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If he is making personal attacks, and someone else agrees, then someone will warn him too. If others don't judge that he is making personal attacks, then he won't. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He called me zealot, he just said "some users dont grow up". If I said this to you, would you not see it as a personal attack? If you are an admin then you can issue a warning, also another user has already complained about the zealot comment on Felonius's page. I do not see how I can have a grudge against someone, if they are the ones insulting me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to cease participation in this discussion as it seems its obvious that nothing is going to get done about his personal attacks, and furthermore I am sure if I did as I am allowed, and placed a NPA tag on his page for them. I will be seen as harrassing him. I am tempted to say lots but,

WP:POINT prevents me.--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|}

17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Justwant to mention that the "RFC" nomen is insisting about appears to be this: [35]

Which is in violation of posting a RFC as its stating a position, its even villifying the other side. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you admit it is a RFC and nobody has corrected what you perceive as incorrectly desribing the subject, I think we can conclude this debate.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you even listening to each other? This supposed poll on the "war on terror" at Talk:Iraq War contains over 11,000 words posted in less than 36 hours, more than 90% by Nescio and Zer0faults. Stephen King writes less than that daily. You are both obviously immovable in your opinions, and no one else is willing to step into your fever swamp to offer an outside view because the atmosphere is so acrimonious. Tagging a person's talk page with personal attack warnings when he is an obvious established user is lazy and rude, and in the context of an ongoing content debate, obnoxious and thoroughly unhelpful. But you might as well argue about each other's behavior, because you're obviously not going to change each other's mind on the issue. Just don't come running to ANI any more like a coupe of eight year olds (he touched me! she touched me first! he's making faces at me!).

This is only the latest in a series of political articles you two have been fighting over, and the fifth or tenth time one of you has come running to ANI. I'm surprised no one has yet thought of filing an RFAR against both of you to get you both banned from political articles altogether. (Maybe Arbcom will see that one of you is clearly "right" -- but I doubt it.) Wikipedia is not a blog or a usenet newsgroup. Stop editing political articles, even if it means swallowing your pride and letting the other one "win." Find some way of dealing with each other before a solution gets imposed on you that you may like even less.

18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was very strongly suggesting these guys file an RFC on the issues, but they shrugged that suggestion off, preferring instead to just yell at each other across various talk pages and noticeboards. If they won't take the suggestions to elevate this to RFC or RFAR, someone is going to have to do it for them, because the status quo is clearly unproductive, and the only people getting anything out of it are these two, who seem to enjoy arguing immensely. --Cyde↔Weys 18:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are absolutely right. That is why I filed the RFC. However, what do you suppose we do when that RFC gets deleted, and when I restore it somebody starts rewriting the criteria? I was only trying to get the suggested RFC from being deleted. But I will take your advise and remove myself from the article since clearly even a RFC is either not allowed or manipulated by some.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Stop it already with the woe is me. I am not responding to you anymore after this. Participate wherever you want so you can stop bemoaning persecution. I will not respond to your comments or anything you do anymore, and I hope you cand ot he same for me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • yself and another user have been attempting to get Nomen to talk to us about reaching a middleground, much like we did with Kizzle and was able to satisfy what they felt was wrong with the War on Terror title, they have since voted in favor of it, with a condition attached that it be put in quotation marks. However Nomen does not respond to other users attempting to work a middleground or even asking what would convince him otherwise. This is evident by his own talk page, and the fact that he just cahnged Mrdthree's vote on the poll he is creating. I not dealing with this user anymore, as he runs to AN/I when noone wants to participate in his poll. Especially when that poll calls for anyone who agree's that Iraq is part of the WOT to also state they do so regardless of evidence and are being unobjectionable. Anyone else see a POV problem with a person having to agree on the basis they do it withuot having any facts support them? I am sure he will see the lack of votes in that category as a win on his side however. As I said I am done, because his tactics to attempt to push his POV is leading to me getting in trouble while he says things in this very section about "Some people never grow up" and calls me a zealot without punishment. I as of this moment will no longer address this user. The end. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism - assistance required. I have just try to clean up this overlong article by removing DUPLICATED information (info that is included in the infobox) and some irrelvant trivia. I have also reorganized by the info box by breaking it down into admin and geography. I believe all these are reasonable edits and within Wiki guidelines but have all bene reverted by what can only be described as a possessive editor. I wholeheartedly believe my edits improve the article and would welcome intervention. I have been accused of being a "sock puppet" by a person who seemingly reverts every single edit not made by him user:Jhamez84. Assitance would be appreciated. Thankyou. Filmfan1971 16:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is a revenge attack. This user is a (5th) sock puppet (in so many days) of banned user User:Argol136. Please check the Shaw and Crompton edit history and my contributions.

Additionally, I will be presenting this IP address for an investigation for sock puppetry, and the Shaw and Crompton article is currently semi-protected because of this users constant targetting of the article. If an admin would indeed like to message me about this, please feel free. Jhamez84 18:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

crockspot (talk · contribs) has been using an off-site forum to organize a disruption of wikipedia regarding user:Ben Burch and the articles about him. They seem to hate him. Here's the link to the forum post. I'm not exactly sure what the point is but apparently crockspot wants to keep an article on Ben Burch and another user is going to oppose him so they can "Make it look realistic." Very strange.

Could someone leave a message on Crock's page warning him of this kind of behavior? ---J.S (t|c) 16:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel_shamir (

16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

• I strongly agree. Also, semi-protecting the page in question for a bit might be warranted, as well. --InShaneee 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree too. Block him and block all meatpuppets, as the more he edits, the more disruptive he becomes. Pecher ^Talk 17:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised he had not already been blocked indefinitely.--Mantanmoreland 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Me too... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no longer any room for assumption of either good faith or newbie ignorance. It's time to put this one to bed. Since I'm seeing little in the way of defense of this guy, we'll skip the "all in favor" and go directly to "Is anyone opposed to an indefinite block of this guy?" Tomer^talk 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My own feeling is that there are three different block discussions going on:

1. User name violations
2. Hate speech, repeated
3. Calls for intervention and 3RR

and the three folks aren't talking to each other very clearly. As for #1: if the user has an article on himself, then he can't have the name, but the user shouldn't have a page about himself, because he is not actually substantial enough for the .se Wikipedia to have an article on him. As for #2: absolutely. This user's speech has been horrid and continuing. However, for process sake, I don't think an indefinite ban for hate speech is at all allowable. Personal attacks and bad speech is not sufficient, IMO. The user's edits are not all vandalism. Instead, they're all worthless, but worthless isn't vandalism. There are plenty of ArbCom cases of people calling each other "communist fascist" and the like, and since there are no priviledged classes, the mere hatred behind the terminology can't allow an indefinite block without consensus. For #3, the call for meatpuppets is at least a cause for resetting a 3RR block for the duration that the call for intervention is visible. In this case, I think the worst offense should be treated. To me, that's #2, not #3. I'd say a month block for repeated and pretty much sole attack and hate speech is appropriate and a referral to mediation/ArbCom after that month at the first sign of attack language. Incidentally, I think that Israel Shamir should be sent to AfD after the block is in place. If that is disrupted by any calls for intervention, etc., I'd say we're looking at an indefinite block. Geogre 21:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, from the point of view of the encyclopedia, I believe that the worst offense is not the hate speech, it's the "All edits worthless" and its concomitant "user is not here to build the encyclopedia". I've gone through his edits, and they may be divided into POV rants in article space, extreme personal attacks on userpages, and additions of useless external links. Following your argument I will block indefinitely for encyclopedic uselessness, not for the call for meatpuppets. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

P. S. Excuse me, I forgot to mention that User:KimvdLinde who placed the week-long block is on wikibreak till the beginning of July, or I would have consulted with him, naturally. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

No objection from this girl. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would not change anything... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre: I think the only "problem" with the 3 simultaneous discussions/causes of action against this user is which each of us thinks is the worst of his blockable offenses, not that some of us regard one as a problem but not the other two, etc. I don't think we're talking past each other so much as saying "yeah, I saw that, but look at this! this is even more outrageous!", all the while agreeing that everything is sufficient cause to block him indefinitely. The guy needs to go for all three reasons, and I think sufficient evidence has been brought to demonstrate that an indefinite block for any of them will meet with zero admin disagreement. We can discuss and discuss all day which of his offenses is worst, but at the end of the day, the verdict is still an indefinite block. Cheers, Tomer^talk 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of terrible in being process oriented. I'm well aware that our dispute processes are...overburdened?...but I worry very much that a lack of dissent on one project page (this one) be taken for positive assent from the project. Again, I'm certainly not defending this person or his actions. I think he's probably irredeemable, but I'm concerned that we have all allowed "well, I'll mention it on AN/I" to replace our fuller, slower, but surer methods. I also don't like relying on "well, anyone else can block for a shorter time." Again, in no sense do I vouch for this anti-semite. I'm all for a block, and past offenses are plentiful, but past remediating actions aren't. Even though it won't do any good, I recommend a month. <shrug> I'm just one scold, but that's my nagging opinion. Geogre 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to dragging it out, I just don't see any point in doing so, other than to placate the policymongers. If I think this discussion has served pretty well as an RfC, and I don't see how an RfM would go anywhere...I don't like to sound so dismissive of this guy, but sometime reality has to strike and say "THERE IS NO HOPE". As happens far too often, this guy would simply take the extra time he's given while we go through "process", to continue flagrantly violating every WP policy in existence (I can't think of one he hasn't violated, except perhaps naming conventions, but that takes productive editing to violate...), meanwhile productive editors are being tied up not only undoing his useless edits, but now also with compiling all the voluminous evidence against him for presentation. If it were to ever go as far as ArbCom, I think they'd be very annoyed with us wee little admins for having dumped such a clear-cut BAN ON SIGHT case on them, as though they don't have enough TRICKY cases to work on. My 3¢, for what it's worth. (inflation, you know... ) Tomer^talk 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really very simple: multiple reasons for indefinite block. Ergo an indefinite block is warranted.--Mantanmoreland 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. user:Nagara373 is persistently vandalising pages. User also seems to have an IP sockpuppet, although I'm not sure. Would welcome intervention. --Dweller 11:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've dropped a welcome template on his talk and tried to explain his information was inappropriate. Hopefully this gets the message across. He doesn't seem particularly malicious, just newbie-ish. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nagara373 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to heed any of the requests and warnings people have been posting to him and he keeps adding the same information over and over again (some of it copyrighted, some of it totally irrelevant to the article). I've now blocked him for 24 hours in the hope of getting his attention. My block message on his talk page invites him to discuss with others and asks him to read the messages on his talk page as well as the welcome message. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO EDIT ANY ARTICLE OR PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA, NOR HAVE I EVER VANDALIZED ANY ARTICLE OR PAGE. I HAVE BEEN A READER ONLY. I ALWAYS LOG IN BEFORE LOOKING UP ANY ARTICLE, AND YET I AM CONSTANTLY RECEIVING ACCUSATORY MESSAGES, AND AM AT PRESENT BLOCKED - WHICH I SUPPOSE DOESN'T MATTER SINCE I HAVE NO DESIRE TO EDIT ANYTHING. BUT IT IS ANNOYING NONETHELESS. ANY SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE APPRECIATED.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [email protected] (talk • contribs)

I've left a note for

Wikipedia:Advice for AOL users. FreplySpang

14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First suggestion, please don't TYPE IN ALL CAPS, this is considered "shouting". Second suggestion, cancel your AOL (be prepared to spend 45 minutes on the phone as they attempt to deflect the request in every way possible) and get a real Internet Service Provider. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Third suggestion: don't patronise people! :) As it happens, in the UK AOL are one of the few companies to offer unmetered (unlimited) broadband on a

British Telecom

line making them a good choice for a lot of technically savvy users! It's generally people who think they know the score but who actually know very little that make the tired old AOL crack.

Anyway: just a note to say, this thread has been answered at User talk:[email protected]. --kingboyk 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am one of a massive handful of people who believe AOL blows—even moreso now that I've dealt with some of the messes from an administrative standpoint. Calling someone an idiot (or the like) for using AOL would patronize; suggesting they get a real ISP is a deserved opinion. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

UK AOL? Isn't that a contradiction? --Rory096 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get into that. My point is that being "superior" doesn't help. I'm surprised he wasn't told to switch to Linux and Firefox at the same time! :) --kingboyk 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC) (for the record: non-AOL user, has a Linux box with a handrolled kernel, uses Firefox despite its memory bloat)

So you didn't use a makisu on that kernel? ;) Syrthiss 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Demon, whom I use, also have unmetred access, and they aren't shit. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

a loosely related question, why on earth do people see "you are blocked" messages before they even attempt to edit? It unnerves and angers readers for nothing. Block notices should only come up at the time a user attempts to do an edit, since, duh, they are blocked from editing.

15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't see the blocked message until you edit (except for talk messages, like test5, of course). What do you mean? --Rory096 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You do if you follow a red link, which of course is technically trying to edit it... --pgk^(talk) 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mystery not mysterious: If the user is an IP, or even if he isn't -- if he merely doesn't have "remember me on this computer" checked -- when he first gets to Wikipedia, he'll have "You have messages" lit up. When he clicks on that, he'll see "You are blocked, you nasty thing, you." The block message is directed at the IP, but, if he doesn't know that the IP is just one among thousands at AOL and that it's not directed at his user name, he could, before logging in, get the impression that it was directed at him. Given this user's, and many others', for that matter, technical expertise (and people who aren't good with computers may well be architects and entomologists and other highly intelligent, trained, and valuable persons who could crush the computer nerds making fun of them), it's quite possible for him to have that misunderstanding. Geogre 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

. Now back continuing reverting under several anonymous IPs from the 88.218.*.* range:

• 88.218.55.223 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.46.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.42.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.37.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.50.32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.43.178 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Can we have a range-block, and/or extension of block on the main account? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you run a WHOIS to see where the IP's resolve? If the guy is using a public library, kiosk, or school, we may have to be pretty delicate with a range block. Geogre 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now I'm having difficulties using the WHOIS. The WHOIS link in the checkip template above isn't resulting in anthing, and that in my popups has mysteriously vanished :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[38] - It's an ISP in Athens, Greece. 88.218.32.0 - 88.218.63.255 . —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Or 88.218.32.0/19. Saves space! Will (message me!) 15:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-static, then? I'd urge caution on any extended range blocks, but 24 hr can be a good starting point, and then we need to be very alert to collateral complaints. (Of course, if 24 hr goes by without collateral damage and the person resumes after that, going for a week would be logical. These nomenclature wars never end well.) Geogre 15:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Athens? I got Thessaloniki... Anyways, I listed the IPs at WP:RFCU. —Khoikhoi 21:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I half expect Essjay over there is going to tell us that this is one of the obvious cases he refuses to check. But thanks for taking the trouble! Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please guys, do something, he's still on it ... Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Imthehappywanderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created quite a few circular categories. I started deleting them and then noticed there were more than THOUSAND created during 6 hours! Looks like he was running a bot. I blocked him for a while.

Now I need help in undoing his work. If someone of admins has some one-click tools or some spare time, please help. `'mikka (t) 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Suprised you haven't indef blocked them..--Andeh 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He had useful edits before. Could have been a honest mistake. If he will not answer in 24h, indefinite it will go. `'mikka (t) 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand here. How did he just create them, but there are already articles in these categories? Am I cleared to delete the ones where he is the only contributor, even tho[ugh there are articles populating the categories? Also, the user has been blocked indef for running a vandal bot.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem. Some editors already noticed some of his creations and properly recategoized them. So we cannot just run an anti-bot. Lots of manual work.

These were redlinked categories. YOu don't need a category to exist to put an article into it. You may just type in an article [[Category:bla bla bla]] and you got it. `'mikka (t) 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to another part of

WP:AIV as the vandal has been blocked. And it's just a clean up job needed.--Andeh

16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Try adding {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/sandbox.js}} one-click delete category js script. AndyZ 16:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted my 350+ categories. Who is next?pschemp | talk 04:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They are all gone now. How about in the future we keep an eye on this type of thing? pschemp | talk 05:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I looked at the contribs earlier, looked at a few categories, thought about deleting them, but wasn't quite sure from what I saw, and from reading here, what exactly needed doing, so I didn't do anything. Glad you and others were able to suss out what was needful. What are the symptoms to watch for going forward, do you think? ++Lar: t/c 05:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I often run into a problem when reverting vandalism and blanking. I see things like this, where an anon removes controversial, yet unsourced information. What should I do? Was it right of them to remove this unsourced and possibly biased info, or should I revert it and start a consensus on the talkpage?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's a case-by-case thing... in this case, the info is extremely derogatory towards left-handers, so I support it being deleted until it can be properly sourced. - Merzbow 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Help_in_massive_deletion_needed. `'mikka (t) 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• or, you know, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_in_massive_deletion_needed.--64.12.116.65 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt is currently blocked until mid-July. His talk page was protected (by me) for repeated abuse of {{unblock}}, and was recently unprotected (not by me) after promises to stop. See [39]. He's now chosen to use his talk page to start a "USA Sucks Petition". [40] Quote: "I've made a petition where people can express their resentment towards the United States of America. America sucks because:" - and an expanding list follows, containing various gems, including "They can't even spell "colour" correctly" - Pnatt's blocks relate to edit warring over regional spelling variations, and some editors have claimed that the current block is over the top and that this time (that's the seventh time, counting fans) he'll stop for real if someone will only unblock him. The above gives me reason for doubt.

Obviously, that needs wiping from the page, and maybe this sub-

19:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it and pointed him to

WP:NOT --pgk^(talk

) 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well he removed my comments and restored an updated version of his list, so I've removed and protected his talk page again. --pgk^(talk) 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These two pages are currently in a revert war. It appears that some user from Kansas City keeps reverting a few times and then changing to another IP address. I would guess that this is probably User:Perpetual motion machine, who has been insistent upon saying that Cox's timepiece is a real perpetual motion machine that invalidates the second law of thermodynamics and most of modern physics. He has also started a revert war on Template:Perpetual motion machine, where he keeps replacing the very well known "Perpetual motion machine" with "Free energy device", claiming that Perpetual motion machine is somehow biased. Do I need to do a RFCU about this, or is this straightforward enough? Could someone look into doing something to stop this? --Philosophus ^T 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just blocked 204. for 3RR which was a bit naughty of me William M. Connolley 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the current version does not make it clear that due to the fact that the machine is still powered by a limited although ambient energy source (rather similar to anything powered by solar panels) it can't really be called a perpetual motion machine since it could not exist for eternity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional note - if a sock-check is done to determine if User:Perpetual motion machine is the string of edit-warring anons, it's probably a good idea to try to figure out what PMM's main account is, add add strongly-likely candidates to the sock check request. The PMM account appeared out of nowhere on June 1st and started creating templates and exhibiting other strong knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia, so it's probably a special-purpose account of a more established user. --Christopher Thomas 06:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Probable additional sock-puppet: USPatent (talk • contribs), who started editing on June 9th, and seems to have anomalous interest in template:perpetual motion machine. --Christopher Thomas 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on Nigel Havers has been repeatedly vandalised by user 217.155.48.230. I keep cutting the childish rubbish out, but it keeps coming back. That user has not made any other contribution to wikipedia, so I think that person should be considered for banning from editing if this is possible. DrHydeous 20:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP address hadn't received any warning. I've left {{

WP:AIV to report them. Jkelly

20:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Closing of a move request poll - request for review

I closed a move request in what I thought was a very difficult case at

21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that your methods of counting votes (double counting those of people who have edited the page) was totally and completely not fair. Why should their opinions be held in higher value? My first attempt at improving the article was my vote. I think that counts just as much as any edit made to the article. To me, this said it all:

Obviously this all depends on completely arbitrary factors and if I had set any one of them differently in a direction more favorable to pro-movers the result would have gone their way - Haukur

How is your opinion fair game to sway the outcome of the vote? Charles 21:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard I set is certainly arbitrary but I have no hidden agenda nor even an opinion on where the page should reside. I just figured that the people who have actually edited the article in the past are more likely to know what they're talking about than those fresh in to vote on a move request. Haukur 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You should consider the Polish-bias when you talk about those who have edited it in the past (and knowing what they talk about). Obviously Polish individuals will be involved in Polish issues, but there is a lot of bias. I speak English and use the appropriate English forms on English Wikipedia. Why couldn't you just stick to standard methods of counting votes, rather than inventing an arbitrary method? Charles 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a standard method? What's the standard method for countering "Polish-bias", like you want me to do? :) What's the standard method for countering selective advertising? I just tried to be fair and take everything into account. Maybe I did give too much weight to some issues or too little to others - thanks for providing feedback. Haukur 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Haukurth made a good faith effort here, but I would say that in general, the "Wikipedia way" is to gather opinions from outside of an article's editing group, to gain fresh points of view in a complex situation. That is, after all, what the whole RFC process is about, is it not? --Elonka 21:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I worded it correctly. I didn't mean you should change how the votes of Polish editors are considered, what I meant is that it should be realized how weighty their votes would be, since the Polish editors on English WP are more likely to be interested in Polish subjects. That gives an unfair edge to the opposing side. I don't think any distinction should be made between votes, except those by anon or very new users. But that discussion should be saved for the whole move policy. Charles 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the people who were contacted were for the most part the people who had over the last three years done the work of pulling the pages on royalty, which were a notorious dumping ground for POV opinions and wacky titles, into a cohesive structure based on naming conventions. They were approached by that user not because they would "agree with him" (anyone who looks at the people contacted knows that they regularly vote different ways on issues. John Kenney and I, for example, are frequently on opposite sides in debates) but because they were people involved in doing the specialist work on the area of the naming conventions and so presumably the user believed that their contributions, for or against, in a topic many of them were experts on, would be useful. The consensus was 71% to move, 29% against. Haukur's mispresentation of the poll is hilarious. It suggests that he approached the page without knowing what was going on, jumped to (the wrong) conclusions and did his maths wrong. I moved the page as per the overwhelming consensus to move it. (Two of the votes of the 29% who opposed were suspected, BTW, of being sockpuppets of another 'oppose' voter.) FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)}

Yes, suspected by me as I noted in my close where I discounted their votes completely. In any case I was sort of hoping to have some input from administrators not previously involved, so far I've only had comments for people who voted to move this particular page. I still maintain that the selective soliciting of votes tainted the poll. And I don't see anything "unfair" about Polish contributors working and voting on Polish subjects. Haukur 21:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You failed to understand me. The only real unfair issue with Polish editors is when they are given extra clout (i.e. by you). Charles

I didn't give anyone brownie points for being Polish, I gave out brownie points for editing the article. That there is a correlation between being Polish and editing an article on a Polish king is not surprising, of course, but it doesn't indicate bias. Incidentally we're only talking about four editors here and one of them, Polish to the bone, happened to agree with you. Haukur 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

One of them obviously realised that this is English Wikipedia then! It isn't up to you to give out brownie points. Clout in requested moves isn't something you can just give out. Charles 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have very strong opinions on this but please understand that people can disagree with you in good faith and still realize that this is the English Wikipedia. Haukur 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So what Haukur is saying is that experts can't contribute to a vote if they haven't actually edited a page (even if they have edited hundreds of similar pages, just not that one), and that they have less right to participate than those who did edits, even where where those edits were contrary to naming conventions and the manual of style. I don't doubt that Haukur was well motivated in his actions, but he completely got it wrong. He judged that outside experts should be excluded, and a small number of editors who tried to give preference to their language usage over Wikipedia's in naming, should get priority. And experts who worked on the naming conventions and the manual of style cannot be told there is an issue to do with the application of the naming conventions and manual of style being discussed, even though those experts have years of edit histories of being impartial and of never voting en bloc for anything. Bizarre. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)}

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, as anyone can see. Look, I was working on the backlog on

WP:RM and I came to this page. I haven't been involved in this apparently all-important life-or-death issue of the names of Polish monarchs before and I think I'm as neutral a closing admin as they come. I did my best to close the vote in a fair way. You then immediately overrode my decision and moved the page anyway, even though you had voted in the poll yourself. Now the people who agree with you are "experts" and the people who had previously worked on the article sneakily want to "give preference to their language usage over Wikipedia's". Could you try to see this in less stark terms? Haukur

22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Less stark? Why do we need a prismatic rainbow of arbitrary numbers and niceties, that you admit would have swayed either way, in lieu of the standard? Obviously, there is a preference for the Polish form of the name among Polish editors. But they were fairly outvoted. Charles 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is stark. The people approached are the people involved in drafting the relevant manual of style and the relevant naming conventions for up to four years. I have done over 2000 edits on royalty related topics on Wikipedia. John Kenney probably as many. Charles has spent months since he joined working on the topic. So have others. The people approached were approached (BTW by someone few of us had even heard of) simply because, as the guys who had written thousands of articles on related topics, we might be able to offer a non-Polish insight into how the naming conventions and Manual of style work, and what, going by their guidelines, should have been the correct format for the name of the page. Many of the Polish contributors are new to Wikipedia and don't understand the MoS and NC and how both are used in shaping naming and content, and thought that WP must use a form of names used by Polish people. Wikipedia policy is on this Wikipedia to use the form used by English speaker (that does not mean English, if English speakers also use native language versions). The experts asked to contribute are all independent-minded and often disagree. Inviting their contributions did not in any way mean that their votes on either side of the argument could be taken for granted. On some Polish pages, all agreed. On many others, we all agreed. If anyone is looking for guaranteed block votes then they are wasting their time coming to me, to John Kenney, to Charles, to Deb or to others. We each make our own decisions on each case. We each made our own decision there.

BTW I moved it as per the consensus and did so explicitly, only because a wrong interpretation had been made. I would have done exactly the same if I had voted the other way. Once I vote the issue is closed with me. The only issue I care about is that the decision, whatever decision, is implemented, and I have on the past implemented decisions I disagreed about when a vote was clearcut and a week after the end of the vote no other admin had gotten round to doing the move. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)}

Again, what is the standard method for closing a WP:RM vote? Haukur 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My own concern about the Polish issue, is that there's obviously an organized voting block via the

Polish Noticeboard. I have noticed that as a matter of course, when a Polish-related issue comes up, one of their number spots the issue, posts about it on the noticeboard [41]

, and then there is usually a rapid influx of Polish-speakers to a particular poll, usually (though not always) voting as a block, with an emphasis on changing article titles from English spelling to Polish spelling. Which is fine, as long as other non-Polish speakers are also allowed to advertise a poll as a balance. Yet in this particular case, when an opposing editor, Marrtel, advertised the vote to other interested editors, it seems to have been regarded as a kind of vote-stacking.

As long as both "voting block" techniques are treated fairly, I have no problem with it, but when one voting block is considered okay, and the other side is regarded as inappropriate, it does give the appearance of a double-standard creeping in, as it clearly gives an advantage to whichever side is allowed to trigger a group of voters sympathetic to their cause. --Elonka 22:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Noticeboards may in some cases be problematic but I don't see any obvious problem in this case. It's a noticeboard on Poland-related issues which anyone interested in those issues, be she Polish or not, can watch. Asking editors interested in Polish issues to vote on a Polish issue should usually be okay. Selectively soliciting votes from individual editors may be problematic and I think it was in this case. Haukur 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no selective soliciting votes from Martel. There was however, clear evidence on this and numerous other pages of block voting by Polish users to ignore the manual of style and naming conventions and turn references used internationally to Polish language variants used nowhere but Poland. It has been happening all over Polish articles, with topics that they never edited before suddenly being besieged by Polish editors, and rules everyone else follows being swept aside by their block voting. It is hard to read your contribution above and not see a bias in it. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)}

Your theory of "experts being contacted" just doesn't hold up. User:Marrtel obviously just contacted editors he thought would agree with him and 13 to 1 they did. User:Orionus is the best example, his third edit to Wikipedia was to vote in a way Marrtel approved of on one Polish monarch. Then Marrtel solicited him to vote on three more, which he did. User:Orionus was a newbie with a day's old account, not an expert with thousands of relevant edits.

The English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all English speakers, not just native speakers of English. Polish readers and editors are as welcome as any. If there are articles which have a large number of Polish editors then they probably also have a large number of Polish readers so it's good that Polish preferences are well represented there. One of the things I personally like best about Wikipedia is that often I get to read articles on local issues written by the locals themselves, rather than filtered and dumbed down through the international media. Haukur 22:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP's rules are clear. Articles on English WP use language and naming that reflect usage by English language speakers. They call the Irish prime minister Taoiseach because that word, though Gaelic, is used by English speakers as the office's title. But they don't call the Irish president Uachtarán because that word is only used by Gaelic speakers. That is the same with all WP articles. That a cabal of Polish users are trying to do is force exclusively Polish usage, not used by English users, onto Polish articles. That is not allowed under WP rules. You should be concerned about the highjacking of articles by a linguistic cabal, rather than about the fact that other users vote to uphold Wikipedia rules by voting to put the name of a Polish king at the name that he belongs under according to the manual of style and wikipedia naming conventions. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)}

1. Voting is evil.
2. Wikipedia is not a democracy.
3. No vote is going to get the manual of style changed in a particular language's instance. The Manual of Style is clear in that the English versions of names will be used, no matter what a vocal minority of Polish speakers desires. 02:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Few notes. One - I am an involved party and have voted in that RM, and I am a Polish editor. Two - I feel that a user who is involved in the vote should not 'override' the vote analysis by a clearly neutral RM specialist. Three: I find the accusations of 'Polish cabal' highly offensive, and I hope some neutral editors will reprimand those using such arguments and remind them of

08:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The more people talk about "voting" the worse things will get. Matters of fact cannot be decided by votes. Matters of following style guides do not get decided by votes. NOTHING at wikipedia gets decided by a vote. Wikipedia works by building

Samuel Wantman

09:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A few minor points. To accuse somebody of biased editing because of nationality is very dangerous. I could use the same accusation in regards Russian, German, French, English voters of being unfriendly to Polish articles because of historic reasons, which would be damaging to Wikipedia and quite absurd since nationality doesn't determine views or opinions. Second as to claim that My own concern about the Polish issue, is that there's obviously an organized voting block via the Polish Noticeboard. Well it is a normal thing for a board to exist that focuses on topics of interest common to certain editors.For example there is similar Russian related noticeboard where frequent calls for attention to certain articles are made, and similiaryd then there is usually a rapid influx of Russian-speakers. Are such procedures against Wiki rules ? --Molobo 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I don't like seeing unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry flying around; they generate ill-will and can lead to witch-hunts. Therefore, I've investigated the claims that there was socking going on during the discussion. The following accounts are controlled by the same user:

• Logologist (talk · contribs)
• KonradWallenrod (talk · contribs)
• Mattergy (talk · contribs)
• Anatopism (talk · contribs)

Needless to say, that means roughly half the users opposed to the move were one user with socks. Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I somehow missed KonradWallenrod but looking at it now I see it's just as obvious a case as the rest. I was going to ask for checkuser confirmation if the user denied the allegation but I felt that it was unnecessarily agressive to do it preemptively. But I suppose it's good that it's over and done with - thanks for taking the time. Haukur 14:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but what are the consequences for the Sock-puppeteer? None, it seems, apart that his socks are blocked?--Matthead 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, a stiff warning not to do it again. A block at this time would be punitive, and we don't do that. Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Haukur 15:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be very much suprised if Logologist would happen to be a 'sockmaster'. The other three users are relatively new and I have had almost no interaction with the latter two, but I consider Logologist a good and respectable user. Therefore I would like to ask for 'checkuser' to be preformed - I expect this should clear his name, and if not, we will have some real evidence, not just idle speculations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A checkuser has been performed. This was the result. Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Haukur and Mackensen, I would like to offer my heartfelt appreciation for this data. The related events over the last several months have been genuinely perplexing for me, but now that it's revealed that there was a quadruple sockpuppet involved, things make much more sense. It's my hope that we'll be able to use this data to finally untangle many of the resulting messes that occurred, and start the process of rebuilding trust among all the Wikipedia editors involved, now that it's clear who's "real", and who was just a sockpuppet. Thank you. --Elonka 18:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the checkuser. It is a sad day to see that such users scoop so law. I always thought of Logologist as a good and neutral contributor, it's a shame to see how mistaken I was. Given that I fully support revision of all past RMs and other votings and striking the votes of all sockpuppets, I am sure Elonka will be more then happy to indicate where we need to revise the votes. I also hope that the actions of one rogue user will not be overgeneralized to a largec community, we have had enough uncivility with the entire Polish cabal accusations recently (on a sidenote, please note that neither logologist nor his sockpuppets were significantly active in the Polish noticeboard).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say I'm shocked. //Halibutt 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the info and the link to this thread on the votes where KonradWallenrod, Mattergy, and Anatopism participated. Which is pretty much most of their talk page comments -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the user as a possible malicious vandal, who may have deliberately inserted false information into Collapse of the World Trade Center. Refer to User talk:EngineerEd. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the evidence supports that

strawman of TruthSeeker1234 (talk · contribs), who is has also used Truth Seeker2 (talk · contribs) and Truthseeker2 (talk · contribs) accounts it appears.--MONGO

03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Threats?

Someone should probably look at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Death_threats_are_fun.21.

This diff's edit summary (I'm going to stab you and I know what you look like because of a picture on your user page...) is above and beyond

WP:NPA. I've blocked User:I.M._Rich indefinitely for this diff, continued threats: [42] and ongoing trolling on Wikipedia:Help_desk#Death_threats_are_fun.21. Further edit summaries that are inflammatory: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. No warnings were given prior to the indef block. I submit it here for review -- Samir धर्म

02:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure he earned an indef, but some time off certainly is deserved... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think a perma-ban is the solution either. I just want to know what has gotten into him? Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It now seems that he wants to work something out. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a temporary solution. I think. Is there some way to reduce/redact the ban? Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Just institute a shorter block. For something like that, a day or two might be enough to send the message the first time. After all, when the creature snapped, he was going to run amock until he'd punched himself out, as they say on The Simpsons. I'm not sure how valuable the editor's going to be, but let's hope for the best. Geogre 03:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that he was just coming back from a 24-hour block, and it didn't seem to have the desired calming effect. His first edit was to insult and implicitly threaten Pacific COast Highway ([48]), and he followed up with an attack on me (I placed the first 24-hour block): [49].

I gather that the guy has some good contributions behind him, and PCH seems to be taking this mostly in stride. Nevertheless, his behaviour is quite disruptive. Until he can work out how to control himself or manages to sort out whatever personal problems he's having, he's going to find himself blocked. I'm trimming the block down to 48 hours since he's expressed remorse and an interest in contributing positively again: [50]. He'll find himself back on involuntary wikibreak if he keeps acting out like this, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. Thanks for addressing -- Samir धर्म 06:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I got in on this whole thing a little late, but I'd just like to stick myself in in favor of I.M. Rich. I don't think his death threats are plausable, and he certainly has a large quantity of valuable contributions to

WP:NYCS. An indefinite block would be entirely unreasonable and a certain detriment to the quality of NYC related articles. Coincidentally, when I first confronted him about the threats (I think I was the first), he responded reasonably (see the top of his talk page). --Alphachimp ^talk

06:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't find his comments amusing in the least, and his actions on his talk page are far from reasonable. Saying you will stab someone (and that it is feasible as you know what he looks like) is a serious matter. Not a joking matter at all, even if you don't think he's serious -- Samir धर्म 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Scribe85 has been blanking pages [51] [52], removing content [53], adding pointless lines [54]. And has been removing warnings from his/her talk page [55] [56] [57]. Many of these have been marked as being "minor" edits as well. On the other hand, there have been a lot of useful edits. I can't be bothered deal with it anymore. Up to you to decide what to do. --Midnighttonight 02:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Even after his arbitration case closed, PoolGuy has continued to push for the unblock/unprotection of his sock GoldToeMarionette, even requesting this on WP:RFP multiple times this week, after multiple rejections. Isn't that disruption? 03:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding

) .

Talk:White (people)

A user brought this page to my attention, but I'm way out of my depth in knowing how to handle what appears to be a bit of a POV war/revert war going on in the talk, and in the article itself. Take a look at the recent history:[58] and in particular this series of diffs (about 20 edits or so) [59] Frankly, call me chicken, as I'm not sure I'd want to wade into this article, but I did want to post about it here (or point me elsewhere) so it's not overlooked. ++Lar: t/c 05:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where to put this (so apologies if i'm posting in the wrong place). But i'm just alerting fellow wikipedians that whenever i try to search 'myspace,' it eventually leads me to the Homosexuality page as of today (June 23rd).

I do not have the sources (or idea) to know how to fix up this vandalism, so i'm asking for assistance. Thanks (: --Umbrellaparty 05:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to a redirect to

MySpace. Am I missing something? I don't understand this edit [60]. He doesn't seem to be a vandal. Antandrus (talk)

05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm not relatively sure either. I just thought, if someone changed the redirect of the original page it would be considered as vandalism, wouldn't it? ie. Myspace > Homosexuality, equals Myspace is gay. Thanks for the help, by the way. --Umbrellaparty 06:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like textbook vandalism to me. I've asked Fractions about it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like work for

13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack as such, it was just rudeness. I was midreplying to it when I got edit conflicted, darn you Netscott :@

type

13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also left a message for the user, and I disagree that "sad little man," "sad delusional little ego trip", and "pussy" aren't a "personal attack as such". Thank you for staying so cool, Abu badali! Bishonen | talk 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC).

Sorry there Proto...thanks to you and Bishonen this case has been thoroughly handled. I've posted an

WP:PAIN is for. This page loads up quick enough without additional misdirected postings. :-) Netscott

15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the user's reaction to two civil warning messages have now gotten him blocked by three people (the third was me, de-activating the shorter of the blocks). He really needs a cooling-off period. Bishonen | talk 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC).

Recentely several Polish editors are being more and more attacked by other users as belonging to "Polish Cabal" and votes are being threatened to be judged differently then others because a voters is a Pole. What are procedures to stop this ethnicly based attacks and incivility. Where should I post the complaint and ask for help in regards to this issue, which board is suitable for addressing this problem ? --Molobo 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I suspect this is less a case of ethnic prejudice than the backfiring of a prolongued and paranoid trolling campaign on your part.

dab (ᛏ)

16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you believe I am Piotrus, Appleseed and Halibutt sockpuppet request checkuser procedure. I would ask you to apologise for this offensive remark against me. --Molobo 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In place of an apology, let me point out that the procedures to address "ethnicly based attacks" are

dab (ᛏ)

17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that was what I was asking for.

--Molobo 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Polish Cabal"? That one's not half as bad as "Serbian mafia" which is regularly used around here. I hope I don't need to remind you that on Eastern European related articles people do vote along ethnic lines (I can dig for diffs if you feel its necessary), and I hardly think "Polish Cabal" qualifies as a personal attack (people who use "Serbian mafia" certainly get away with it). --Tēlex 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That is very distastefull Telex, I think something must be done against the incivility issue on Wiki.It is very counterproductive. --Molobo 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• When people show great solidarity based on race, it raises questions about whether their contributions to discussions/"votes" are actually based on judgement on policy, rather than ethnic/national pride. Wikipedia has a lot of room for the former, but the latter has no place here. To a certain degree, reminding people that Wikipedia is not a democracy helps to avoid these distortions, but to the degree that people and processes approximate democracy, it's a problem, no matter the specific races involved. --Improv 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is currently an informal "mediation cabal" discussion on this subject, started by the Polish admin, Piotrus, that is going on at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader. Interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

what Improv said. I am disgusted by people who use their nationality instead of their brain, as too often evidenced by votes along ethnicity-lines. Polish editors who do that may be justly called "Polish cabal", just as I would not hesitate to call Swiss editors who do the same a "Swiss cabal". In any case, this is not a topic for AN/I.

dab (ᛏ)

18:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The following is moved from

for review by a wider audience:

• Betathetapi545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Abuse includes but is not limited to subtle but repeated and willful forms of:
  • malfeasance[61][62][63][64][65] or otherwise slander notable Jews[66]
    or point out "banking" as a particularly Jewish profession)
  • editorializing[67][68][69][70][71][72][73]
  • repeatedly posting barely relevant facts to slander things even remotely related to Enron (like linking the Beta Theta Pi fraternity to the Enron scandal[74] or pointing out the homosexuality of a BTP member[75] or distorting alumni listings[76][77]).
  • Repeatedly un-reverting reverts of his vandalism while leaving intentionally confusing edit summaries. Several examples are here and here.
  • Disparaging edit summaries[78].
  • Vandalizing user pages[79].
  • Original research[80].

Note that this guy has many, many more abuses than what I cited above. Please see his user contributions, which are linked from my user page.

This guy has also edited with several anon IPs, all of which are also documented on my user page, and the anon IPs are within a limited IP range of a UK ISP (80.41.*.*). Note that the references above include edits made with these anon IPs.

Three Wikipedia users are on patrol to revert his non-credible edits, which are almost 100% of his edits. Nova SS 04:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Novasource (the userpage) contains release of personal infomation, I removed the 'worst' of it into the history, but quite possibly more has to go (and deleted), but this could do with someone(s) with more experience to deal with.

While mentioning

20:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: To be on the safe side I've deleted the personal information from

Petros471

20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to express my interest in becoming a full time Wikipidia administrator! Do I have to downnload special software? Get an updated browser? Please administrate yourself and bestow an answer.JOe 123...4 20:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't need special software. What you do need is to pass an

Wikipedia:RFA. Typically, only trusted, known users with >>1000 contributions make it. Stay around for a while and contribute, then try it. --Stephan Schulz

20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

See

Petros471

21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* AN:I troll... --InShaneee 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalising

21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of power?

(Moved from Collapse of the World Trade Center) As a consequence of this [82] edit

where he says that "my POV pushing days are numbered" and conclude the discussion threating to block me for a week if I will ever dare to revert him again. Now let's fix some points:

1. User:MONGO was not an "independent observer": he was taking part to a content dispute on the opportunity of describing the "controlled demolition theorists" as "conspiracists";
2. the dispute involved several people in both the parties as you can see looking at [83] and keeping pressing "newer edit";
3. User: MONGO was supporting a change to the old version of the article while I was supporting the old version;
4. In the block policy you can read the following paragraph:

Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

So I think it's clear that User: MONGO did violate the block policy realizing an abuse of power. I ask you: what can I do to defend myself from this kind of abuses? Is there an authority that can prevent User: MONGO from behaving in this way? --Pokipsy76 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding below; "Nonsense pov" is a personal attack, an ad hominem, and a mischaracterization. Obviously MONGO can't tell the difference between fact and reality, and between propaganda argument

and cogent argument; Thus Mongo ought to get demoted from admin Status, at least until he picks up and reads a good logic textbook. Prometheuspan 02:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing your nonsense POV and you won't have to worry about it. Stop reverting other editors for no reason and you won't be blocked. Two other admins came to your talk page and both left you blocked, so I suppose the concensus to keep you blocked should have been obvious.--MONGO 08:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that User:Tom harrison could be considered to be an independent observer? However: I asked for an authority to defend myself from your threats and from what I believe to be clear violations of the block policy, can you answer about this please?--Pokipsy76 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, Mr. Harrison did, User:Pschemp did, [84] and when you wouldn't stop posting the unblock, she even protected your talk page...[85]. This commentary doesn't belong here anyway as it has nothing to do with this article.--MONGO 09:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Why do you keep saying the same things ignoring my questions?
2. Are you suggesting that if the block policy disagree with User:Pschemp and User:Tom harrison then it is the block policy to be wrong?
3. This commentary belongs here because it speaks about a content dispute related to this article. Probably other editors would be interested to know that taking part to a content dispute against User: MONGO's POV may result in a block, wouldn't they?
4. I would be grateful if you suggest a better place to discuss about abuses of powers by the admins?

--Pokipsy76 09:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an

request for comment. Tom Harrison ^Talk

14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear-cut to me. Administrators are not permitted to use their access to advantage themselves in a content dispute, for instance by blocking the person with whom they are disputing. The block is an unauthorized use of administrator access. --FOo 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But what can I do to defend myself and other users from these abuses?

Well, you can go to

WP:CIVIL, but on this very page you will see an administrator label my comments as "assholery." A term which in the language has no purpose, AFAIK, other than incivility. Result, no action by anybody. So, good luck. Steve

18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's like this: as soon as an admin steps in to control an edit war, they are asserted by the POV pushers to be "involved in a content dispute". If we accept that at face value, we soon run out of admins with any understanding of the issue. The loudest protests are usually fomr the most tendentious editors. Simply policing

WP:NPOV is not necessarily involvement. I don't know what went on here, but there is little doubt that the people asserting the "controlled demolition" theory are conspiracy theorists and not "independent researchers". Just zis Guy you know?

21:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What evidence have you that this is the case? In the present case, we don't simply have an administrator wandering by and dealing with vandalism, then getting accused of conflict of interest. The admin in question seems to have been involved in the conflict well prior. In such a case, the accepted and respectable thing to do is to request that an uninvolved administrator investigate and take action. Nobody is claiming that a block can't result if one is appropriate. But in cases of apparent conflict of interest, admins are supposed to seek review -- not to use admin access while in conflict. --FOo 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How to identify a conspiracy theory in five easy stages:

1. It goes against the orthodox view and proposes some sinister motive
2. It is denied by all those involved; this denial is asserted as evidence supporting the theory
3. There is no credible evidence to support it; this lack of evidence is asserted as a cover-up and thus evidence to support the theory
4. An alternative, more prosaic explanation is available and generally accepted
5. Proponents reverse the burden of proof, requiring that the theory be disproved rather than proving it themselves.

I'm guessing that the "explosives" were detonated from a grassy knoll... The same five tests appear to apply to MONGO's actions as well. Just zis Guy you know? 07:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your (not so funny) joke on conspiracy theories shows clearly the *a priori* bias of your point of view on this case.--Pokipsy76 07:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories also violate Occam's razor immediately, as they call for multiplying causes beyond the necessary. Geogre 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The best advice I can offer is to be very calm and measured. Ask, on WP:AN (not here), for other administrators to review the situation. "Administrators" disagree with each other often enough, and there shouldn't be any special divine right to the position. You can also ask (not demand, not threaten, not accuse) MONGO to get another administrator to look in. I doubt he'd had any reluctance in doing so. However, when you come in suggesting that it's Us and Them, that the persecuted truth is being hunted to extinction by the evil cabal, etc., it's fairly offputting. Most administrators are administrators because they've been pretty carefully watched and assessed before getting the position, so there is some inherent trust there and a slightly larger benefit of the doubt, but the community is pretty quick to reverse inappropriate administrative actions. Geogre 03:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• No actually, MONGO pretty much blocks on sight when anyone questions him, come to think of it, he does the same thing when people agree with him--64.12.116.65 03:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you ask him to seek an outside point of view in this case? Again, step away from calling names. Geogre 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Then file arbitration if you can prove that slander.--MONGO 04:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make legal threats such as accusing a fellow editor of a crime. --FOo

05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First, it's not a legal threat. Second, you appear to be applying a double standard: you feel free to insult MONGO and accuse him of abuse of power but you are unwilling for him to defend himself. Just zis Guy you know? 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(following Geogre's comment) I'd also like to encourage any adminstrator whom has a claim raised against them to be "calm and measured." I know it's irritating to be villified. But when we snap back it makes it hard to sort out the "I'm cranky because this is silly" from the "I'm cranky because I got caught out." I've yet to see an accusation that could not have been well responded to with civility and tact. I might also hope that when staging a defence, the use of actual evidence be encouraged? - brenneman ^{L} 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pokipsy76 here. MONGO, you were (and are) out of line. Calling them 'conspiracists' seems clearly derogatory and thus not 'NPOV'... which makes Pokipsy's effort to change it to 'some' or 'some independant researchers' look not unreasonable to me (despite agreeing the claims seem unlikely / far-fetched). However, let's assume for the moment that isn't the case... 'conspiracists' was a perfectly neutral, reasonable, and encyclopedic term to use and no other would do. You'd still be completely out of line. This was a content dispute between the two of you... pure and simple. Blocking someone for disagreeing with your version of what an article should say is an inexcusable violation of adminship... it shouldn't be done ever. He wasn't "trolling" as you said in the block summary or being disruptive, indeed you seem to have acted considerably more incivilly. You called it "trolling" in the block summary, but elsewhere you said it was for 'reverting you'... you can't block for that. Ever. And you certainly shouldn't be nasty and dismissive about it. Protecting someone's talk page to prevent them from requesting unblock (I realize that wasn't you) also strikes me as extremely 'not kosher'. If the request is groundless the next admin will see that... just put in comments on why you think the block is sound. --CBD 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The POV pushers that try to add nonsense to the articles related to the 9/11 events have been told repeatedly that the vast majority of their "contributions" to those article violated numerous policies. This doesn't seem to stop them. This editor I blocked routinely reverts those that support the concensus verison and yes, conspiracy theorists is what they are...they are not researchers. Simply put, and I won't apologize for this not being more civil, I will continue to block POV pushers that disrupt the discussion pages and the articles with nonsense. Two other admins responded to the unblock request and did not unblock this editor. I then moved the early parts of this conversation from an article talk page to here for all to see. It is ludicrus to assume that I was doing anything other than to ensure that the POV pushers of nonsense know that there is a limit to the level of disruption that needs to be tolerated.--MONGO 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a majority of people (including myself) agree with a characterization does not make it 'neutral point of view'. Isn't that obvious? Or should we rewrite the 'Hitler' article to say that he was a 'vile murderous bastard' because most people agree with that? That the people who argue for controlled demolition are 'conspiracy theorists' (or "conspiracists" as in the article) may well be the common view... but it ISN'T "neutral" or 'encyclopedic'. It's a deliberately derogatory presentation which should be changed to something more neutral. You say above that he has repeatedly been told that his edits "violated numerous policies". What policy did he violate by changing 'Some conspiracists say...' to 'Some say...' and/or 'Some independant researchers say...'? Edit warring? Weren't you doing that too? A policy which definitely was violated is the restriction against admins blocking those with whom they are in a content dispute. Indeed, you went so far as to say, "He's going to post an unblock request and I have told him that if he reverts me one more time, the next block will be for a week." What is that? 'If you dare to revert me I will block you for a week'? You think admins are supposed to act that way? I understand that you may be frustrated and annoyed, but that's a reason to take several steps back... not charge forward. If dealing with the craziness is starting to get to you go work on some other topic. I haven't touched political articles in months for just that reason. You say several admins approved this... well shame on them. IMO that's worse than doing it in the first place. I'm telling you that you 'crossed the line' not to get in your face, but to let you know that I think you need to get away from this for a while and reconsider your position. In my view those saying (effectively), 'yeah, admins should block people who revert their edits... we decide what is good enough for inclusion' are doing more harm to you (and Wikipedia) than my criticisms. --CBD 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that it is you that is being hotheaded. I am very familiar with this editor and I posted plenty below that clearly demostrates that he/she has edit warred over this phrasing, even though numerous other ediotrs have clearly reverted him. It is not a content dispute if he has no concensus for removing the terms conspiracy and theory. I think you should reconsider your position and recognize that two other admins saw the block for what it was...a block for vandalism.--MONGO 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon. Which of us has been saying "nonsense", "trolling", "vandalism", et cetera? What do I even have to be "hotheaded" about here? I'm trying to stop a train wreck, but it really has nothing to do with me. As to this having been "a block for vandalism". You called it a block for "trolling" in the block summary... and a block for "reverting" on Tom Harrison's edit page. Now it's vandalism? This is vandalism? Look at it. There is no way that, or any of the other links you gave in response to Geogre below, is anywhere even close to 'vandalism' as defined under Wikipedia policy. None. Please stop this. I may be alone in questioning your block, but several people have urged you to calm down / use less inflammatory wording. This wasn't vandalism. --CBD 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to step in with CBDunkerson on one point: even if the edits provoked a strong emotional reaction, they were clearly not vandalism, and the creeping use of that term is worrying. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

actually, "conspiracy theorist" is a republican talking point. By naming it as such, the fact is that that way of naming it is itself a patent invalidation. In other words "its just nonsense, because its a conspiracy THEORY." Which does violate npov policy. That this isn't simple and apparent to all concerned is rediculous, again pointing to the need for conversational logic to be a required feild of study for all admins. The whole point of calling it a "conspiracy theory" is to characterize it as a tin foil hat propaganda. The evidence regarding the 911 problems is overwhelmingly for the fact that the buildings were demolished with thermate. There is an entire panel of first rate scientists who are looking into the matter, and they are indeed independant researchers. Finding out the truth about what happened on 911 is a depth research game, and thus, those who are promoting the 911 truth movement are by definition researchers, not conspiracy theorists. That i would randomly run into this, and have to explain something as simple and as basic as predjudical charecterization to a batch of (supposely long time and thus wise in the ways of the wikipedia) admins and editors should be humiliatingly emberassing. Prometheuspan 01:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Was this a 3RR? Could you have just rolled them back? My point is that the block, when you're involved, gives them fuel. I don't want to advocate a revert war, of course. (And I was up on 89th E. when the towers went down. Conspiracy theorists about the tower attacks are not only inventing where plain evidence is abundant, they're also highly offensive to those of us who knew people who died.) If they're horking you off (and they are, it seems), at least hand off the blocking phase. Geogre 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it was, in my opinion, vandalism. A great many of the editors that contest terms such as conspiracy theorists may feel insulted by the wording, but they have no concensus, after many, many kb's exhausted on the discussion pages, for removing the terminology used. It was not a content dispute and Pokipsy76 seems to do some drive-by reverts.[86], removed information and templated references, again, as the last link, then spent several days arguing without concensus to alter the subheading in the same article [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]. You'll notice that he has reverted numerous other editors about this same phrasing, and done so without concensus.--MONGO 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats classic. They demand to change the name to a new predjudicial one? And this stuff actually stands the light of day for

more than 3 seconds? Wheres the logician in this house? "may find it insulting?" DUH? Its a patent invalidation for a title. "no consensus" Gee, i wasn't aware that NEW consenus was needed to implement OLD policy. Prometheuspan 02:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan

1.The original version of the article had the paragraph named "controlled demolition theories", then you and others tried repeatedly to change to "conspiracy theories", I was not the only one to oppose to this change that means that you didn't have the consensus, or if you prefer you and others "spent several days arguing without concensus to alter the subheading". Are you suggesting that you can do this while I and the other "conspiracists" can't? On what grounds? Because we are "POV pushers of nonsenses"?

2.I have been reverting just a) in cases when it was clear that there was no consensus because someone else already did a revert before or b) in cases when I did disagree with a revert of other people, so in all the cases the people that have been reverted by me didn't have the consesus.

3.There was a content (the way to call the "controlled demolition theorists") that was disputed (someone wanted to have this content in a way some other ones in another way, and me and you were between these groups), so we were involved in a content dispute.

--Pokipsy76 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute between the Mongo and Pokipsky. This is persistent tendentious editing by a few conspiracy theorists who are determined to add their speculation to every page related to 9/11, with links to videos and books. The consensus is against him, and Pokipsky's actions have long since become disruptive. Mongo's block was neccessary and appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You and MONGO were trying to add text, I and the other "conspiracists" were just trying to keep the old version. By the way what you describe is just an example of content dispute.--Pokipsy76 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

calling these people conspiracy theorists IS an INVALIDATION and a PREDJUDICIAL CHARACTERIZATION. Its also an Ad hominem, and, amusingly enough, also A straw man. Also, this is no longer in the realm of speculation. Science and fact have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that thermate explosives were present, and that the buildings were destroyed via demolitions. All you are doing is attacking these editors personally, not adressing the facts of the content. Where republicans can't win on logic, they engadge in demonization. Well, clap clap clap, its a great show. Mongo blocked somebody for changing a pov loaded predjudicial wording to an npov wording. So whos the pov pusher? Prometheuspan 02:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongo might have been advised to get someone else to actually implement the block. The Conspiracy Theorists who are edit-warring over the insertion of small-minorty POV in all articles related to that small-minority POV, however, are not editing the encyclopedia to make it more informative, but rather to win a debate about how there is a grand conspiracy to do something. As such, Mongo is right, thought I feel he would be righter if he just asked someone else to block them indefinently for exausting the communities patience. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Block for what? MONGO has claimed this to be "trolling" and "vandalism". To me it looks like an attempt to insert NPOV wording. We don't block for that. At least... we aren't supposed to. 'They are wrong, so we get to use insulting and derogatory terms to describe them' also falls a little short of 'neutral' and 'encyclopedic' in my book. --CBD 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Opinion observed and no changes will be implemented by me. I continue to defend the known facts from POV pushing trolls as long as I have time. Your continued attempts to twist this into a content dispute and to misunderstand what the conspiracy theorists are up to, indicates to me that you should really get busy reading our policies. These are sensitive articles, and the tolerance threshold for nonsense pushing is naturally lower...just as our tolerance for the same is lower on our biographies.--MONGO 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. --CBD 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1.Yes MONGO may have been advised someone else (maybe CBD?) but he didn't and he did the block, sorry.

2.On what grounds can you speak about a "small minority POV", did you know about this: [95]?

3.I don't know any policy about blocking for supporting "small minority POVs" (assuming that I was supporting those) instead I know a policy about NPOV and about blocks, who violated those?

4.The accusation of "not editing the encyclopedia to make it more informative, but rather to win a debate" is not consistent with

WP:AGF

and can be redirected to people who try to push in the artcile the "official version is right" POV.

5.If the people supporting two POV are numerically the same it makes no sense to block half of the editors for "exausting the patience" of the other half, unless you find a policy to support one of the parrties.--Pokipsy76 07:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We block whackos trying to ruin our encyclopedia? What a novel concept! *chokes* --mboverload@ 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes!! This is the true spirit of our democratic encyclopedia!!--Pokipsy76 07:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

These guys have been trying to insert this...material...into 911 articles over and over against consensus, a consensus that has been uniform since the day it became an issue. They are tireless in their attempts to insert unfounded, non-notable and obvouisly POV assertions into our 911 articles, and the articles would be a mockery if there wasn't pushback.

14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mboverload and Rx StrangeLove, you are seemingly talking about something else entirely since your comments bear no resemblance whatsoever to the topic at hand. Again, this is the type of 'heinous' edit which you are

making personal attacks over. For the record, "Some conpiracy theorists disagree..." is POV while, "Some diagree..." is NPOV. It may be satisfying to use derogatory terms to describe these people. It may be widely agreed. It may even be true. But it isn't neutral point of view. Any more than saying, 'Hitler was a vile murdering bastard' is 'neutral' just because it is widely agreed. The fact that some group is unpopular is not an excuse to toss our civility, personal attacks, NPOV, and consensus editing policies out the window. That these obvious truths have escaped so many here is a travesty for Wikipedia. --CBD

16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're so wrong about what is going on with these articles, it's laughable. Just yesterday, one of the more prolific conspiracy theorists was identified as using a strawman sockpuppet, just to make his preposterous nonsense seem more credible. The websites that some of these people have been affliated with or simply read, have issued a call to arms from time to time and called for like minded people to go and edit wikipedia to push their POV. You claim that those that support the known factual evidence are not following concensus? Ridiculous. So terrorists becomes freedom fighter? So conspiracy theorist becomes independent researcher? It is also preposterous to say that by using the term conspiracy theorists that it is somehow the same as editing that "Hitler was a vile murdering bastard". I simply cannot disagree with this more. If you find the wording so problematic, then go over to those articles and edit till your heart is content...you'll probably get reverted, but the only possible explanation would be because people like me are POV pushers of nonsense, right? Good day.--MONGO 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a pretty fair estimation. You are the one promoting a pov laden predjudicial characterization; whilst telling everybody else thats what the other people are guilty of. Ever heard of projection? Prometheuspan 02:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you were done talking to me. In any case, your citation of what other people did, and distortions of my position, make a less than convincing argument for why you get to block anyone who dares to revert your edits. --CBD 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, I know exactly what I'm talking about, thanks. I think you may be the one that has an incomplete picture of what's been going on. And while we're on that topic, please read the first 2 sentences in your note above and tell me where I've been uncivil or have been making personal attacks. It's that kind of totally baseless comment that leads me to believe that you have a very incomplete understanding of what's been going on. This is this issues 3rd (at least) appearance at either AN or AN/I and these accusations have gained very little traction.

Rx StrangeLove

19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep talking about "these guys" and what 'they' have done... not this guy and what actually happened here. To me that reads like, 'they are wrong so any abuse directed at them is ok'. Tell me why it was ok to block Pokipsy76 for that edit... or how your comments are an accurate description of what >he< actually did. How does removing the words "conspiracy theorists" amount to an attempt "to insert unfounded, non-notable and obvouisly POV assertions"? --CBD 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with RX above - from my investigation, this is the type of heinous edit which they are

blocking people who are not here to edit an encyclopedia over. Hipocrite - «Talk»

20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That edit was not made by the person who was blocked. The edit I linked to above was specifically linked by MONGO (the blocker) as an example of why Pokipsy76 was blocked. That edit and others like it were not blockable offenses. Indeed, they look to me like NPOV improvements, but at worst were a minor content dispute between Pokipsy76 and the person who blocked him. Are you arguing that Pokipsy76 should be blocked for things done by another user? --CBD 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I provided links above that demostrated the MO of this editor that I blocked...he had been trying to edit war and disrupt the article, against the concensus of editors that reverted his changes...he was even reverting NPOV edits I made in which I had added correctly cited material, in format with the style in the article, which I had worked on to try and improve the article. You completely misunderstand the MO of editors such as this. If you don't know what you are talking about, then you only make yourself look foolish. You argue that the block was wrong...then file an Rfc on it! I strongly recommend you do so.--MONGO 23:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1.If I was edir warring you were doing exactly the same.

2.On what grounds can I be accused of trying to disrupt the article?

3.If I acted against the consensus of the pople that reverted me that also you and the reverting people were acting against the consensus of me and the oteìher peolpe that reverted you.

4.When you say this: "he was even reverting NPOV edits I made in which I had added correctly cited material, in format with the style in the article, which I had worked on to try and improve the article" I don't know what you are referring to or what is the relation to the case under discussion.

5. What do you mean by "editor such this"? Do you mean aditor that revert without explanation[96]? Or do you mean editors that push POV [97]?

--Pokipsy76 08:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As incouraged by mongo I filed an RfC[98] on this case, please certify the basis for this dispute here--Pokipsy76 11:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd generally not go with RfC (which all too often has a 'punitive' focus) over one problem incident, but since the process is already underway I will comment there. --CBD 13:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Proposal: Since this has now strayed well past any call to action I propose it be archived or moved to Talk, to clear the noticeboard for actual incidents requiring action. Just zis Guy you know? 08:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposal, I do endorse MONGO block by the way, but he should have gave a warning. Thanks
  ^{wat's sup}
  02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am fine with archiving this section, but I find it unconscionable that anyone would claim that MONGO's block for these edits ([99] [100]) was 'proper'. Even ignoring the fact that he blocked Pokipsy76 specifically for 'reverting him'... the content of the edits just is not block-worthy by any remotely reasonable standard and I'd challenge anyone to look at them and seriously tell me they believe otherwise. If those edits were worthy of a 48 hour block then virtually every edit on Wikipedia is. --CBD 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Tru, the block was a bit harsh, but I don't understand Prometheuspan involvement in this, who is currently trolling and harrassing MONGO, see his talk page.
  ^{wat's sup}
  02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ok Prometheuspan is blocked indef by Tony Sidaway, which I fully endorse as his last 50 edits was mostly severe trolling.
  ^{wat's sup}
  02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  Block on Prometheuspan seems fine to me as well. Finally, a block in this mess not made by someone currently edit warring with the blockee. There is no question that there are 'troublemakers' of various sorts involved here, but that isn't a blank check to throw all standards out the window. --CBD 03:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh I didn't realise this was being discussed. But honestly he's an obvious nutter. Let's put him behind us. Doesn't matter who he has engaged. Thar's what trolls do. Let's just tell him to fuck off. --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

`