Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive116

On June 8th, User:Sussexman and User:Edchilvers had the following exchange:

*Comment Utter rubbish. GLF is not protected by the rehabilitation of offenders act and besides, the content of his Wikipedia article included a blatent falsehood in that it suggested he had been cleared of all charges on appeal. Seeing as the matter was widely reported in the national newspapers and has thus been in the public domain for some time I fail to see the harm in mentioning it as it is the truth.

- User:Edchilvers + User:Edchilvers.

• Comment: You're wrong Mr.Chilvers, as you will soon discover. Sussexman 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[1]

Today, Ed Chilvers received a letter from Gregory Lauder-Frost's lawyers threatening him with legal action. Sussexman's "as you will soon discover" would be a reference to this and should be taken as a legal threat. If Sussexman is not Gregory Lauder-Frost then he is intimate enough with him to be able to pass on a legal threat. He should be banned from wikipedia until the matter is resolved and until GLF either concludes or agrees to withdraw any threat of legal action. Homey 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thats what you'd like us to believe because you are and have always been a major player against GLF, his article, and anyone remotely associate with him. Anyone breaking our laws will "soon find out" and that is very standard parlance. You cannot link Sussexman with this letter. That it may have arrived at the same time as these discussions were continuing is merely co-incidental, Sherlock. Do you honestly think that banning one, two, three, or more people unless they contact someone they havn't seen for years, possibly a decade or more, and tell him to withdraw a perfectly justificable private and personal legal action will work? Justice does not operate that way. 81.129.155.181 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How would they have gotten his mailing address? Paul Cyr 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By googling "Ed Chilvers" or looking his name up in a British database. It seems from Ed Chilvers' web page that he has been the target of legal threats from Michael Keith Smith, a friend of Lauder-Frost's, in the past so it's possible Lauder-Frost already had Chilvers' contact info. Homey 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Got any proof, like a scan of the letter? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed Chilvers mentions it here[2] - he sent me excerpts of the letter after I emailed him about it.Homey 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds pretty serious. I'd recommend blocking until this can be looked into at the very least. --InShaneee 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been in a content dispute with Sussexman over

Gregory Lauder-Frost so I'm not the person to implement a block. Homey

19:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

He has now been blocked indefinitely. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)}

I support the block. Sussexman has been consistently disruptive over any attempt to include content not flattering to Lauder-Frost. William Pietri put in some tremendous work digging up newspaper reports and showed that Lauder-Frosts's conviction for theft was the single most widely reported fact about him; Sussexman and a couple of anonymous editors were determined to remove this or at least relegate it to euphemistic references. Just zis Guy you know? 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Glad you said "digging up" the dirt. Bit of agive away as to the agenda here, really. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And this post, which he intended for another user, is fairly close to a legal threat. [3]

• That's just tripe and you know it. He is just stating a fact. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly believe that User:Sussexman is Gregory Lauder-Frost, given the similar tone found in the excepts of the letter Ed Chilvers received. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong beliefs seem to be only legitimate on your side of the fence. Pity its wrong. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Support, as the person who blocked User:Lightoftheworld, probably leading Sussexman to veil his threats. Be on the look out for meatpuppets. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman is not Lauder-Frost. Preposterous. Sussexman has defended the vitriolic attacks made upon someone he knew years ago and liked and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Wikipedia which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For values of vitriolic which include stating in terms of studied neutrality the fact that he was convicted of a substantial theft from the health authority where he worked. As far as I can the most of the vitriol has been directed against those who attempted to fix the inaccuracy of the article, by supporters of Lauder-Frost. Just zis Guy you know? 08:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Here you go raving about the pre-1992 business as though it were last week and without the full knowledge of the matter. It was illegal to post details of this. Telling people this should be taken in good faith. Instead you ban people for it. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I give my absolute support to Sussexman. I too posted information on how this cabal of smearers were breaking UK law. Any normal person would be pleased for the advice. But this lot knew what they were doing and were absolutely determined to smear GLF all over the world. Sussexman appears to be the third person they have blocked for "legal threats", yet none of them appear to actually be the person concerned and so were not in a position to threaten anyone! Is it Wikipedia policy to block out everyone whom you get sick of arguing with? 195.134.6.202 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are acting as a proxy for someone else's legal threats, I consider it substantially identical to making them yourself. Wikipedia can't prove the relationship between the Wikipedia username User:Sussexman and the real-world individual Gregory Lauder-Frost, but I believe it does not really matter. Conveying threats from another non-Wikipedia party when one is not merely a messenger but an associate and clearly involved in an on-Wikipedia effort to suppress the same information differs little in actual effect from explicitly making them yourself.

I note also that GLF and/or friends and associates were quite happy to keep a lie on the page (that GLF was acquitted of theft on appeal) but are willing to sue on extremely flimsy grounds to hide the truth. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• All rubbish, I'm afraid. The only person on "flimsy" ground on these issues seems to be you and the little gang of demonisers. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to have to inform you that I bear Gregory Lauder-Frost no personal ill will whatsoever. I don't know him, have never encountered him, and did not even know of his existence prior to your first postings on this page about it. I am, however, interested in keeping an honest historical record, concerned about an attempt to censor relevant truth, and opposed to those who seek to chill discussion and publication of facts by using dubious legal threats. A brief, half-sentence mention of Gregory Lauder-Frost's criminal conviction in 1992 - which could not be considered any kind of "youthful indiscretion" or to be prior to his public life - is not unfair to him. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to update people on this, there've been further significant developments today.

Actually, it's not accessible through OTRS - it's been placed in a restricted queue, as is common with privacy complaints. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. :-) -- ChrisO 19:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I must drudge up old conversation; Until there is conclusive proof that this was a reference to the legal threat/action, could we unblock? The content dispute is something to be handled by

IMO, no chance. We don't operate in a realm of absolute 'conclusive proof' here - but Sussexman is either Gregory Lauder-Frost or closely related to him and passing on threats from him. Either is blockable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NLT is clear that a block must be maintained until the legal dispute is resolved. It's worth pointing out also that there is essentially no content dispute - the facts are uncontested; the dispute is over whether certain of the facts (i.e. GLT's conviction) can be included in the article, under English and Scottish law. If the dispute is resolved satisfactorily then maybe we can think about unblocking Sussexman. -- ChrisO

22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• You have deliberately tried to rubbish someone all over the WWW. naturally you will receive legal threats. People have to get on with their lives, not commit suicide because of your smears. 195.194.75.209 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

I support Sussexman, who appears not to be the first but the third User banned for these "legal threats". If ten people had come on and pointed out that you were all breaking the law with your reckless smears would you ban everyone? The question is, do you people think you can do anything and no-one can tell you you're wrong? I think you've got a bloody cheek. What's even worse is User:HOTR's current efforts to delete numerous UK biographies because he doesn't like Monday Club Tories or that Sussexman had some hand in writing them. What a bunch. 81.129.155.181 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Sussexman. There is a small team of anti-rightists at work here. I believe this blocking to be wrong. Tempers may fray sometimes but you cannot accuse everyone of legal threats because they state the obvious to other users who are clearly breaking the law. It appears that no less than three users have now been blocked for pointing out that Gregory Lauder-Frost was being defamed on Wikipedia. Had ten or twenty users argued like this would they all be blocked too? Are this gang above reproach? 86.139.185.202 11:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not the issue here. Just because supporters of GLF say that UK law has been broken here does not mean to say that it is so. I refer people to the article on Stephen Fry which makes mention of his serving time in a Young Offenders Institution for cheque theft. If what the anonymous users are saying is true then this would also be illegal under UK law.And even if GLF does have a case then it is a civil as opposed to criminal matter. --Edchilvers 18:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Supporters of GLF? Does that include the UK government who pass the legislation, and the legal profession? 213.122.71.45 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Again I challenge you to cite precedent when a public figure has successfully taken action after his criminal past has been revealed. I have done quite a bit of research on this issue and am adament that no offence has been commited.--Edchilvers 09:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't been mentioned here, but Sussexman and 213.122.46.228 also drove a good editor called Humansdorpie off Wikipedia completely, by a threat that included "Is this a threat? Yes, it certainly is." (See User:Humansdorpie and User_talk:Humansdorpie#Gregory Lauder-Frost) JackyR | Talk 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I must take issue with the ludicrous claims made via the last post by JackyR. The simple facts are that Humansdorpie spent a considerable amount of time goading and teasing Sussexman with a load of garbage. Eventually it clearly reached the stage where he had had enough and responded in kind. I can see from all those involved in this series of witch-hunts that it is perfectly all right for "the gang" to use snide and cynical remarks, to make absurd claims, and to delete articles that required a great deal of time and effort on the part of others. But it is entirely inappropriate to respond under this concerted pressure. One is then accused of being horrid. It must be hard being perfect. I'm not and doubtless Sussexman isn't either. 213.122.71.45 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not so. Humandorpie and myself was slandered as a 'red,' and a 'force of evil' on various extreme right wing forums all over the web. It was even suggested that the Wikipedia entries on our alleged 'heroes' Marx and Lenin should be vandalised in retaliation over the GLF article. --Edchilvers 09:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone doubting my "ludicrous claims" can simply follow the links and read for themselves. JackyR | Talk 11:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This [5] threat of physical violence does not impress me. According to the article about the artery he's referring to, his threat would be lethal. I'd say another block is in order? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with block. The comment in question is threatening and unwarranted under any context -- Samir धर्म 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Bishonen | talk 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Cartoid sinus/fingernail conflation is never good. As to the broader question, having followed the recent BGC discussions here only cursorily, I wonder whether anyone attempted to ascertain the reasons for his recent devolution? I don't mean in any way to suggest that his behavior has been appropriate, but I always knew him to be a sincere, if sometimes abrasive, editor, one who surely favored logical debate over (largely incoherent) personal attack, and who would not, in any event, write in the fashion in which he now seems to write. Even for Wikipedia, where valuable contributors sometimes become disruptive with celerity, this change seems odd. Joe 05:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So how long? I can't say I'm familiar with this user's history or the type of threat. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This person should be blocked until Jimmy Wales says otherwise, this is physical threat which could be potentially lethal if acted upon. Yamaguchi先生 05:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Realized that User:Brian G. Crawford hadn't been informed of this conversation, and informed him on his talk page --Samir धर्म 05:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what country Mr. Crawford lives in, but in the United States and United Kingdom threats of violence like this constitute assault. Yamaguchi先生 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for ten days. I suspect Guy might be right that some extra-wiki goings on have put Brian on extreme edge, especially as he'd never been blocked until a week ago and has now been blocked twice for the same sort of lashing out. Of course, there's no excuse to threaten users with violence. Other admins are free to review the situation and my block, and change it if you feel it is appropriate to do so. JDoorjam Talk 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep I'd agree with that. Well you know that's supposed to be the point of blocks. Preventive, not punitive. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame. I think Brian has external issues, but I also think that User:Badgerpatrol did not exactly help here, epecially after I posted a header asking people not to troll. That said, the problem is with Brian not with other people (except in as much as they engage in the addition of ludicrous sophomoric content which annoys people like Brian and me, not that I'm saying Badgerpatrol does this since I've not looked). I'll email Brian again. Just zis Guy you know? 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite annoyed at being accused of trolling here, JzG. My commentto Brian was in response to this diatribe on my talk page, which (I think) was in turn prompted (in some tangential way) by this. In hindsight, I regret that last comment, but I certainly don't think it was offensive or provocative, nor out of keeping with the normal back and forth associated with RfA discussions. I haven't ever been engaged in any previous disputes with Brian (except for good-natured and good faith discussion on AfD), and in the past I've actually tried to mitigate his abrasive behaviour (e.g. [6], see also this)). I'm not upset with Brian; if he's having problems he's having problems, everybody does stupid things sometimes in difficult circumstances, and the style of his comments (which admittedly was always robust and abrasive) has recently changed to such an extent that I frankly wonder whether his account has been hijacked by someone else, as seems to have happened in the past. If anything, I'm a bit more aggrieved at being accused of trolling- that just isn't the case, and it's all a bit disappointing. Badgerpatrol 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional history on Brian's edits at

Quite frankly, that's the most sensible thing Brian has said recently.

type

10:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not very sensible, because it is not the consensus there. Most of the editors happens to agree with my opinion and not his. The accusations were also totally unfounded. --Rdos 10:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm in Proto's camp on that one. Sorry, but it's true. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind. As long as these "agreers" doesn't have a Category:Aspergian Wikipedians tag on their user page I will only take it as more

neurotypical bullying. --Rdos

13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, we'll just self-diagnose like you did and all will be well... Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do that? Try the Aspie-quiz! ;-) --Rdos 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's better to go the whole hog and make up my own test... Just zis Guy you know? 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd better distribute it to some hundred (or preferable thousands) participants and let them indicate if they are diagnosed. Ideally, you should screen all particpants for ASDs with DSM. Then you can take it yourself and compare results. It's not as easy as you claim it is. I've spent many hundred hours on this project. Additionally, many participants in the autistic community and others have helped my by taking time to fill it out. Aspie-quiz is probably one of the largest databases available on autistic traits. --Rdos 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this violent and abusive user should be blocked for longer.

Skinnyweed

20:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is repeatedly vandalising the George Galloway and Mazher Mahmood articles, adding erroneous information [8] and blanking large amounts of content [9]. This has been going on since early April. The user attacks only these two articles and ever since Mazher Mahmood, an undercover reporter, was exposed trying to bribe a British politician, George Galloway. It is no coincidence that the journalist in question has attempted legal measures to prevent the publication of his photograph - which failed - and now Paul Adams is attempting to remove the journalist's photograph from Wikipedia. He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion, despite appeals on his talk page. On the Mazher Mahmood talk page, the user writes in block capitals, accusing Wikipedia of assisting paedophiles and drug dealers by publishing the photograph. Instead of continually having to revert his vandalism, could the admins just block him?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to vandalise the Mazher Mahmood article, removing sourced material and Mahmood's photograph: [10]. I wonder whether anyone is going to take this seriously and block this vandal, or shall I just keep reverting regardless?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The situation is repeating itself today on the Mazher Mahmood article: [11]. Could it be locked in the unvandalised state (ie the version with Mazher Mahmood's picture, which keeps getting removed)? And is there any possibility of enforcing a block on Paul adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and/or his IP address?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Another act of vandalism [12] by Paul adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). How long are admins going to ignore this? Please block the editor or lock the article on the unvandalised version.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet another act of vandalism by the same user: [13] - are admins going to continue to ignore this?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Another case of systematic vandalism by Paul adams: [14] - why are admins ignoring this?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with this poster 100%. This is ridiculous and the vandalism must stop. Stephenjh 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I too agree entirely with the above points. Paul adams is repeatedly blanking sections of the Mazher Mahmood article relating to the subject's exposure by British Member of Parliament George Galloway, falsely claiming the material, which is wholly factual and sourced, to be 'disputed'. He also constantly removes a photograph of Mahmood which has since April been deemed fit for publication after a ruling by the British courts. This user is in flagrant violation of several Wikipedia rules, and IMO should be blocked permanently, and a watch kept for possible use of sockpuppetry. (So far, there have also been a few instances of edits identical to those of the user in question being made from an anonymous IP address). Guy Hatton 17:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him. It would have got more attention if you'd put it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism rather than this overlong page. Secretlondon 12:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• And if you follow that link it says "This talk page is not for reporting vandalism. If you want to report vandalism, go to the page itself instead." ???

Will some disinterested parties please review the discussions taking place at Talk:Armando (blogger) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar (2nd nomination) ? A fellow Wikipedia administrator has stopped short of accusing me of contributing to an article "designed to attack and harrass its subject". For the record, the subject of this article disclosed their name publicly on NPR over 8 months ago. Thanks in advance, Silensor 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this request, although not in the same language. I also want to know if a

removable personal attack. I also invite to review the 1st AfD and the Deletion Review and my contribution to comment whether any of the accusations against me are warranted. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors

03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments such as this are exactly what I'm talking about. Silensor 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy is policy. You guys want to include information that the subject of the article considers harmful to him - info that is related to his (non-notable) real-life career, not his (possibly notable) blogging career.

WP:BLP says "do no harm"...and yet, Silensor et al. insist on including the information. The page was established as an attack page initially. It did it's job - he quit blogging because his identity became widely known (via the Wikipedia article). There's a campaign to include information about his his clients and the law firm he works for. The subject of the article considers it a threat to his job. I have no idea why certain editors are so hellbent on including that information. Either it's just raw abuse of power, or a concerted attempt to hurt the guy. And they seem to think that it's "insane" to expect them to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Very interesting. Guettarda

05:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• 69.10.123.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Harvardlaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, who is apparently named "David Jason Silver", has decided that Wikipedia exists for his self-promotion. For the past month he's been writing articles about himself and his company, and inserting references to himself into many other articles, always inappropriately and sometimes fraudulently. He has been warned about this many times, but has barely acknowledged any warnings or used the talk pages. He has recreated deleted articles, removed Afd tags, engaged in repeated copyvios/plagiarism, and other inappropriate behavior. Each account has been blocked once for brief periods. I propose that the next time he inserts a self-reference, a copyvio, or other previously-warned behaviors, he get a one-week block on both accounts. Any thoughts? -Will Beback 00:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: His "next-time" has already occured: [15]. -Will Beback 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to give the user a 3RR block for edits to Jessica Simpson, already blocked. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

24.137.173.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) He is also using this IP, same pattern of behavior, same articles. --Nobunaga24 01:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

After several more bad edits I blocked the two main accounts. If he uses 24.137.173.67 we can block that too. -Will Beback 01:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this guy's edits are bordering on the bizarre. At one point, in an article now deleted, he had listed the full name of his 16 year old daughter (not something I would do if I had a 16 year old daughter), and his home address. Not to mention the self-glorifying nature of the edits - he refers to himself as a "war hero" (he was a sailor in peace time on a ship off the Balkans - not exactly in the heat of battle, a "land baron" and "business magnate," a "famous amateur wrestler," a "business partner of Donald Trump," and a "future presidential candidate." Thanks to supplying us with his full name and address, I found out he has a weird trademark infringement lawsuit with Motorola, and equally bizarre "blog" and homepage [16], and has refered to himself as a "war hero" on numerous forums [17] (just one example). I'm starting to wonder what is going on - is this a delusional individual with aspirations of glory but without the, *ahem*, social skills or intellect to achieve it, or is it someone else intentionally smearing David Silver or trying to make him look foolish? --Nobunaga24 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"At one point, in an article now deleted, he had listed the full name of his 16 year old daughter (not something I would do if I had a 16 year old daughter), and his home address." Oversight the revision, indefinite block the guy. No quarter for privio. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake - the girl's name is still in the revision history of one of the articles Harvardlaw revised (if you need the link, I can supply it). Is there a way to remove that since she is a legal minor, and I would suppose not aware that here full legal name was listed for everyone to see?--Nobunaga24 04:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-05/Oversight. Go there, find someone currently editing on the list, and drop them a message. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Giving the name of the daughter sounds like a hostile act, but, then again, I have certainly known some people as ... desperate? delusional? ... as these edits. (I had years of being called "Fake Christian scum" by Steve Winter.) We really need that out, though. If the person is nutty, he may not realize the effects of the history. If it's an attacker, we should protect the victim. Geogre 13:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen, or don't recall, the edit which contains the girl's name. However I'm familiar with most of this editors work here on Wikipedia, and have looked at his personal blog. The style and focus are consistent, so I that this account really is Silver. I expect that he would have included his daughter's name due to vanity rather than ill-intent. I am more concerned with his energetic self-promotion, which is so unwarranted that it amounts to vandalism and which is sometimes outright fraudulent. I think that we should give him at least another chance, when his blocks expire, but that if the behavior doesn't change he'll eventually have to be blocked indefinitely. -Will Beback 08:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to start a wheel war, especially since I'm not really around that much anymore, but am I the only one troubled by Malo's deletion of eon8 after he was the one who started the AfD? This is a site that's been linked to from lots of places, and been discussed all over the internet. The page was written in NPOV and acouple of my friends on myspace even referred to wikipedia's link on it. Thousands of people are curious to what this is. But the more important part is, the AfD was improperly closed. Thoughts? Redwolf24 (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:Eon8. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same. There was no consensus in the AfD to delete, even discounting new editors' comments. Kimchi.sg 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we need a sysop to reinstate this article, and pronto. The situation at eon8 (the eon8 experiment having drawn the attention of the DHS and CIA, specifically) is the first reason I've had to contribute outside of Wikipedia userspace in almost a year. Last I checked, defaulting your own VfD's to any decision was a "no-no" here. That there's no consensus on how to handle eon8 goes without saying right now, and at the very least, the eon8 article should resume regular editing while a new VfD is conducted. Shem^(talk) 05:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Shem, I thought you were sysop. Either way, restored. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hell naw. I'd only started the Texan collaboration, a few other things, but never bothered putting up with RfA's when they were offered on IRC. Dicked around in too many political articles, I reckon. You can still check my userpage's history for the disappearing act, though. Shem^(talk) 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (Oh yeah, some people're real pissy about guys who drink and edit.)

Well, new afd here. I protected it from anons and new editors who messed up the last AfD. This should be closed round July 6th. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this what deletion review is for? And did anyone tell Malo he was being discussed here? · rodii · 14:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the day I've seen way too many improperly handled AfDs lately. Esteffect 02:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

While I know that another cases involving InShaneee has been brought here recently [18], I want some Admins to take a look at this one, the

The final warning for my first block was because for this edit [21], and then I was first blocked for 24 hours because of my answer of that warning by this [22].

For the second block (a block for 3 days), I recieved the warning after another user, Grandmaster, with who I was having a heated debate reported me because he was called POV pusher, so InShaneee warned me for a block [23] which infuriated me and promped my answer. [24], as a result, InShaneee blocked me for 3 days. [25]. Another administrator has found the rational behind the block shaky [26] (I was not blocked for 36 hours but 3 days). InShaneee answered that the rational was that I made threats of more. [27]. Which is not true as I have clarified in my update note [28], a note which was later deleted by InShaneee [29] under the pretext that IRC materials should only be posted after an explicit permission by those involved even though he deleted just more than the quotes from the IRC. He also removed his name from my Farewell message [30], as well as warning again with a language which would have probably prompted a warning by himself had anyone used similar tone. [31].

Also, just a quick search in both Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhichevan article (the articles in which I and Grandmaster interacted most) reveals that Grandmaster who reported me because of accusation of POV pushing, has in various occasion leveled similar accusations of POV pushing himself. [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], which I have never reported, since it is understandble that in some heated discussions few abrasive words are used and that any users are free to edit them rather than reporting even though as much to be blamed because the other happens to be someone with who you disagree. And also in an answer to InShaneee first blocking I reported similar edits made by Grandmaster. [41] which InShaneee ignored.

Also, while InShaneee has edited a content of my userpage under the pretext that to post such materials it takes consent, I wonder under which Wikipedia policies this goes. Because I have specifically maintained who made what statment, while InShaneee may have ground for his consent request, so does, I in my opinion, have the right clarifying what InShaneee had been saying about me in my back, which is simply untrue. Every members should be permitted to defend themselves against what they percieve as false charges, more importantly charges leveled on media's not directly available to the concerned, and if InShaneee had found my clarification not proper to be posted on a members talk page, InShaneee was a concerned party and should have in my opinion reported such behavior to another Administrator rather than deleting the entire sentence. Fad (ix) 18:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your block expired a week ago. Secondly, you already tried to bring this up on the mailing list as well as requesting an unblock, to which no one responded. Thirdly, what I removed consisted of an IRC chatlog and a personal attack. --InShaneee 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the right to report an incident, and there are no policies retricting me on the basis that it is an incident dating about a Week ago, you should stick to policies. As for the mailing list, as far as I am aware of, no administrator agreed to the block, the only who even pied attention to the cases disagreed with you. Also, going around the IRC and making up reasons for the Block isen't also the proper conduct of an Administrator. Neither deleting ones talk page content, where the member is answering to false charges. And no, what you removed was not only chat log, to the contrary, most were not. You mostly deleted things which I myself wrote answering to the charges which you leveled against me justifying the block, charges which both of us knew to be untrue. Also, the thing you call personal attack is an opinion posted in my talk page, it is neither a heatlist, neither anything of that sort. I severly question your ability to administer, and say it again, and this was about what I have said there. It is not like I am posting that in an articles namespace, neither in a talk page, but rather an answer. On the other hand, you have restricted me to edit for 72 hours, something which you should apologise for. Fad (ix) 18:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is for reporting incidents which require immediate administrator intervention, which this does not. --InShaneee 18:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So according to you, reporting an Administrator abuses does not require immediate administrator intervention but calling someone POV pusher does?

Unless the administrator is 'abusing their powers' at the moment, no. Otherwise, it's something for mediation or RfC. --InShaneee 18:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are. You just have given another warning where there was no warning content. [42] Fad (ix) 18:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a request, not a warning. And I'd consider comparing someone to a Neo-Nazi something that requires action. --InShaneee 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any comparaison of a particular user with neo-nazi. TAT has texts specifically saying that Armenians are the lowest form of life. What do you expect an Armenian to answer. Eupator has answered without attacking any members, and you posted that message in his talk page. Stop distributing such warnings. Fad (ix) 18:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, warning someone not to call someone else a Neo-Nazi is more than justified, and I most certainly will continue warning, or blocking if neccisary, people who do so. You've been here repeatedly, the mailing list, your talk page, other people's talk page, and yet there is no wave of admins telling me that what I have been doing is wrong. If people don't like getting warned for being incivil, the answer is pretty simple: don't do it. Then, I swear to you, you won't hear a peep out of me. --InShaneee 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A little note to Fadix from the top of this page, Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes.. You might want to adjust your commentary accordingly. Netscott 18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I just bolded what is most important. Fad (ix) 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The original block looks like it was warranted to me; from what I can see, InShaneee never edited your user page so I'm not clear what you're talking about (unless you're referring to your talk page); and the most recent "abuse" you've reported appears to be InShaneee telling you not to violate

I hope you haven't looked at the cases the same way as you have looked at what I was talking about (neo-nazi). InShaneee 'warning' about neo-nazi was to Eupator and not to me. As for your opinion concerning the original block, it is much clear that blocks on personal attacks are justified in clear cases of personal attack, not just some accusation of POV edits or telling someone that he was not reading what you were writting. InShanee clearly doesn't make the distinction between empty slanders and some abrasive words in a heated discussion.Also, you haven't said anything about the second block. Fad (ix) 18:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fadix that the blocks that was imposed on him by InShaneee might have been a bit harsh, eventhough he should indeed mind what he is saying, even when things get "hot" in discussions regarding controversial topics. It's very important always to be as polite as possible. I also agree that it's not nice that inaccurate reasons for blocking Fadix was mentioned on IRC, and I understand that Fadix is pretty upset about this. However, nothing good or constructive will come out of pursuing these issue anymore. As mentioned the block ended more than a week ago, and the best thing I believe would be for Fadix if he would just forget about the whole thing, and get back working on the articles where I and many other editors know that he makes a lot of much needed, very important and valuable contributions. Another thing is that I also believe it would help the situation if InShaneee would let other admins deal with any future issues involving Fadix. -- Karl Meier 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user [email protected] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as Stapletonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and reverting the edits of his "enemies"/vandalizing pages [43]. See [44] for a long list of the wikistalking edits carried out by another of his anonymous IP addresses earlier today. Can an admin block urgently? Demiurge 22:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. Will (message me!) 08:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• He is at it again as GlasgowMurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - could an admin investigate. He is reverting pages in order to intimidate editors also the usual biggoted remarks[45]. Djegan 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems this guy is up to his old tricks again. This time without hair.John Pairseenthbaeu 23:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Anybody that makes edits like these[46] does not deserve a second chance after been banned indefinitely. Definitely rms - one of his old favs. Djegan 23:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not sure what to use on him either. Permblock, warnings, a stern email, a plea to other administrators, or just ignore himJohn Pairseenthbaeu 00:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RMS has actually been indefinitely banned[47]. Ultimately if a user wants to "reform" themselves and return under an anonoymous account and contribute positively thats their business but when they return and go back to their old vandalism ways and harrassing users by undoing their recent edits (often to previously vandalised versions) then additional bans are required. Their should be no surrender to vandalism, even if its just one user. Else we all ought to leave the project and do something better with our time. Wikipedia gets enough flak in the media, new ideas are needed to fight vandalism. Open editing equals open war. Djegan 14:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

this guy seems to have a history of uncivility, and also answered quite uncivily on my talk page about a question in the abortion article, calling me a "racist" and a "moron" about a query that i very honestly, politely, and curiously presented. Joeyramoney 00:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't even play around with these kinds of guys. You don't want to get sucked into thier games.Cowboy John Adamson. GGfather:Abraham Lincoln 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A history of incivility is cause for immediate dismissal from Wikipedia's archives.Philly CheeseDude 00:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly on the matter of incivility. I have a family with two boys6 mos. and 2 years, and you're damn right I teach them civility!Charlie Daddy 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To user:JoeyRamoney you are not a racist and a moron. All of us at Wikipedia are doing our part, yourself included. For this, I applaud you.Mr. Nice Guy Rides Again 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The four above users plus John Pairseenthbaeu above are confirmed socks via a checkuser

^{wat's sup}

00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh bother. Thanks for noting that here, I have wasted some small effort. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think this block is a bit long: "14:32, 30 June 2006 InShaneee blocked "84.190.0.0/17 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism through possible open IP)". It actually blocks

The block has been lifted. However, such actions really need to be addressed. At least, if there are problems with quickly-changing IPs, the IP range should be investigated to see who it is allocated to and the block, if necessary, should be limited to a shorter timeframe than a week. In this case, presumably a few hours would even have been sufficient. sebmol 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend lifting the block. Because you know what can happen when Germans get mad. And how bout lifting that edit summary "Getting rid of Germany". It sounds like some sort of reverse racist board.Hans 001 00:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:EQ? Or has that become obsolete? sebmol

01:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

They get angry?Homey 01:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

they produce

I lifted this earlier and informed InShaneee of the lift. I guess he'll tidy up and block the specific IPs that he wanted to block again. Rob Church has said that this shouldn't be technically possible, and I believe is looking into preventing Mediawiki from allowing such blocks in future. Moral of the story, I guess, is that you need to understand the implications of blocks before doing them, especially when involving ranges. Esteffect 02:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We really need to fix blocking so that registered users aren't normally blocked by IP blocks. This is an ongoing headache. --John Nagle 06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, except that that has its own headache (and I say this as an "AOL user," even though I'm not on AOL). If we do that, our ability to stop vandals who merely register a new account name every few minutes will be shot to hell. <shrug> Yet another case where the

Push-me-pull-you turns out to be in charge of the world. Geogre

11:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

obviously, it should be impossible to create new accounts from the blocked range. Instead, some sort of "request for account creation" should pop up. I know this is all impeding to the wiki principle, but hey, we have 1.2 million articles to protect here. We'll need more and more finely honed blocking tools over time, such as the ability to block certain IP ranges from certain articles only ("surgical protection")

dab (ᛏ)

14:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Crap alive, my apologies to everyone that had to clean this up. I discussed this a bit in the admin IRC channel before hand, but I guest the real moral is that I should do some serious IP backtracking before rangeblocking. Again, this was entirely my mistake, and it won't happen again. --InShaneee 18:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting the assistance of some other admin to help resolve a dispute with Sunholm (talk · contribs). Recently, the stop hand image on {{POV}} and related templates was changed to an unbalanced scales image. On the talk page, 11 users and one anon have expressed support for this change. Prior to this afternoon, 2 users had expressed opposition. Despite this Sunholm had reverted to the stop hand 3 times over 2 days. I told Sunholm that concensus existed at the talk page for changing the image and told him to quit edit warring. At which point he added a message to the talk page saying "Stop hand.svg is far better. It's a warning template, after all" and reverted again.

At this point, I blocked him for 3 hours for edit warring and POINT. (Keep in mind that the back and forth over the image was occuring across multiple POV oriented templates). Following the block expiry he immediately reverted again, with no further comment (this time also breaching 3RR).

This editor, previously known as

However, I feel my neutrality is compromised by having expressed opinions favoring the scales image. Arguably, I should not have even issued the block that I did, though I feel Sunholm's behavior is out-of-bounds and is exacerbated by his unresponsiveness. I apologize for not seeking a neutral party sooner, and would appreciate it if someone else would take a look at this issue. Dragons flight 01:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have issued a 24-hour 3RR block on Sunholm; along with it I'll note that while you haven't exceeded 3RR that I can see, DF, you're coming closer in a sterile edit war like that than I'd like to see. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is one reason why I would like to distance myself from this issue. Dragons flight 02:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, User:Jtdirl blocked Sunholm for 48 hours on this issue. -- ADNghiem501 05:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello,I hope I am doing this correctly. I need help with a problem Jesster79 began building an episode list for In the Heat of the Night recently.I thought it was great until I recognized the material as being from tv.com (formerly TVTome). If it was a little I wouldn't complain, but it's a lot. This is the evidence, it is quite lengthy.Please pardon the sloppiness as I was pressed for time while doing it.

Our conversation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jesster79

Note that while he says he is using his own words he has really just changed,re-arranged or added words to the material at tv.com(formerly tvtome)which has existed since 2000-1

This is a cut and paste comparing Jesster79's work (summaries and trivia) with that of tv.com.

This can be verified through the links for the episode list at both sites.

TV.COM Episode List - http://www.tv.com/in-the-heat-of-the-night/show/656/episode_listings.html

Wiki Episode List: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Heat_of_the_Night_episodes

Also please see Jesster's Contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Jesster79

This really tells the story.Look how quickly the work was done.He just cut, pasted and slightly altered.

Note:At tv.com the notes and trivia appear below the summary.

The evidence can be found on my user page as it was apparently to long

I can't see anything wrong with

In the Heat of the Night episodes - theres not really a lot that can differ in a list of episodes, but the date formats in that article are different to the ones on tv.com. As for the episode articles theirselves, they don't look copied to me (although some might be based on the tv.com descriptions - it should probably be cited as a reference) but I'm no experienced copyvio spotter. --james _{// bornhj (talk)}

05:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the synopsis at tv.com and in some cases he has barely changed anything.The date format is not what I'm talking about.Synopsis on episode guides are usually vary greatly.The story is the same but the wording is different.Please look at the comparison here titled Evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:California12

(UTC)

This matter has been resolved, the person has removed the material in question.

Could admin investigate

...Who whistles a merry tune and runs to get fitted for a straightjacket whenever topics involving Daniel5127 or ForestH2 come up. I've yet to get a cogent response from either of them on any topic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Bunchofgrapes#ForestH2 -- Samir धर्म 06:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm still here, I'd like to point out

NSLE

14:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I don't have time to reply soon but I will leave a quick message since I'm on a trip. The edits on Gregory Goyle are not disruptive. There taken from what J.K Rowling says in the 6th Harry Potter book. I know GrasslandT- he and me both think were making correct edits here and I don't know the last time I made an attack on Daniel. I am going to tell him about Gregory Goyle edits. Have any of you read the book? Check one of the last chapters and see what I keep reverting? And how does GrasslandT edit in a disruptive way? All he does is edit Gregory Goyle in the correct way. I've had enough of this. This is a very stupid conversation to be having. My edits are correct, proof is in the book. And I haven't bothered Daniel since I talked with Bunchofgrapes. I've talked with Daniel about this and I'm going to talk with him more. Hopefully some one's read the Half-Blood Prince so they can see that I'm the right one and that this is a stupid conversation to be having. I'm going to leave a note on Daniel's page and Bunchofgrapes page. Sorry if I don't reply fast- I'm away on busniess. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 18:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I was mistreated and humiliated by administrator ([User:InShaneee|InShaneee]])

He warned me not to use aggressive and uncivil language but he himself did it before blocking me. Such as:

` :::I will warn you one last time to keep your tone civil and not to make accusations. Also, you are not 'allowed' anything. If I see evidence that you are doing ANY blind reverts to circumvent consensus, no matter what the number, you will be blocked for purposeful disruption. --InShaneee 20:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) `

Please refer to my talk page to see it.

This message was posted after I , as a proud wikipedian as any of you , stated that according to Wiki Rules I can revert an article 3 times a day. And then he quoted : Also, you are not "allowed" anything.

Then for a discussion in the talk page I was blocked. It can be read from the link : this

I accept that my language is harsh and heated. However, if any of you regard to the discussed page, you can clearly reach more uncivil language ( even and especially in the Archives regarding user Fadix. ) so I feel that I was mistreated in this case.

Also, I did not clearly attack anyone, while I was blocked for personal attacks, what I did was to defend my point in a case which another user clearly (to my opinion) missed a point. If all of my posts are read, you will see that I am more or less a legal user. I may have crossed the line for a couple of times but this does not require a block or humiliation.

Furthermore, I admit that I am a new user, but if you refer again to my talk page, you can see the post by the same admin :

"please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --InShaneee 17:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)"

This is the first warning I get. I know how to edit articles. I know how to use Wiki at that level. But he tries to humiliate me by referring to "sandbox". Also it is interesting to note that eventhough this was supposed to be my first warning, it is ferocious. It is angry, and the warning is not a friendly one.

Also , I thought before being blocked by this admin. I was allowed to be bold in editing, I learned that as a major principle of wikipeida. But now I see that principles work under the tyranny of some admins. Please do not ban me for this too. I am afraid now, I feel suppressed.

I checked the talk page of this admin to see that he is very infamous for his repeated blocking of others too.

If becoming an admin justifies this kind of power in Wikipedia, I do not consider Wiki as a communal organization, which favors its citizens rights.

I hope you wont tell me that I am not allowed anything too, like a prisoner guard.

You guys are not that kind of people right ?

sincerely

ps : In case it gets archived I would like to post the te last two messages this admin has got :

Cculber007

Hi InShaneee!

I spoke with Cculber007 via email and he pledged not to make any threats or personal attacks on the wiki anymore if he is unblocked. I was thus thinking it would be a good idea to give him a second chance; he may very well one day become a valuable contributor. What do you think? -- Where 22:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

84.190.0.0/17

Hey. You blocked this last night. Now I nominated you for adminship so I know you're a good user, but please read up on blocking-related stuff. Your block was in good faith, but you actually blocked half of Germany. ;) I've undone it, so you may want to look at the IPs you wanted to block with it. :p Esteffect 00:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That said, I think you inadvertently discovered a Mediawiki vulnerability. Some developers are saying your block shouldn't have even been possible due to the effects it can have. Esteffect 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

END OF MESSAGES --Sokrateskerem 05:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC(

Note that exactly who said what in the above is rather confusing. The history and the signatures don't quite seem to line up. Some edits are by the anon 128.211.201.37 (talk · contribs) --John Nagle 06:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary: If other people are rude, I am allowed to be rude too. I have enforceable rights, including the right to three reverts a day. I think perfectly reasonable warnings are "ferocious" and "angry".

The warnings were for leaping straight into the

Armenian Genocide article and claiming that it's a hoax, and the 24 hour block was for personal attacks - this sort of thing, I assume. Both seem reasonable to me. Sensitive little flowers shouldn't get mixed up with holocaust denial, or they will get their feelings hurt. --ajn (talk

) 07:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

hah, I think it is self-evident that "do not bite the newbies" does not extend to socks, trolls and angry holocaust-deniers :)

dab (ᛏ)

14:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be blocked for its own good to prevent further instances of abuse directed against its "harmless" holocaust denial. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that these were posted from an IP while he was blocked? --InShaneee 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The two messages up there by me are from InShaneee's talk page, and I'm not involved in this dispute. :/ Esteffect 14:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think personally that the guy is a sock, but for the sake of assuming good faith, I will pretend he is not. And here, my opinion has nothing to do with me having something against InShaneee. Supposing that Sokrateskerem is a new user, he should have known for how long he was blocked(InShaneee should have told him), new users generally don't know how to check their block log to know for how long they have been blocked, InShaneee told him he was blocked, but not much more information as to when he could edit back again(unless I have missed something). We don't need 'administration' in the Armenian genocide page, for warning members for personal attacks, this in my opinion is unimportant, any users can edit a personal attack. Francis and other users were doing a great job editing them in the past. I will not go as far as to say that InShaneee decision to moderate the genocide page was to limit the damages after he realised what would happen if I am not there. For what we need administrator there, is to track possible socks (and they abound) and requesting checkusers, we need administrator to delete irrelevencies which have nothing to do with the article. We need administration to remind people what is NPOV. Those things directly affect the quality of the article. I don't think anyone was really offended by Sokrateskerem, of course before he posted the remark about InShaneee IQ, but this could have been prevented, by just removing personal attacks from the articles talk page. Fad (ix) 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. However, I wasn't initially warning him as an administrator, obviously, since as you stated, this is not an action strictly relegated to administrators. Since I'd seen a lot of troublesome editing coming from there in the past, I simply wanted to step in and see if I could help stem the tide. It was only when he continued past being warned that I took action as an admin. --InShaneee 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Serdar Argic? Is that you?Homey 18:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, he doesn't have the same style. But Serdar did indeed register an account here on Wikipedia [48] to remove the connection between his true name and his nom de plume. He most certainly is still contributing under another pseudonym or an open proxy. For Sokrateskerem, it is hard to tell if he is someone else, I feal it, but since I don't have evidences, I will have to 'pretend' assuming good faith. Fad (ix) 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THREE REVERTS PER ARTICLE PER DAY. 3RR is a safeguard, not a right.

(talk)

02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

BenH (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has a history of making edits to TV station articles which are rejected as inaccurate or unsourced by other editors on those articles. He has not replied to numerous messages on his Talk page, or replied to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenH. I left a warning that if he continued to edit against consensus and not engage in Talk I would block him for disruption. He continued, so I have blocked him indefinitely until such time as he starts engaging in Talk. Any admin should feel free to unblock him as soon as he shows some signs of responding to comments and criticisms. Just zis Guy you know? 11:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Either the watchlist function is malfunctioning or someone has been hacking into my account. There are a number of entries on my list which I did not put there. Most of them are gibberish: 111111111112222222222222, 545hj6jh5u67hu54h, 56666666666666jjjjjjjjjjjjjj, Gggggggggggnnnnnnnnnnnnnn55555555555, Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Jhjfgh, Jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjfuuuuurncvjdkkkkkkkkkkkkkks, Kikytmr, Yhjrnr584nbth5845jkfj48, and Yyyyyyyyyyyyy555555555. Another, Uuuuuuuuusssssssssssssseeeeeeeeerrrrrr, shows demonstrable intelligence. More suspicious is the fact that User:Beebeep and User:Unforgiving, who do not even exist, have shown up on my list, as well as User:Thames, who was created only today (July 2, 2006). If I appear to flip out or vandalize a bunch of articles, someone has simply taken over my account. Otherwise, they have only been able to access my watchlist functioning. I do not know who to ask about assistance in this matter. If you do, please inform me. [This same message is on my user page.] --TJive 15:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Change your password (I think you can do that) Mo-Al 16:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway explained to me that most of these are probably due to vandal moves, but this does not explain the user pages to my satisfaction, particularly Thames, who was created a couple of hours ago. Can someone look into those? --TJive 16:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a password change is needed at this point. It would appear to be some exploit of the watchlist rather than a general takeover, if it can't be explained otherwise. --TJive 16:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would change it anyway, just to be safe (can't be too careful). Mo-Al 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User pages are like any other page, and can be moved to and added to your watchlist the same way. Also, if a User talk: page is moved, the associated User: page gets added to your watchlist. NoSeptember 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, why aren't there records of any of these moves, if that's what they were? Shouldn't there be a function to delete auto-watchlist additions if the pages themselves are deleted for vandalism? --TJive 16:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a record, but you can't see the deleted edits if you are not an admin. If you could see the deleted edit, it would tell you which page was moved there, and you could find the move listed in the history of that source article. NoSeptember 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Beebeep is a deleted redirect to User talk:Bishonen (a leftover from some pagemove vandalism), hence why that weird userpage name is in your watchlist. I haven't investigated the rest of them but I think they can all be explained in exactly the same way. I wouldn't be worried at all. --Cyde↔Weys 16:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to see what move was relevant to User:Thames? It seems that he used to be a contributor, as his signature exists on a number of pages, but his contributions and logs are gone, as if merged to another user. The fact that this user was (re)created a matter of a couple hours ago is what mainly set my alarm bells off. --TJive 16:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be helpful: [49] --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking at this. But I'm still not seeing anything that looks familiar, so I don't know why he was there. I did have Bishonen on my watchlist though. Does Thames go by another name now, where he has his talk and contributions located? --TJive 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You may have chatted with Thames many many months ago, hence it is on your watchlist. None of us remember everyone we have ever interacted with. If a user wants their page deleted, we shouldn't go about revealing all the details about who they are and so forth unless they want us to do so. NoSeptember 17:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

TJive, not to worry. Most of those entries are there due to your having my page and talk page on your watchlist. When vandals move them to new article titles they get added to your watchlist. I think you'll find most of the mystery entries in the edit histories, [50], [51]. No good deed goes unpunished. Cheers, -Will Beback 17:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, ironically I had not considered your pages. --TJive 17:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This may also be helpful: [52]. Eugène van der Pijll 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I had posted a comment to his talk page months ago, and it was since merged into Perceval's. Also, it appears that this was the vandal that caused both of the other users. Several misunderstandings at once created a bad impression, but it's cleared up now. Thanks all. --TJive 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, now we can abandon this thread and get back to work. This link (173) may be helpful. NoSeptember 17:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User has deleted 2 afd notices: [53] [54]. and procceded to move the pages while they were under AfD. User has a history of violating wiki procedures, is argumentative, has a prior complaint filed against him above

I replaced the tag on List of projects considered to be unusually successful in science and engineering and warned him. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square. It appears that there is no vandalism on the article as of this note, and when there was vandalism, it appears to be consistently reverted. If you have specific concerns, preferably including diffs that show our lack of concern, we'd appreciate being able to review them. Thank you for your input! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• because that's not how you spell Tiananmen Square?--205.188.116.65 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I just added Werdnabot archival of this page, as CrypticBot is currently MIA. This was per a request on

Thank you Werdna for responding to the request! Netscott 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional. Thanks Werdna -- Samir धर्म 03:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, as a result of this bot this page is currently down to 205KB. :-) Netscott