Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive124

I have already stated that I don't like the common practice when people are blocked / sent to a "cooling-off" period for non-extreme incivility, dubious personal attacks or minor disruptions. These should be treated by ignoring, walking away, calmly discussing and not by blocking. The policies clearly state, that an editor should only be blocked for personal attacks in extreme cases, and that blocks are not punitive but preventive. I don't know form what Zoe wanted to prevent me by issuing the last block, probably from commenting his/her mocking of what I did on wikipedia. Anyway, what we actually have here are policies, that say one thing (block only preventive, in extreme cases) and then we have the admin consensus, that it is OK to block for minor PA/disruption and any argumentation in the sense of "this shouldn't be done according to the policies" is defaced as "wikilawyering". The reason for only blocking in extreme cases is clear, admins shouldn't offend editors who might have a lot of work on wikipedia behind them and get involved in a heated debate by blocking them right away. It is only laziness that the admins block so often. Azmoc 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[1] another example of harrassment. I don't want to be told "now stop that" because I tried to send a nice message to wikipedia users, I don't want to hear "wikilawyering" everytime I say something, and now what JzG said is a complete nonsense, as I didn't mention any rule or policy. Please somebody tell JzG to stop harrassing me. Azmoc 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• What part of the "No solicitation" at the top of my talk page was unclear? Talk page spammers should expect to rough it. The fifteen-minute block was wholly appropriate as it stopped the spamming. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "nice" message. You're telling people they're wasting their time here, and they should go volunteer somewhere else, and you were spamming it all over the place. I was going to block you myself but Cyde did it first. Antandrus (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a fifteen minute block was way too lenient for someone spamming 'leave wikipedia' notices. --InShaneee 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't solicit for noone, I am not associated with any NGO that would need volunteers, and saying the truth about what you have to give up to be a "wikipedian" doesn't break any policies or rules here, does it? Anyway, I am going to use the message only occassionaly, so don't worry about the spamming. Azmoc 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used at ALL. This is an encyclopedia, not MySpace. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean this is the place to go telling it to everyone. --InShaneee 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? You do that too, right? You discuss the functioning of wikipedia with other users, right? You even have special places for it, right? Like village pump, right? Azmoc 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am previously uninvolved. I've reviewed this user's contributions and history (Azmoc (talk • contribs • count)) and support the current block of 48 hours. Azmoc needs to stop leaving disruptive messages and wikilawyering about it. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(He's not currently blocked, the 48 hours was an old, unrelated block). --InShaneee 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, Lar. You reviewed my contributions and history thoroughly, I can see. Thank you for your uninformed assumptions. I am User:Ackoz previously, maybe you would want to check that out too, your way of investigating (i.e. checking nothing at all, just babbling) would find that I have like 500 indefinite blocks on that nick. Greetings. Azmoc 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Care to explain the extra semicolon? [2] Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sorry, was not intentional. Too many users posting and I got into like 5 edit conflicts. Azmoc 22:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is mass-moving pages from Name X. Lastname to Name FullMiddleName Lastname. We discussed this yesterday, and I suggested that he get consensus and find out which of the versions of the name is more common, as this is what is mandated by the MoS, but he did not respond, and now is doing this moving without discussion. I'm on the verge of blocking him if he doesn't respond to my impassioned plea to stop. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He threatens to continue his moves tomorrow. I have warned him that if he does, I will block him. I am in the middle of reverting all of his moves. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I hae to leave now, and have only scratched the surface of these moves. Could somebody else please pick up from where I left off? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's a way disable the page move tab for him (new users don't get the tab, for example). See also [3] [4] for more silliness from this guy. Phr (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yow, there's at least 1000 of those moves. I wouldn't even think of trying to undo them by hand. If there's not already a bot that can undo them, I'll write one. Let me know. Phr (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say about half of them are done; I am still working on it (slowly) and I blocked this user indefinite. While I blocked this user before, and could be seem biased, doing over 800 page moves is, in my view, major disruption. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No reason not to show this user the door. This user clearly performed mass pagemove vandalism without cause, and Zscout is being nice enough to take lots of time out and revert. Clearly not a user equipped with constructive edits by any means. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 04:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I stopped the page moves for now; about under 300 to go (including talk pages). Others are taking over now, which I am grateful for, since my arm is dead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a major case of

disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and I think the block was warrented as page moves on that scale are highly disruptive. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment

- 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

All page moves have been finished as of now. If there are any move errors that I caused, let me know so they can be fixed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My petty complaints aside, I support the block. - brenneman ^{L} 07:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also support. This user has been trouble in other areas before.

JesseW, the juggling janitor

08:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

People that say "I see no policy saying what I'm doing is wrong", and not "What I'm doing isn't wrong" are usually wrong. I support this block. --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also locked his user talk page, since he was begining to use that to assail me and to use it as a soapbox to prevail against the "collective punishment" he got. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support block. Norton is clearly operating with m:MPOV. Zscout370's comment on irc after manually entering a few dozen (hundred?) reverts (out of 800) was something like "my arm is falling off". Sounds like exhaustion of community patience to me. I also don't understand the part about collective punishment--is Norton using the royal we? I guess that would fit (maybe he's Emperor Norton). I did find a few still-unreverted moves just now and will try to nail any remaining ones. Phr (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am going to be away for most of tomorrow, so if anything happens, let me know before yall are doing anything (unless it is reverting the page moves, which I know there is still a few out there). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think indef might be a little harsh, but this is definitely meriting of a month or six - and that's
  FCYTravis
  11:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Indef is indef, not permanent. I have no problem with unblocking him if he agrees to stop the page moves and to discuss them one by one. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If you decide to do it Zoe, let me know please. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Certainly. Besides, I didn't say *I* would unblock him, only that I would support it if somebody else did it, with that caveat. Hey, I thought you were supposed to be at school!  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • And *I* am not going to unblock either - I think Zscout can manage that when and if it's determined that he should return.
          FCYTravis
          21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• All pagemoves later than "Alva Blanchard Evans" of 17 July have been reverted, i.e. all the ones from his latest spree. It looks like there are some earlier sprees that need to be checked. I'll do that tomorrow. I have a semi-automated script that speeds it up some. Phr (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Why didn't Curpsbot get him? I thought it blocked everyone that did large numbers of pagemoves, regardless of where? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Curpsbot hasn't been running for awhile now (Curps left). --Cyde↔Weys 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• I support the block. The sheer number of pagemoves involved tells me there's just something unhinged with this guy, and he's not even bothering to attempt to achieve consensus. --Cyde↔Weys 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, this editor has been around for a fair while, and has generally been a positive – if sometimes prickly – contributor. Obviously his chosen method of handing this issue (posting a request at

. I have to ask, is this editor involved in (or has he been involved in) any other major conflicts (RfCs, Arbitrations, etc.)?

Looking at his block log, he had some significant copyright issues earlier; I don't like to see that, but then the problem seems to have stopped after a block was issued. If there aren't any other issues with this editor, might I suggest trimming the block to a week so he has time to cool down, and allowing him to return on a very short leash? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with TenOfAllTrades. Mr. Norton's goal appears to have been making sure the full-name articles existed, moreso than making sure each article was always listed under the full name. Of course, he should have re-moved the articles BACK to the consensus name, leaving a redirect at the full name (or, better yet, should have implemented the redirects directly instead of via pagemoves), and of course, he should have stopped immediately once warned. However, I think the principle of

AGF still applies. His intent appears benign even if his methods were not. Powers

13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think

WP:AGF still applies once someone KNOWS that their actions are being judged unacceptable and continues anyway. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment

- 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that his intent was benign, just he wasn't talking with anyone. <scratches head>. Tricky one to solve. Would someone care to discuss per email with him? Kim Bruning 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

His intent was benign in the sense of "benign dictator" at best. We have this

WP:OWN document cautioning against "owning" articles, but this guy seems to think he owns the whole encyclopedia and the other Wikimedia projects as well (did you see that thing on Commons)? His approach about the page moves was "show me the written policy against it or I'm going to start again at 6 in the blinking morning", which is completely incompatible with the idea of a collaborative project. Fixing his moves burned almost a whole evening for at least 3 different editors. There is no way he should be allowed back without showing evidence of serious attitude adjustment. Phr (talk

) 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said... I think. :-) Some people need to be explained to, especially if they're inexperienced in collaborative projects. Well, we can hope anyway. Kim Bruning 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to talk with him. To facilitate this I have unprotected his user talk page. We'll see what happens. --CBD 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Has been unblocked by UninvitedCo. with the promise of no page moves in the next 90 days. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion of the block at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Block of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). As stated there, I realize that Norton can be vexatious but I am concered that out of process blocks such as this set poor precedent and would be unfortunate if they became commonplace. Please join the discussion at that page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and waived the signature stuff, so just go ahead and discuss. I'll just watch and see what happens. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"this is my FINAL warning, quit reverting my edits or I'll blow up your house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" [5]

Could someone take appropriate action? Jakew 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL IP. Nothing we can do, as usual. Not enough vandalism to merit a anon-only block for a while. I'd suggest sending a email to AOL's abuse report monkie---people. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Emailed AOL. Please expect a reply next year :-( Iolakana|^T 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest ignoring silly kids who say things like that. Until someone's house actually gets blown up over a Wikipedia dispute, I don't consider this any kind of realistic or worrisome threat. If you're a wikipedia editor, expect death threats. Don't we all get them? I'm not saying they're excusable, just that they're not really cause for alarm. Friday (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Established precedent on Wikipedia is that a death threat results in a guarranteed indef block. Sadly, because in this case it would mean an indef block of AOL we can't do this because of their bollixed proxy setup. I suggest keeping an eye out on this person, & if they continue in this vein we may have to consider some extreme measure, which will make the suits at AOL notice & start being more responsive. (I have one idea, but it would require a buy-in from our AOL-using Wikipedians -- & even then it might not work. Email me if you're curious.) -- llywrch 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify- of course there's no problem with in indef block on sight in cases like this- I just hope people don't also get bent out of shape by the threats. Friday (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I had been the recipient of I believed personal attack, however on intitially posting this to

guidance of first posting a personal-attack warning template to the user's talk-page, the user then accused me on my talk page of vandalising their talk page. Given that events listed below now predate the temporary block discussed above - I will understand if my submission now might be superfluous...

See

.

It is difficult to separate out the personal attack from lesser incivility & belittling, suggestions that only those with professional specialist training in a field can contribute to an article (and that any other approach at classifying symptoms into groups indicates lack of knowledge), whether the numbers of cases presenting to a GP counts as a significant experience of the condition or not, and finally revert-protecting a list of synmptoms. What really irked was that the commonest symptom other than pain at the jaw joint itself (i.e. earche in half of patients) was repeatedly removed in the list's revert-protection as not being cited (a citation needed tag would have been more appropriate as anyone with experience of the condition should have known this was valid information even if needing a reference to be provided for the benefit of other readers), yet rare and obscur symptoms kept because listed in Pat8722 own provided citation.

• Started with claim that I was making myself out to be something I never did "I was held to provide a source on something pretty basic by one who represents himself as being a dentist" (this edit 28 May). Given my talk page clearly indicates I am a GP, I added the response
  Talk:Temporomandibular_joint_disorder#comment_by_David_Ruben

• Revert war recently re my converting a list of single symptoms into a shorter list of grouped symptoms, see 20:07, 23 July 2006 edit. Personal attack as to my credibility/knowledge with subsequent edit summary comment of "Shame on you", and when I complained to user, this response on my user page (my multiple objections to that posting given here).

• In reply, I am now accused of vandalising his/her talk page and using words in a context I have not. As per the comments by other editors on the RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722, I find this effective nit-picking attack on nuances of meaning which are not helpful to the article or to collaborating in wikipedia (?is trolling the correct word). As a minor example Pat8722 wished to peserve separate list entries for upper backpain from lower back pain. Whilst as undiagnosed symptoms upper & lower back pains may have different causes, in context of this jaw-joint disorder neither are being caused by local causes (eg kidneys for lower back pain) and are thus are referred backpain at varying points. Having provided a source that discusses the mechanism of these non-local (atypical) pains, and User:Dozenist recent significant expansion/rewrite to the article's description as to the mechanism of 3 groups of symptoms here, Pat8722 reinserts their simplist list (a revertion to its deletion) here, critises the other editor for the manner of adding additional information and accuses me of vandalism to their talk page.

• I've had enough of this attack and repeated assertion of having deleted material when I have not (just joined up items in a list into a sentance), had my own addition of earache deleted for being unsourced (a citation-needed tag would have been sufficient, but given upto 2/3 patients with TMJD complain of earache, anyone with knowledge of the field should have been aware of this - info reinserted with refs).

• Maybe I'm just being oversensitive, but User:Jersyko stated on my talk page "... that's one of the worst offenses I've seen here in a long time by a regular contributor." and Pat8722's further actions resulted in Jersyko's even franker response at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722 David Ruben ^Talk 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've added further thoughts on Pat8722 comments onto my talk page (for fear of being accussed of further "vandalising" of their talk page if I try to respond there).

Commentary/background

To be fair to the Pat8722, the issues were not so much about content as attitude in adding or modifying content. I've probabluy learnt something clinically in having to research citations for this artice, but just because a symptom can occur (and thus is new to me), does not make it common or therefore necessarily that clinicaly important, and by extension that important to stress in wikipedia. So whilst many of the listed symptoms are ones I had not previously encountered in clinical practice and the single source of a book without online access whilst perfectly valid as a citation source is nonetheless hard for a non-specialist to seek confirmation (one source whilst verifying that some might include a symptom within a particular disease, fails prove that consensus of specialist opinion, or more importantly give any indication as to whether it is a frequent or rare specific symptom). TMJD is presented to GPs and Dentists (source provided in discussions) and to suggest that lack of awareness of a symptom amounts to lacking any knowledge in field is a personal attack. Having now done some more thorough PubMed searching, I update my knoweldge that referred pain to the ear is even more common than my own clinical experience suggested (I would have guessed at about a third, but values from studies is between 40-60%) and have learnt that backaches (something not seen in presentation in my limited 20years of experience) also occurs and for similar referred-pain reasons as to the ear.

However this has not been about editors pointing out further sources of information to discuss whether any given symptom is common or rare (who knows maybe GPs generally or myself in particular have been overlooking a symptom), but rather it is more the antagonistic attitude to myself and other editors ijnvolved with this article that lead to a previous & ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722.

The content/revert dispute I really do not see trying to join similar muscular pains at sites other than over the jaw joint itself. ie from this:

• Stiffness in the neck and shoulders^[1]
• Upper backache^[1]
• Lower backache^[1]

to this:

• Stiffness in the neck and shoulders, upper or lower backache.^[1]

Is with repect to 'backache' symptom a case of deleting and obscurring "You deleted it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temporomandibular_joint_disorder&diff=52064002&oldid=52045411 for the proof of it. You also obscurred it...". Or that disputing this justifies the further posting with edit summary "[stop vandalizing my talk page".

Pat8722 has had several blocks in the last few months over their ability to collaborate within wikipedia (3 x 3RR edit warring and also "altering comments despite warnings"). The RfC has of course further commentary from other editors. David Ruben ^Talk 00:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone comment on

WP:NPA. JFW | T@lk

07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar experience with this editor elsewhere. I would very much like to help you at Esophageal cancer, but unfortunately the image made me unable to step over the threshold. :-( SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It was from a very nice Canadian man who recently passed away. He cried when I asked him if I could include his endoscopy picture in my teaching file, and said that he was honoured to help further medical education. -- Samir धर्म 06:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This might inspire some art-imitates-life vandals worth keeping an eye out for. Then again, it might just be funny. JDoorjam Talk 00:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO, thanks for posting this. Does this count as mention in the media, I wonder? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw it in my [nerd alert] Google News alert for Wikipedia, so I don't see why not.... JDoorjam Talk 00:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG, this is hilarious! User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, it is hilarious. And alas [6] here it comes... Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I love it. I love the bit about Jimbo being a closeted homosexual and hot-dog freak, according to his bio. ***ERIC IS A FAG*** 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And this on the same day, too! --InShaneee 03:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to talk comics, Wiki recently went relatively mainstream. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oy. It's gonna be a long, smart-ass night. JDoorjam Talk 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What is scary about one of those Workingdaze strips is that I had a conversation last month with a marketing person who couldn't understand why I contributed content to Wikipedia for free. ("You mean no one pays you to write for Wikipedia?") GT Bacchus was there & I believe he can attest to this exchange. -- llywrch 20:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of us have carried on a similar conversation... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this month's issue of Wired has an "advice" column by Stephen Colbert that recommends adding yourself to Wikipedia (bonus points for false claims that make yourself look good). --Cyde↔Weys 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've nuked Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC) and the talk page. The talk page is nothing but angry flames and has no historical or process-related value, and the RFC, as Hipocite put it, was endorsed by two users who "supported off-wiki personal attacks and the revealing of personal information ... As such, there are no valid certifiers to this RFC." Thus, my deletions. My actions are up for review. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Commendable boldness. Characteristic of this whole ED thing has been one lurid drama-festival after another, and when the flames of one are doused, one of the unhappy participants starts another fire somewhere else. This RFC had no value and removing it hopefully will minimise further time-wastage. Good work, Jeff: that's my opinion. Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care that much about what happens to the RfC, although I think you were wrong, but I do find it funny that you gave any credence to what Hipocrite had to say on the matter at face value. His statement was completely wrong on every level. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I do care. If it's decided that it's without merit, then that's fine, but is it typical to delete it like that? Undelete it and archive it, or userfy it so the evidence and information are available. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes. RFCs without merit are usually deleted. Syrthiss 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but three days ain't much time to consider that, especially given it had the required amount of signatures. Given that the entire basis of deletion has nothing to do with the complaints, but rather a) "angry flames" on the talk page, and b) the words of one editor taken at face value without further investigation, I think it calls it into question. I'm more interested in the evidence portion than anything else, but I find this decision more and more curious the more I think about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The standard is usually 48 hours and if it does not have the enough signatures by that time, it is usually deleted right after that or some hours later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is what I thought. This specific RfC had 3. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You misinterpret my statement as saying that Hipocrite's opinion was what caused me to delete this page. Incorrect. My quote of Hipocrite is simply a reflection about how I felt about the usefullness and propriety of the RfC.. his words, essentially explaining my decision. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't support any off-wiki personal attacks nor revealing of personal information. I was the one called a troll, by name. To say I am not a valid user to bring an RfC, and then to unilaterally delete it, is a sign that there is an entire cadre among the admins that just feel they are better than long-term users and just don't give a shit whether non-admin users are abused - nay, a cadre among admins that ENDORSE when non-admin users are abused. And you're one of them.

Hooray cabal! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite is a troll of the first order, as he has frequently just plain lied in order to get his wikidick sucked. You bought right into his lies. SchmuckyTheCat 17:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, rather than the alternative... I made my decision, I just used Hipocrite's quote to explain it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I love it when not-trolls tell me that I'm just plain lying to get my wikidick sucked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You implied on the deleted RfC that I should be banned for "longer and longer periods of time" with the insuation that I'd been blocked previously, and was a troll of the first magnitude, for simply voicing opinions relevant to matters at hand, and for voicing my reasons in good faith for why certain articles should be retained. Virtually all my posts on this whole mess have been along the lines of disproving what I felt were incorrect statements, or revealing relevant information based on incontrovertible evidence that was being left by everyone all over Wikipedia. That's it. You also posted in the RfC and AfD comments like "such and such is a meatpuppet" or "such and such is a sockpuppet" to discredit others. When pressed by multiple editors to justify and prove your comments, you replied that you refuse to do so as it would "reveal IP information", which if it's not in WP edit history you as a non-admin should have *NO* access to based on Wikipedia rules. You really should disclose if you do have access to such information. When asked to then remove your inflammatory and unproven accusations, you simply refused. I'll note that any connections of evidence and behavior I pointed out were backed up with diffs, or common patterns of posting by others, which were in plain sight.

rootology

18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So you agree with the same misinformation he put out there regarding the matter? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not trolling, just clearing up factually incorrect misrepresentations made about me. You still have never answered the questions based on your statements of where you had obtained IP information that you should not have access to on WP. As you had firmly insisted previously that revealed IP information on WP be removed (see the previous Karwynn situation), I ask that in good faith you do so now.

rootology

18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that too many people with additional buttons are taking too much unilateral action on this whole case, end to end, above and beyond what they should have. Half the contentiousness and vitriol that has been (needlessly) generated with this whole ED thing from the beginning was because of people doing things as is they 1.) are in charge of the WP project; 2.) no regard for process--knowing full damn well that they're only going to incense people by not doing it right or by the book; 3). perhaps it's time for additional community (editor) level oversight of admin actions. Any project like this were anyone is above reproach will in the end fail as the project sways more and more in the horrid direction of cronyism.

15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps the problem is too many people elevating

WP:RS. That or too many trolls. Take your pick. Just zis Guy you know?

21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the answer! More bureaucracy! For heavens sake; every year the project as a whole gets more inclusionist. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hum...I wondered where that went to...now I know. For the record, I looked through the deleted pages of the ED article and saw nothing that I thought were personal attacks I had made, but that is my perception. Let's write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, a Wikipedia administrator, today requested that I not edit the article

for a couple weeks in order to allow here to assume good faith on my part or "there will be consequences". Is this proper? If I do edit that article, and in a proper manner using sourcing and being NPOV, would I be violating AGF with SlimVirgin? Here is the comment (emphasis added):

"I would ask you not to embark on any editing of

Allegations of Israeli apartheid, this would be a provocative time to start it up again at NAS. I'd therefore appreciate it if you could leave it for a couple of weeks, at least, as a sign of your good faith. When you do start to edit, all that matters is what reliable sources have said about it. We shouldn't insert our own opinions. The best sources to use are academics, and these should be used whenever possible because there are many such sources available on this topic. Next down, well-known journalists/writers/researchers in that field writing for serious publications. If we stick to those, we should have no problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"

"I can't see a reason to request that I should refrain from editing it when I am ready -- can you point to the relevant policy? With regards to sources: I have experience writing at an academic level -- for example, I have a number of published papers, including one earlier this year in the top computer graphics journal. I have had quite a few positive citations, and adoption of my innovations, from leading academics at

Berkely University. --Ben Houston

19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"

"Your policy request is another example of the process fetishism that has caused so much trouble. I am requesting that you delay your edits as a sign of your good faith. If you want me to assume there is no good faith, fair enough, but understand there will be consequences^[†], and we'll be back to square one with the nonsense Homey started. As for writing at an academic level, we very precisely do not write as though we are academics, who are allowed and encouraged to express their own views. We publish only what reliable sources have already published, and all contentious edits, or edits that are challenged, must cite a reliable source. We don't add our own opinions. We represent what the majority opinion is among reliable sources; next down, we represent the significant minority opinions among reliable sources; and we ignore tiny-minority ones. What we think about the issues is completely irrelevant; no one is interested in our personal views. I can't stress that enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"
† highlighting added by Ben Houston

No one is seeking any sanctions against myself on any issues. I do not think it is appropriate that I be held accountable for someone else's actions. What is the appropriate course of action? Should be refrain from editing as SlimVirgin requests for 3 weeks because otherwise, in her words, "there will be consequences"? SlimVirgin has over 300 edits to the article in question, it does feel, from my perspective, that she is exerting ownership over it. --Ben Houston 06:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys can be virgins too... --mboverload@ 06:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But she's a she. I know because her user page is purple :)

Thatcher131

06:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Purple doesn't mean anything. The "This user is a female contributor." userbox, however, might mean a bit more. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, purple is symbolic of royalty, and protection, according to... a

Hardy Boys book I read back in middle school. (And you thought I was going to say according to Wikipedia. Pshaw, how cliche.) JDoorjam Talk

07:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting to see what the ArbComm decides in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid. The decision there may resolve this issue. --John Nagle 06:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While strongly worded, My initial reading of that was wrong, Slim's suggestion is well within bounds, but the use of the word "consequences" is unfortunately non-specific. I see now that it was more in the line of "it may mess up the detante" and less of "and you'll regret it." All editors are advised to tread carefully and source hygienically around contentious articles. While "acouple of weeks" is a long time, there are lots of other articles to edit aren't there? Nothing at all to see here, move along. - brenneman ^{L} 08:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: SlimVirgin modified the original report, without comment except in the edit history, soon after I wrote it to remove my highlighting and mention of her non-specific threat of "there will be conseuqneces" -- see this edit of her [7]. --Ben Houston 13:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well that would be because you modified her original statement without making it clear that the highlighting was in fact your work…I have remedied your omission (see † above). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I did disclose that I added emphais, see my introductory note which says "Here is the comment (emphasis added):" -- I will make it more prominent if there is a next time though. SlimVirgin modified the title of my request as well from "SlimVirgin requested me to not edit article or 'there will be consequences'?", which mentioned the threat to more harmless seeming "SlimVirgin requested me to not edit article" -- that was frigging weird that she would do that. I made the mistake of not mentioning the threat in the intro text thus the bold and the title were the only places -- both of which she deemphasized in her edit. I don't mind being told that what she did is okay, but modifying my report to change its focus is weird. --Ben Houston 14:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben, as far as I can tell, you can edit the article, nobody

owns it. It is good she made her point clear, but that does not imply you have to obey her request. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus}

14:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"The article was disrupted for several weeks by HOTR" - A brilliant statement which both ignores common courtesy and anything resembling assuming good faith in the editor. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 14:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet true.

type

15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: SlimVirgin once again, see [8], modified my complaint without comment on this page except in the page history log -- strangeness indeed. --Ben Houston 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: SlimVirgin modified the title once again [9]. --Ben Houston 19:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a little baffled by this suspected sock puppet case against an admin, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Avraham. It appears to be made in bad faith against him, since he accused another user of sockpuppetry. Any comments are appreciated. Iolakana|^T 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Kilo: this certainly looks like a bad faith case, considering the circumstances and the evidence presented by Avraham. I can attest for the seriousness of Avraham both as an editor and as an admin. I wouldn't take this very seriously, and I'm sure it will get cleared in his favor pretty soon. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 03:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear people think I made the accusation in bad faith --- I can assure you I did not. I thought I laid my suspicions out clearly. If I'm wrong, fine, but I think I detect a hint of favoritism in this decision. As far as this being a retaliatory case, if you read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SkipSmith you'll see Avi is the one who actually filed a sockpuppet case in retaliation (note the line "I was hoping I would not have to do this, but Skip's accusation forces me down this road"). SkipSmith 00:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Hillman has created a set of

18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

They are the same stuff that shows up here at ANI, and in RFC's, and suchlike, all the time. I'm not too bothered. I disagree with some of the stuff on User:Hillman's user page but overall it's one of the most interesting wiki-essays I've seen so far, and I'm satisfied about Hillman's motives. Anyway, anyone interested in wiki-abuse issues keeps notes like that. At least with Hillman, you know what s/he is writing down about you (if anything). Lots of others maintain this kind of data privately and exchange it with each other on closed wikis or by email. Which of those practices (Hillman's or the alternative) creeps you out more? Phr (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate tracking of long-term POV vandalism. Nothing to see here... Just zis Guy you know? 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a quite legitimate effort to document and research vandalism and POV-pushing on Wikipedia.

FCYTravis

00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tim, if you will just give me a chance, I have sought and recieved some valuable admin feedback and am about to make some changes (beginning by retracting that silly "no link" thing). I was trying to avoid a public furore to increase the chances that I will actually find time to finish my essay on User:Hillman/Digging, which ironically is intended as a first step on the long road to proposing, discussing, and establishing a policy on when digging is and is not appropriate. Since the furore arrived before I could finish my essay, I am considering a volte face and may nominate these pages myself for RfC or even MfD. Please give me a chance to consider how to to that since I think the Sarfatti and Haisch pages have legitimate uses in addition to background for my essay. Your cooperation is appreciated! ---CH 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Tim to give me a chance to RfC the pages in question, so trust this is now moot. I ask DrL (talk · contribs) and others not to edit the pages, at least not during the RfC (but I thought it was in bad taste to edit pages in another users user space if they have asked that others not edit these pages?) ---CH 23:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the tracked users are POV-pushers or vandals, but others seem to be good-faith contributors whose connection to "alternative" theories put them under Hillman's radar. They range from notable public figures like

"Posting personal details" section of the blocking policy states that "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time," and publicizing presumed real-life names and places of residence would seem to contravene it. (If the policy carries implicit exceptions, those need to be made explicit.) I appreciate that Hillman's goal is to formulate a policy on when "digging" is and is not appropriate, but it is obviously premature to make the digging public before the policy has been formulated. Tim Smith

23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• This might help in understanding Tim's concern about CH's tracking pseudoscience edits. Phr (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Careful, Phr—I've already had to warn you to

WP:USER. There's maybe some leeway for tracking hard-line POV pushers and vandals, but the rest need to go. Tim Smith

13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say I am also very concerned about this. I appreciate Hillman's efforts to help develop a digging policy; however she is one of the (if not the) top diggers, and I believe much of what he has done and is doing in that regard is beyond the pale. This is not a new issue - a few months ago there was a major controversy about that (from Hillman's talk page: User_talk:Hillman/Archive9). I think a reasonable summary of that is that most of those who looked into and understood what Hillman was doing were against it.

Out of the many problems with what Hillman is doing, let me just point out a few: (1) there is usually no "probable cause" - a lot of the people targetted have not actually done anything in violation of WP policy or anything disruptive or otherwise wrong, they have merely given Hillman some vague reason to be concerned that they might (2) the data presented is extremely circumstantial, and its interpretation error-prone, often no better than a wild guess and (3) it violates explicit WP policies. ObsidianOrder 19:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig. ---CH 00:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have been targeted by Hillman and have not violated Wikipedia policy. I did link to a bookseller to provide a reference, but this was done to support the citation. It was removed and I did not object. For this infraction, I now have a Hillman Dig page where my edits are tracked and conjecture regarding my personal identity is posted in violation of WP. I can see the need to have some way of monitoring repeat vandals, but this type of monitoring can so easily become abusive (as it already has). DrL 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As this seems to be the precursor for the discussion of what could be a very good policy proposal, perhaps all this should be taken up under the MfD page instead of AN/I.

01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Text is based on earlier request by

at 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC) in 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Just zis Guy you know? 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The same unknown user seems to be creating every two days a new user name for himself and places a highly erroneous article on page

Kvens of the past fully over-writing the current article and refusing to comment his actions in any way on the talk page even if that has been asked. Semiprotection on the page would be appreciated. --Drieakko

19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create an entry in

Kvens of the past article, changes to the now protected redirect pages above, abusive comments in Talk:Kven, and personal attacks against two earlier Kven article editors User:Mikkalai and User:Leifern. But earlier (s)he have also added his “Kvenland” theory to many other pages, including many articles about municipalities and villages in Northern Norway.--Labongo

03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been involved in a dispute with

03:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I clicked on the link. Big mistake. Not that my computer blew up, but I'll have to wash my brain before I go to bed. Semi-protection was a reasonable choice. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even want to know what garbage he wrote on that forum. but glancing at INC related forums at that site, it's full of Encyclopaedia Dramatica style crap. I've added this incident to

^ak|on|it!>

04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure there is much I can add here.

Voice-of-All

18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

moved from the Villiage pump pschemp | talk 13:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm posting here because I'm not really sure where else to turn for help. I fully expect my account (Andy emigré) to be blocked by User:Pschemp for making this edit, if only because it raises questions about the appropriateness of his/her blocks, the one on myself included. I realize Wikipedia suffers considerably from trolls and vandals, but really--Pschemp's blocks on myself and this "No Chinese allowed" guy seem not to be aimed at reducing vandalism, but rather at silencing criticism of his/her own behavior.

So, could someone (1) keep an eye on the page "User:No_Chinese_allowed" to make sure Pschemp doesn't erase my comment, and (2) make sure he/she doesn't block me in retribution for whistleblowing, if such behavior is indeed inappropriate according to whatever relevant rules may exist? Thanks in advance.

Andy emigré 08:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I wanted to ask. Am I correct to infer that there's no oversight to curb this sort of administrative abuse? Or was Pschemp justified, after all, in deleting my comments and blocking my account? If the latter, my apologies for wasting your time; if the former, I'm left wondering how Wikipedia can keep potential editors, such as myself and those others in my department I mention in the forcibly redacted comment, interested instead of disillusioned and bitter at the forceful rejection of our contributions. Andy emigré 08:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk.--Chaser T 08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The

username policy

is mainly in place to avoid a couple of things:

• Obviously trollish accounts - "WIKIPEDIA IS GHEY" and the like.
• Impostor accounts of varying sneakinesses - say, "Jimbo WaIes". (Note that the middle letter of the last name is an uppercase i, not a lowercase L.)
• Untypable usernames - like "小", I'm afraid, as well as long random strings of characters. There's a standing policy on this wiki against "untypable" usernames, as they're extremely difficult to tell apart.

I don't see any evidence of blocks having been carried out outside of this policy, though. No Chinese allowed (talk · contribs) hasn't been blocked, and neither have you - and I see no evidence that either of you are going to be, either. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, when Pschemp blocked me (on my now inaccessible "Anonymous Andy" account) it seemed to be in direct retribution for criticizing his behavior towards the "No Chinese allowed" guy; my experiences stemmed from someone at my university had managed to get the entire department blocked under the guideline to which you refer.

The policy of blocking users without explanation and no apparent means of getting unblocked (I don't remember seeing a procedure on the block page, at least as of a few months ago when Wikipedia had my department's subnet blocked--the reason for which, again, I had to turn to offline sources to discover) is a huge turnoff to potential contributors. I just hope you understand that. Andy emigré 09:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A reason was given for this diff among others and it was (personal attacks, trolling on articles) Your use of profanity and personal attacks on me are against policies and not appropriate. Yet, on your talk page, you have repeated them. It is quite obvious you are upset about the username policy and are taking it out on me. Why not do something more constructive? pschemp | talk 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen several users with Chinese characters in their usernames here, and they have not been blocked. I think blocking usernames with Chinese characters (or other languages) is unfair, and sometimes names are not easy to romanize. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, its policy at

WP:USERNAME and has been so.pschemp | talk

12:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If by "potential contributors" he means "people who will start calling people d1ckheads" at the drop of a hat, then we can probably live without them. IIRC the "unpronounceable" chinese name that was blocked a few months ago was reported here as being either an insult when translated or the chinese characters were not resolving properly and causing problems. Syrthiss 13:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, that's not what I mean by "potential contributors." Now that's a little unfair; I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. Surely it's not difficult to understand that getting blocked without warning (what triggered my block was an attempt to rewrite a comment to REMOVE a personal attack on Pschemp), with no easy recourse (how can you talk to an admin when you've been blocked from editing?), and apparently for reasons of self-interest alone, doesn't endear people to your project. I'm not a "vandal" or "troll," if that's what you're implying. Andy emigré 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How is this "removing" a personal attack? pschemp | talk 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Andy, this looks like you have been blocked in the past because of usernames that were against the username policy. So no admin abuse there. Then, instead of reading the username policy, realising that those are just the rules of the game here, you respond bitter and frustrated, and show that frustration by leaving comments about 'abusive admins'. Also, the text you see when you try to edit when you're blocked, is pretty clear in what to do when you are blocked: MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Anyway, please drop the issue, don't take it this personally, create a username that stays witin policy and start editing! If you disagree with the username policy, please go to the talk page of the policy page and start a discussion there, perhaps you can convince the community to change the policy, who knows? --JoanneB 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wait a sec, *I* have never been blocked for usernames against policy... when did this become about me? :-P Look, perhaps you're misunderstanding my complaint? I'm not out to cause trouble here, I'm just trying to point out that administrative abuse is annoying enough to drive people away from Wikipedia. Anyway, yeah, it doesn't matter. Andy emigré 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What abuse? pschemp | talk 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, this:

(a) blocking

WP:CHU

recommends if you have very low numbers of edits to just start over to avoid making work for the 'crats and loading the servers)

(b) blocking User:anonymous Andy for calling wikipedians "Fucking dickheads" [10],

(c) removing the Fucking dickheads comment from User:No Chinese allowed (note: the user page, not the user talk page), and

(d) blocking his whole university department from editing (which must have been an autoblock, so I guess its your fault for not knowing his whole department uses one proxy server, and for not personally telling him that he can use wikipedia mail to contact you about the autoblock even when blocked)

So clearly you should turn over your mop immediately!

Thatcher131 (talk)

20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so other people can keep an eye on it, user "Sango123" (the name that shows up on signatures, but not the name that shows in edit history) has been blanking [11] this AfD. This is after significant voting had taken place. Even if one has indisputable proof of "bad faith nomination," one does not get to blank an AfD, much less re-blank it with "rv vandalism" in the edit summary. A longer block may be called for and more investigation of the person. Geogre 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If they're trying to impersonate the real Sango123 (talk · contribs), wouldn't a longer block be appropriate?--AOL account 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only, impersonating account. --Cyde↔Weys 15:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • My apologies to all. I saw the blanking, and then I was rushing out the door, so I didn't investigate and see that it was an impersonator. I thought it might be, but I didn't have the time to really check it out. Conversely, my thanks to everyone for going the mile I couldn't go. Geogre 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kawaiiprinces2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added a number of pages on manga topics with text fetched directly from external websites. The user has also added a few articles containing nothing but an infobox. I know nothing about manga; I'm tempted to just tag the lot as speedies, but I don't want to bite a newbie (and very likely a child). Perhaps somebody who is interested in manga/anime could open a dialogue with Kawaiiprinces2004 and examine what is salvageable/rewritable? up+l+and 09:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted all that I could find, as they contained nothing but a copyvio. --InShaneee 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The following is copied from this edit to my userpage. -- SCZenz 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you were responsible for blocking the robot

User:Marudubshinki

. He has been running bots through his regular user account, and recieves frequent complaints about its errors. His response to these complaints is in general quite callous, and he continues to make automated edits with this user account.

My first complaint can be seen at

User talk:Marudubshinki

under: "Please stop fixing my double redirect", "Removing whitespace ...", "Robot removing selflinks", "Bot removing self-links is causing grief", "External link bot".

Is there anything you can do about this, as an admin? - Rainwarrior 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The answer is, I've been aware of the problem for quite some time, but I'm not sure what to do. Marudubshinski runs an unauthorized bot out of his own account, to do minor tasks, and fairly regularly annoys people. It is undoubtedly against bot policy, a fact he's aware of but has basically shrugged off; he also routinely shrugs off complaints, by which I mean that he fixes problems but seems quite unconcerned that his bot is breaking pages. I tried emailing a member of the bot authorization group, but that never came to anything I'm aware of... So what should we do? -- SCZenz 16:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Block him indefinitely and only lift the block once you get a promise that he will go through the proper channels for bot authorization and never run it under his own account. --Cyde↔Weys 16:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Maru indefinitely pending his assurance re bot useage. [12]. --

I@n

02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this action. It's a simple thing for him to get himself unblocked. Maru has been brazenly violating policy, and continually illustrating why that policy exists in the process; as an admin, he should be setting the opposite example. -- SCZenz 02:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

He was previously blocked indefinitely for running unauthorised bots on the 13th, but unblocked himself the same day claiming the bots were shut down, and has since started the bots up again. To my mind this is a most grievous abuse of admin privileges. I've left a message on his talk page suggesting that he is under intense scrutiny at the moment and is not likely to get away with doing so again. I recommend keeping an eye on his block log until the matter is settled. Snottygobble 02:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case the block message did say he could unblock himself when the bot was shut down, but the clear implication that unauthorized bots are not allowed was clearly ignored. Sadly support the block. Question, however, since there are a lot of bot-blocks, and User:Bot-maru was indef blocked and never fixed (or rather, moved to the main account), what happens if he promises to get approval, gets himself unblocked, and then runs the bot again?

Thatcher131 (talk)

02:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that was on the 6th. He was blocked indefinitely by AmiDaniel on the 13th, with the summary "Please request approval before running your bot." AmiDaniel also left a message on his talk page explicitly instructing him "Please email me or add {{unblock}} to have the block removed--do not unblock yourself." Maru unblocked himself and continued running his bot without requesting bot approval. Snottygobble 02:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a pretty strong community consensus against running a bot as an admin, and it's trivial to get a new bot account, the bot policy is pretty clear that this block is supported, although I hope it will not be a reason for Maru to leave over. As for the bot actions themselves, they appear fairly harmless, but inefficient (e.g. here multiple edits were made in succession, where they could have been made at once. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused about the history re the 15th, and I'll review it again shortly. However I'd just like to say in response to Thatcher's question the following... Maru has never lied, he's just ignored policy. If he unblocks himself or promises to stop and then doesn't, I have a rather clear idea what to do, but I think that discussion is premature. Also to Xaosflux, I'd like to mention that there have been more serious issues like editing peoples' talk page comments and breaking links. -- SCZenz 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just saw the comments related to those, and it goes back to show exactly why

WP:RFBOT exists. — xaosflux ^Talk

03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking himself

I'd also like to note that Snottygobble's statement above is 100% correct, even though at least two of us were confused. Maru did unblock himself after being explicitly instructed not to do so by Ami Daniel on the 13th. [13] [14]. -- SCZenz 03:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he unblocked himself on the 13th and starting running the bot again on the 16th. And I was mixed up about the blocks, there was clearly no provision in the block of the 13th for self-unblocking.

Thatcher131 (talk)

04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More serious use

More troubling than the fact that he is running a bot under his admin account is that he is running a bot that *uses his admin privs.* The delete log is pretty clear that he's running an adminbot:

• 03:21, July 23, 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Shan bhai" (Robot: Redirect target doesn't exist)
• 03:21, July 23, 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Shan bai" (Robot: Redirect target doesn't exist)
• 03:21, July 23, 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "1st and 15th Entertainment" (Robot: Redirect target doesn't exist)
• 03:21, July 23, 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "MDPE" (Robot: Redirect target doesn't exist)

This is greatly concerning, as the use of bots with admin privs is opposed very strongly on en.wiki (with the possible exception of Curps, though his is not without it's critics, and may or may not still be running) and by the Foundation (an adminbot on another wiki was desysopped by Anthere not too long ago). Given that he's been warned numerous times not to run a bot under his admin account, has refused to comply, has added features which utilize his admin status without approval, and has unblocked himself in order to re-start the bot, I'm inclined to request a desysopping. If he unblocks himself, or if he is unblocked and resumes using the bot to execute administrator privs, I will request he be emergency desysopped and the matter referred to Arbitration, as per the precedent for emergency desysopping. Essjay (Talk) 04:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I might also add that his bot is prone to errors (which is actually the thing that caused this to surface). --

I@n

06:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very disturbing. Maru is a valuable member of the community, but unblocking oneself, running unauthorized bots, and running bots with sysop privileges need to be stopped, now. He needs to understand the seriousness of his actions, or he will be losing his admin privileges. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as this is a violation an admin needs to immediately block this bot's access until things are sorted.

rootology

18:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maru is currently blocked (see above). The Bot-maru account was blocked for the same issues; which is apparently why he was running it from his main account.

Thatcher131 (talk)

18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am disturbed also. He remains blocked, and hasn't taken any action, and my perception of his earlier actions was that he never really understood why the rest of us kept telling him to stop. I fear we'll lose him over this, which is a shame, but I see no course other than the choice we've offered him. -- SCZenz 03:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

, I proposed that they be deleted, too.

In apparent retaliation, Nick has left, on no fewer than thirty user talk pages, identical copies of a libellous message in which he alleges that I am a "covert racist", that my "deletions are because of racial discrimination" or alternately, that "it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry" (a conclusion which he draws from me having made two edits to

17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Potters house has now been informed that his conduct is inappropriate, and that continuing along this course will result in a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The long-term permablocked vandal Roitr (for more information see:

18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as obvious impersonation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody please semi-protect this article

19:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Request that controversial info not be removed from history

At

Charles_Jacobs (political activist)

we're having some disputes. Jacobs is a controversial political figure, and he has some strong defenders. Negative material that his defenders consider "poorly sourced" is removed, while favorable material stays in.

For libel purposes, Jacobs is a "public figure". He's been on major TV talk shows, has written op-ed articles in the New York Times, and runs advocacy organizations. So there's no real libel risk here under US law.

With this background, please see

. One editor has asked that the history of the article be destroyed by an admin. I would like to ask that this not be done without formal review by a neutral party, so that the actions of various editors, including myself, can be reviewed.

The material concerns a defamation lawsuit in which Jacobs is involved, as a defendant. Jacobs has been involved in efforts to stop the building of a large mosque in Boston, and this has resulted in lawsuits. There's substantial press coverage in the mainstream media of this, along with websites from both (maybe three) sides, and a blog with a timeline. So I put links to all this on the talk page, not being ready to add material about it to the main article.

Read for yourself what happened then.

Please read the material referenced above and let me know if I've done anything improper. Thanks. --John Nagle 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a case of "Legal Threats" to me by NYScholar. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland is attempting to whitewash and cover up the fact that he was found to be using a sockpuppet and posting under multiple identifies on Wikipedia. I was advised a couple days ago to let this matter now lie and I agreed to do so, but user Mantanmoreland is now trying to remove evidence and important information about this incident.[17] I suspect that in fact he has been using several identifies: Lastexit for sure and I suspect also "Doright." He was warned by an administrator about this and the administrator the indicated that he was definitely using a sockpuppet. He is now trying to cover this up by removing text from his archived talk page. I believe this is inappropriate. Would somebody here please advise Mantanmoreland to stop deleting text concerning this incident from his talk page archives? Thanks. Ptmccain 21:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder has already dealt with this. You are in a content dispute with Mantan, and seem to be trying to cause trouble. He has seen Fred's note, and if he wants to archive it, that's up to him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I properly removed anonymous comments from banned user WordBomb circumventing his indefinite ban -- the same IP comments for which my user page has already been semi-protected. Ptmccain has mischaracterized my actions in edit summaries as "removing warnings" and improperly edited my archive page and engaged in trolling. He is indeed engaged in a protracted content dispute with me and other editors on Martin Luther and other related pages. He is an edit warrior who has been banned a half dozen times -- the second to last time, on my complaint, for one week -- for vop;ating 3RR on Martin Luther [18]. I and other editors have warned him to stop his disruptive conduct.[19] His actions here are in bad faith and vindictive. Note this:[20]Ptmccain should be sanctioned for his misconduct. --Mantanmoreland 21:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of "edit warring" are easily made and anyone reviewing edit history on the Martin Luther pages will realize that Mantanmoreland and SlimVirgin are every bit as much part of the problem there as anyone else. In fact, I notice that SlimVirgin is herself now before the Arbcomm for similar behaviors even toward fellow admin. So, I think can dispense with the tactic of trying to divert attention from the issue here. Trying to divert attention from this complaint is not helpful. Mantanmoreland is attempting to whitewash a most serious breach of Wiki policy and is telling only half the truth. I did not not try to restore most of what he deleted from a banned user. I did however restore a very important part of the user's violation of Wiki policy. Here is what Mantanmoreland is trying to remove from public view in his archives:

Interesting conversation, Fred. Say, just to clarify, what's the the policy when it appears one individual voted twice using two identities? Take this instance, for example[21]. On its face, it would seem Mantanmoreland voted in an AfD sponsored by Lastexit. --66.102.186.24 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Yes, a violation of our sockpuppet policy. I hope he takes this warning to heart. Fred Bauder 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for a Wikipedia user to remove a finding from an administrator that he is engaged in violating teh Wikipedia sockpuppet policy? I have been, I believe rightly, instructed by administrators not to remove any admin warnings or comments from my talk pages? Were they wrong?Ptmccain 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mccain, you're trolling now. This has been dealt with by three admins, one of whom is on the ArbCom. It is dealt with, finished, over. There's no need for further input from you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:66.102.186.24 was an obvious sockpuppet of banned user WordBomb, and removal of that and other sockpuppet edits, which were evading an indefinite ban, was totally appropriate. Ptmccain's re-posting here the taunting comment from this banned user (the subject of his complaint below) was abominable. --Mantanmoreland 22:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's have the facts clear. What I restored was not a "taunting comment" -- I have no way to know that was its intention, nor do I care really. The reason I put it back in was because it was a very important part of the record here, a very important question that made it possible for Fred Bauer to make his follow-on remark indicating that Mantanmoreland has been using a sockpuppet. I would be happy to leave only Fred's comment on the open archive page instead. I offer that as a solution. Let's just keep Fred's remark on Mantanmoreland's archive page. That would be fine with me. Removing it is wrong. I've been told by both admins and users that it is wrong to remove admin warnings and comments on my talk pages. Were they wrong? Ptmccain 22:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain is referring to my warning here [22], in which I warned him not to personally attack me on his user page and then edit out my response. No, that is not the same thing as removing edits from a user circumventing an indefinite ban.

It is time for the plainly retaliatory conduct of this editor to come to an end.--Mantanmoreland 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's getting close to the time for an indefinite block of

WP:POINT violations, repeated personal attacks against many editors, sending threatening e-mails, and threatening to "out" someone. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How indefinite would that block be exactly? I hope for a long, long time! 64.12.116.65 01:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would consider it a personal favor if somebody would "indefinitely block" me. That way I would be forced to avoid the temptation to participate in Wikipedia and have to deal with the likes of "SlimVirgin" aka Danny Wool, and Mantanmoreland/Doright/Nextexit and the other assorted troubled persons who inhabit Wikipedia 24/7 hiding behind their anonymity, working out their psychic disorders in various and sundry fashion here, not to mention participating in a project that ultimately is fatally flawed due its encouragment to people who know nothing about a given subject to participate in. No "encyclopedia" operates in such a fundamentally intellectually dishonest and unreliable way. So, please...go ahead, make my millennium. And I will thank you for it. I assure you it will be of no concern to me. I thank you kindly for the suggestion Danny. And it will be fun to watch the history page here to see how quickly Danny and playmates permanently delete this remark from the Wiki record. Ptmccain 00:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article Jerkcity has been subjected to periodic vandalism (e.g., [23]) in the last week or so from an anonymous user connecting from a few Verizon addresses. I semi-protected the article for a few days, but after lifting it, the vandal returned with a couple null edits with attack edit summaries [24]. In response I have blocked 70.20.92.157 for 48 hours. I am submitting this here for review since the attacks were mostly directed at me. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The IP 69.182.218.103 has vandalized many pages, including Oprah Winfrey twice within a minute long span. Warnings have been given, and it is now necessary to take further steps. -PhattyFatt 04:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't get confirmation that the IP address is static, but I can block for a short time. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was asked by a person with the username User:MonsterOfTheLake to vote a certain way on an AFD. The AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkification

I was blocked over AIM.

Afterwards I tried to leave messages for him on his talk page...

EDIT: I was told by Mark Ryan that it is bad form to post AIM chat logs, so I deleted it upon his request. WhisperToMe 06:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:MonsterOfTheLake

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MonsterOfTheLake&action=history

I don't want him to take AFD so personally like that.

WhisperToMe 05:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• An elaborate hoax. Dude, what is your problem and why are you attacking me?
• Notice: I don't know this person. I have no idea who he/she is. Why are you posting random bs in my talk page? I've asked this before amd I'll ask you again: Who ARE you and how did you get my SN? And why are you making up such a ridiculous lie and why did you spend all that time making up a fakelog, because I honestly don't know who you are or what your problem is. MonsterOfTheLake 05:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turkification&action=history WhisperToMe 05:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you ban someone from editing even his own talk page? [25] I think this really needs to stop. --Allen 06:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting it, Cyde. I think that will really help. --Allen 06:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked

) 07:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• You did just fine. -- Hoary 09:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you which policy Masterhatch's moves were against? It certainly couldn't be any of these, could it?

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions
  "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources."
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) "Diacritics should only be used in an article's title, if it can be shown that the word is routinely used in that way, with diacritics, in common usage. This means in reliable English sources, such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, or articles in major English-language newspapers." and "If the word is routinely listed in reliable English sources without diacritics, then the Wikipedia article should follow that method for the article title, though the diacritics version should be given in the initial paragraph of the article as suggested in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)." and "If it is not clear what "common usage" is, then the general Wikipedia guideline is to avoid use of diacritics in article titles."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format#Use of diacritics and non-English characters

Masterhatch should not have been blocked. The issue of diacritics is far from settled and taking unilateral action against one user is both heavily POV and abuse of admin privileges. BoojiBoy 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion about it on some of the pages. See Talk:Marián Gáborík and Talk:Teemu Selänne. Both of these pages appeared to have consensus before most of his moves. -- JamesTeterenko 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should add that I propose the removal of this block. Yes, it was a move war, but not the most serious I have seen and he did have some discussion backing him up. I have seen a number of his edits, and he is not normally disruptive. -- JamesTeterenko 19:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While I won't question the blocking, I would suggest that Masterhatch was doing something within policy, namely using the most common English name for a proper title for a page. See the Talk pages James mentioned above.  RasputinAXP  c 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:RRennalls, currently in action at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

...and

22:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinetly by
  User:Mailer diablo abakharev
  04:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

James Ewing Harassing me.

Can all references to User:AndrewBourke and the address and contact information be purged from the revert history and archives?

I *am* the Andrew Bourke that Mr. Ewing of Sveasoft Inc. is harassing by registering my name as a username and posting my personal info from open proxies.

Thanks,

- Andrew

User_talk:AndrewBourke

and:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive107

Anyone? --

03:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We can delete specific revisions of a page containing personal information, but you'll have to be specific about which pages you want cleansed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! All fixed - there were posts of my personal info in the User page history for AndrewBourke - they have now been purged. --

Spankr

19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked User:George Stroumboulopoulos to choose another username, since we don't allow the names of celebirities unless they're the real people. See George Stroumboulopoulos. He blanked his Talk page and called my request vandalism. When I told him that I was an admin and asked him again to answer my question, he tried to claim that it's his real name. I have blocked him and asked him to choose another name, but instead I'm getting abuse on his Talk page. He only has about three edits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blank it and protect. --InShaneee 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Tyrenius 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, thank you for cleaning out a couple of the more noisome userboxes I've yet seen. · rodii · 13:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I blanked and protected, and he came back with this lovely "warning" on my Talk page. I blocked the account for 31 hours. I'm not blocking user id creation, as I told the user just to create a new account, but if this stuff continues, I will. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

After reverting User:Handface's edit to Bill Clinton (which, apparently, was not the first time that article was vandalized), I looked at the user's talk page. This latest incident of posting Coulter's erroneous opinion that Clinton is a rapist, molestor, and latent homosexual as a fact just served to illustrate the bad behaviour of this user. I believe we need to permanently block him/her, seeing as the user is argumentative, offensive, and has a great history of vandalism on Wikipedia. -PhattyFatt 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just checked the edit you mention.[26] In two short sentences Handface has provided 3 references. This hardly qualifies as vandalism. I don't know anything about Coulter, but she is obviously being given media access to say these things. What verification do you have for the description "erroneous" as at the moment your statement reads as

POV. I can't see any reason to block Handface at all for this edit. I can see a need for a more serious discussion about whether Coulter's views have gained sufficient exposure to merit their inclusion. Tyrenius

01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to add the Bill Clinton comment again. Tyrenius has done a good job of mediating this. I can let it go. What I can't take is the continued garbage that some people insist on spewing. PhattyFatt just said that I "ha[ve] a great history of vandalism on Wikipedia". As far as I know, I have no history of vandalism on Wikipedia. Here's a tip, Phatty: if you have a point to make, make it without lying. I know lies are very persuasive in the

Al Franken world of crap arguments, but they don't work with me. Handface

04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In two short sentences Handface has provided 3 references. Irrelevant, since the issue isn't whether she said it, but whether it's applicable to Bill Clinton; i.e., whether Ann Coulter is specially qualified to diagnose Bill Clinton or whether her latest ravings have some direct weight on the subject of Bill Clinton. "Vandalism" isn't out of line, really, since it's clearly an intellectually dishonest attempt to inject Handface's POV while laundering it as outside comment. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It's not my POV. I don't think Bill Clinton is gay. I've said that several times now. I put it in the article because Ann Coulter said it, and Coulter and Clinton have a long and documented history (yet there is no mention of Coulter at all in the Clinton article). I haven't added the comment back, and I don't plan on it at this time. Other than Jay Leno joking about it the last couple of nights, there hasn't really been enough publicity about this statement to include it. But it's just outlandish to call this vandalism. Handface 08:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I reverted it as vandalism the first time it appeared. At the user's insistence, I have taken it as seriously as I can since that initial reversion — without any sign at all until just a few hours ago that the user is willing to discuss the matter. My assessment is still that the edit is a pretty clear example of

Ptkfgs

06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how did I insist that you take this seriously if I wasn't discussing it? Handface 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're both coming from your own

06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly an edit dispute and not vandalism and this isn't the right forum for it. Thank you. Tyrenius 15:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone is switching between many different IPs and vandalizing

) 00:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that this is common main page vandalism. Doesn't follow a pattern to indicate that a single person is behind it. However, I see no harm in checking. Joelito (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily sprotected the article. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

All main page articles get hit by IP vandals. It is our policy not to issue protection. If you really, really, really feel that you have to, please use SProtect. The 24 hours that "your" article is on the main page will be one of the longest collections of hours you will ever have. The more popular the topic, the worse it is, and Bulbasaur is really going to get slammed. Geogre 14:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The featured article should not be sprotected. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k#Don.27t_do_it
Ste4k posted this into the RfC against her as evidence of me being incivl:

How dare I edit your page so people can read it? Do you have vision problems? I have never heard of vision problems.. Here, I'll fix. --mboverload 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The actual quote:

How dare I edit your page so people can read it? =D Do you have vision problems, if that's the case then I'm sorry. However, I have never heard of vision problems needing everything to be different low contrast shades of purple in extremely small sizes. Here, I'll fix the size issue for you. In Internet Explorer go up to the "View" drop down menu, go down to "Text size" and select "Medium" --mboverload@

I unwatched the RfC page because I was sick of her antics. Another user had to alert me to her insertion of completely made up comments. What can I do? Why do I have to put up with this? --mboverload@ 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may ignore the actual thrust of this thread for a second and take the opportunity to sink the boot into Mboverload: You are a bit on the acerbic side in the original quote, and any quote that isn't a diff is not worth the black photons it's written in anyway. As to the real issue, the best response to fractured quote is a link to the original, or to ignore it. - brenneman ^{L} 04:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Diff: [27] which is found in the history of a page which was moved, then turned into a redirect which points at Ste4k's archive page (see [28]). Talkpage history was a bit hard to find. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what exactly are we supposed to do here? This sounds like another silly content/user dispute occuring. I was done with Ste4k and her problem users a loooooooooong time ago. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 05:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was done too, I completely wiped any trace of her from my watchlist. But putting words in my mouth is not something I'm going to ignore. --mboverload@ 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should just ignore it and wait for the RFAr. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-28 12:45Z

Oh well. I was convinced that an admin would have banned her by now for community exhaustion, but I guess we'll have to go through Arb. Read the RfC, "she" actually brough in her "husband" to challenge me to a fight =P --mboverload@ 12:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually have to say that while she's a good editor, her lack of interpersonal skill has caused me to suffer an exhaustion of patience as well. I'd rather not block her for it, myself, but perhaps more comments are needed? ~Kylu (u|t) 18:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the RfC is already a failure, this user will never take any sort of advice and will continue to be confrontational. We need a rouge admin to indef =( --mboverload@ 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this editor seems to trying intentionally to exhaust the community's patience. She's certainly exhausted mine. -Will Beback 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note this user brought in her husband/made up a husband sock account to challenge me to a fight on the RfC--mboverload@ 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI.

02:06Z

Yeah, only so it looks like she's a "brand-new user". --mboverload@ 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears there's a few people here who've decided she may have exhausted the community's patience. If there's consensus, the user and her sockpuppet can be blocked per

blocking policy (yes, I know you're all aware of it) for this and the personal threats. Opinions? ~Kylu (u|t

) 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ste4k_attempting_to_get_all_talk_history_deleted_though_complex_move_operations_and_manipulation below. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

05:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of policy violation here. For the record, Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) have been mass POV pushing on many articles. Bonafide.hustla was previously known as Freestyle.king (talk · contribs) who was repeated blocked before he change his username. See Bonafide.hustla's contributions for more details. --RevolverOcelotX 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example of his bootless wikilawyering. In any case, this user's contribution speaks for themselves. contributions It's astonishing to note that this user has not made a single useful edit since his initial arrival. And by the way my last valid block occurs in March from then on I have adhere to wikipedia regulations, while this user has not. The accusation is not justified.--Bonafide.hustla 05:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks, it is Bonafide.hustla who has been constantly stirring up dirt here. Many of Bonafide.hustla edits are bogus and POV and some of RevolverOcelotX's reverts are clearly justified even though he could provide better explanation of those reverts.--Jiang 05:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Both sides need to stop edit warring and callin each others edits vandalism though... Sasquatch t|c 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bonafide.hustla was the only person labeling other editor's completely legitimate reverts as "vandalism". See here for his latest example. Bonafide.hustla was banned from

WP:ANI for wikilawyering. See here for evidence of Bonafide.hustla's banning from WP:ANI. He is now evading his ban and should be blocked. --RevolverOcelotX

05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[[30]] shows I am no longer banned. In any case, although Jiang is a respected administrator and made a lot of contributions to this site. He has been making edits that are clearly pro-Chinese see Talk:David Wu Talk:List of Chinese Americans. You can't say his position is neutral. I am gonna stop edit warring right now though, but I stand by every edits I made. User:RevolverOcelotX just broken 3RR. [[31]]--Bonafide.hustla 05:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR by Revolver, a block is necessary. Thanks [[32]] First revert occurs at 15:48, 27 July 2006 RevolverOcelotX and 4th revert occurs at 05:49, 28 July 2006 RevolverOcelotX--Bonafide.hustla 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no violations there, considering only 3 reverts have been made. --RevolverOcelotX 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone explain the violation to him? The 4 reverts are very apparent.--Bonafide.hustla 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no violations there. Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) has been POV pushing and making tendentious edits to many articles since his initial arrival to Wikipedia (see his contributions). Bonafide.hustla has now resorted to making bogus vandalism reports which were promptly rejected, here and bogus checkuser here. This is clearly an abuse of the system. Bonafide.hustla should be blocked for disruption and wikilawyering. --RevolverOcelotX 06:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:RevolverOcelotX went as far as disrupting the info on the naming conventions. An independent user since reverted the article to the NPOV version by me. [[33]]. This also shows Jiang's biased POV of this issue (see his statement above). RevolverOcelotX should be blocked indefinitely for wasting the community's patience, wikilawyering, spamming, harassment, and disruption as per User:PoolGuy. He shows no willingness to contribute positively to the project. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 06:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) has been distorting the naming conventions. The diff Bonafide.hustla provided was not for the naming conventions but on an unrelated article which a new user reverted. Bonafide.hustla should be blocked for constant disruption, harrassment, wikilawyering, and wasting the community's patience. His contributions speak for themselves (he has been POV pushing since his initial arrival). He clearly shows no willingness to contribute positively to Wikipedia and should be blocked. --RevolverOcelotX 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Will you please go through the formal dispute resolution process, and clear this up once and for all, instead of spamming AN/I and dozens of admins' talk pages with these repetitive complaints, month after month after month. Personally, I think that if both of you were banned it would be no great loss. --ajn (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs)'s contributions, it is clear that Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) was the one who started spamming AN/I and other admins' talk pages. Bonafide.hustla even went as far as to make bogus "vandalism" and "checkuser" reports. It is clear that Bonafide.hustla has no intent to contribute positively and has wasted the community's patience and should be blocked. --RevolverOcelotX 07:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And your response to my request to stop spamming admins' talk pages with repetitive complaints is to put repetitive complaints on my talk page. Brilliant. Both of you are edit-warring, regardless of the minor detail of whether you are technically breaching 3RR or not, and both of you are being disruptive. Until I see a good faith attempt to resolve this by mediation, RfC or an arbitration case, I don't want to see any of this again here, or on my talk page. --ajn (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys don't understand; we can't ban Revolver Ocelot. If we do we'll create a time paradox, because he needs to be able to post the information six months from now that exposes La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo, thus setting off the metal gear crisis. --Cyde↔Weys 15:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

New account, uploaded copyright image 2 minutes after account created. Freewilly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hmmn, might just be an unfortunate choice of user name. Clappingsimon talk 08:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But the image he uploaded looks very much like taken from luxlux.com (Copyright © 2003 Oscommerce and CRE Loaded Team). Agathoclea 21:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In retaliation for disputing the fair use status on

14:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong, and it was not in retaliation. I was looking at an image you uploaded.. noticed it had no source and thus tagged it, i followed procedure properly as laid out in the template. Also how is this

WP:POINT? There was no point to be made, i am just trying to help you so your images are not deleted. Matthew Fenton (contribs

) 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also if you notice i did not tag the images without fair use rationales, because there where less i thought it would be easier to tell you in one message. You however took my actions in bad faith when they where in good faith. You told me they are all sourced correctly examples that they are not: [35][36] Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: To show my edits where purely good faith i will refrain from tagging the images for you and allow you to do it your self. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You have just prooven you are acting in bad faith, JPS has just removed all the tags (reverted) and not botherd to add source info. See: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41], You say the source is clearly there, where? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Example: "Opening titles to Joking Apart" along with the tv-screenshot tag, clearly says that the source is plainly the opening titles of the television show Joking Apart. You might also be interested in this diff. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it says amazon, however it doesnt give a direct link to the page. Also; You are sourcing the show but not the source where the image is from. That source ;-)! Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it does seem to be a borderline POINT violation; the first one I looked at clearly says it was taken from Amazon.com, and was properly tagged with the album cover fair use template. Some are screencaps or scans that do not say who the capper was (although that does not seem to be important to the issue, as they are correctly tagged with the appropriate fair use template). I think if The JPS went through and added "screencap by The JPS, original copyright owned by Fox Broadcasting" or whatever that would be sufficient. I would suggest to MatthewFenton that mass tagging someone else's uploads gives a bad impression. On the subject of

Thatcher131 (talk)

15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Saying that sourcing it to Amazon.com is not enough without the exact url is a pointless bit of wikilawyering, as (a) the link could change any day, and (b) Amazon is not the original owner. The point of providing source info is so that ownership can be investigated if use claims are in doubt. No one would have a problem finding the record publisher in this case.

Thatcher131 (talk)

15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i understand about the amazon part but i was under the impression that it had to be directly sourced. In regards to the mass tag i also believed i was following the correct procedure, i could of probably just told the uploader and not tagged them but i did not believe that is the right way to go. Also about the alex kelly image, i my self will replace that and upload a screencap i will take my self if that is the best way to go about it. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're both one edit away from a 3RR violation on

Thatcher131 (talk)

15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Thatcher. "Finding something better to do" is a bit of a dangerous question to ask any wikipedian -- they'd be no-one here!! I think Matthew and myself have cooled down. I disagree that indicating who captured the screenshot is overly important: so long as the source text is mentioned. As for the Alx whoever image, 3RR was inapplicable since it was not a content dispute: I was perfectly within my rights to request a review of that image. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about the Alex Kelly photo some more, and looked around the net, I agree that while it could be an official Fox promo, it could also be a photo shot for some other commercial purpose, like a magazine, and would therefore be inelegible under the promo reasoning. A screencap would present no problems, or if there is a promo photo on the official site. (I've seen Mall stores that sell celeb promo stills, that might be another way to find good promo still shots.) Good luck.

Thatcher131 (talk)

15:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• There's errors on both sides here.
• The claim that these edits were retaliatory is, I think, without base. While it is blatantly obvious that
  nsd}} it should not be construed as retaliation or stalking. If a user, as a result of interaction with another user, find a nest of problems they shouldn't be prohibited from fixing something they perceive as wrong. If the user (in this case MatthewFenton) continued this into a revert war over all the edits, that would be a different matter but this has not happened here except on one image that I think is rightly contested. Also, The JPS; edit summaries as this one
  are not helpful to keeping a situation calm.
• In this case, MatthewFenton has made an error in presuming that if a {{
  nsd}} tag. The image description did state who the holder of the copyright is. While it would be nice to have a web source for the image, it is not required; not all sources are on the web. If we note who holds the copyright of the image, it is sufficient to verify its status. --Durin
  15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Artical page Benjamin H freedman. Please Restore Promptly.

Please do not delete history.

Please restore this historical reference..

1.72 Benjamin H. Freedman on the articals for deletion page.

the primary reason for deletion was that the consensus believed that that man Benjamin H Freedman did not exist and does not exist.

This is an amazing result as i would like to present the evidence below:

link to html book

the link above leads to a html version of a book entitled "Franklin Delano ROOSEVELT My Exploited Father-in-Law" here is the acknowledgments section:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Mrs. Katharine L. Dall, Washington, D.C. - Special Miss Olga Butterworth, Wallingford, Pa. Willis A. Carto, Los Angeles, Calif. G. Ernest Dale, Philadelphia, Pa. Bernard R . DeRemer, Washington, D.C. Norman Dodd, New York, N.Y. Ex-Gov. George H. Earle, Philadelphia, Pa. Benjamin H. Freedman, New York, N.Y. Stockton Gaines, Montrose, Pa. Russell Hardy, Sr., Washington, D.C. Rev. T. Robert Ingram, Houston, Tex. Mrs. Rebecca Smith Lee, Lexington, Ky. Franz Ralston, Philadelphia, Pa. Isaac Requa, Jackson Heights, N.Y. John Sheridan, Philadelphia, Pa. Eduard W. Shober, Philadelphia, Pa. W. B. Vennard, Houston, Tex. Willis G. Wilmot, New Orleans, La.. Katharine L. Dall, Washington, D.C. - Special Miss Olga Butterworth, Wallingford, Pa. Willis A. Carto, Los Angeles, Calif. G. Ernest Dale, Philadelphia, Pa. Bernard R . DeRemer, Washington, D.C. Norman Dodd, New York, N.Y. Ex-Gov. George H. Earle, Philadelphia, Pa. Benjamin H. Freedman, New York, N.Y. Stockton Gaines, Montrose, Pa. Russell Hardy, Sr., Washington, D.C. Rev. T. Robert Ingram, Houston, Tex. Mrs. Rebecca Smith Lee, Lexington, Ky. Franz Ralston, Philadelphia, Pa. Isaac Requa, Jackson Heights, N.Y. John Sheridan, Philadelphia, Pa. Eduard W. Shober, Philadelphia, Pa. W. B. Vennard, Houston, Tex. Willis G. Wilmot, New Orleans, La.

amazon link

above is the book at Amazon.com

furthermore, in speech which was given by Mr. Benjamin Freedman before a military organization in Washington, D.C. in 1974, Col. Curtis B. Dall in his introduction said this:

Introduction by Col. Curtis B. Dall:

"Briefly, I will add a word or two about my old friend, Ben Freedman, I consider it an honor. I was initially introduced to him as a sort of, well you meet a fellow, but I'm not so sure about him -he may be a sort of a Trojan Horse. Well, I said, let me make up my own mind. In the years that have followed, I make up my own mind I spent many happy evenings with him and his wife, Rose, who is not with us anymore. When Ben was over twenty-five -and, as I say, he comes from a very distinguished Jewish family in New York. When Ben moved over into the areas of Christianity with Rose, it took a great deal of courage. "Guts," is the name in the Marine Corps, for what it took. Ben has been ostracized by many of his friends for believing that this Country had objectives and ideals that did not appear in the minds of some of our alien citizens.

So, it is with great respect and honor, I say, this gentleman is a world scholar in the areas which he will touch upon. It is my great pleasure, as a member of this fine military organization, to present the honorable Benjamin Freedman, of New York."

Furthermore Dr Robert John Authored a book entitled "The Palestine Diary Volume 2, 3rd Edition: British"

amazon link

Robert John credits Benjamin H Freedman in the acknowledgements section of his historical document entitled

"Behind the Balfour Declaration: Britain's Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild"

"To Benjamin H. Freedman, who committed himself to finding and telling the facts about Zionism and Communism. and encouraged others to do the some. The son of one of the founders of the American Jewish Committee, which for many years was anti-Zionist, Ben Freedman founded the League for Peace with Justice in Palestine in 1946. He gave me copies of materials on the Balfour Declaration which I might never have found on my own and encouraged my own research."

Robert John Link

also Benjamin Freedman is credited with a book of his own on amazon entitled "facts are facts"

Book Description A facsimile reporduction reprinted and typeset to meet the many requests for a copy of the letter addressed to Dr David Goldstein,LL.D. of Boston, Massachusetts, by its author, Benjamin H. Freedman describing the history of the Khazarian Jews. The historic facts revealed here for the first time provide incontestible evidence that their continued suppression will prove inimical to the security of the nation, the peace of the world, the welfare of humanity, and the progress of civilization. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

amazon link

Furthemore I am willing to contact individuals to prove beyond a doubt that this person was real.

Please do not delete history.

Please restore this historical reference..

-Theblackbay 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment This editor seems to be interested only in pushing an anti-Israel/anti-Zionist point of view (see contribs). It was he or she that wrote the original

Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as an authentic, factual document. So basically, regardless of the existence or non-existence of Freedman, this stinks of a way to inject some Wikipedia credibility into a particularly cranky form of Christian anti-Semitism. If Freedman's notability outside anti-Semite circles could be established and an NPOV article writen about him, it could be OK. But the current article is not such an article and this is not the author to write it. · rodii 

· 17:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: oops, I see that the current page was recreated by User:Theblackbay after an earlier deletion. So I don't know who the original author of the above words was, but it seems like recreating it implies an endorsement, at least. This article should be speedied as a recreation, but people might like to take a look at it first. · rodii · 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Originally created page was started by Afafj4749724 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefblocked. Syrthiss 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Descriptions of a complaint or case that are as long and rambling as this make my eyes bleed. Theblackbay, you should have read the text at the beginning of this page, especially the following text that is in bold: "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes.". In any case, this is a repost of previously-deleted material, and I'm going to delete and protect it as such (and protect it if you re-create it again). You can bring it up in Wikipedia:Deletion review if you'd like, but only if you can keep your complaint short and concise. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... not sure if it qualifies as "re-creation of deleted content" because the deleted version was a stub, while this is expanded, but the AfD's consensus to delete looked at how notable this author is, and he's not. I'm deleting it anyway. Bring it up for deletion review if you'd like, I don't think your request belongs here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Refactored; removed some content already linked to. I echo Deathphoenix: take this to DRV. JDoorjam Talk 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

DRV or re-AfD

I guess I was a little too hasty in deleting this. The new article is expanded from the previous stub that was AfDed and deleted. Do you guys think I should restore the post-AfD version and AfD it again, or should Theblackbay bring this up in DRV instead? --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My take on the original AFD discussion was that the first article was deleted not because there was a notability dispute, but because there were copyvio concerns, a lack of reliable sources, and the subject was perceived to be a hoax of some sort. If new editors are able to present sources to the contrary, give them a chance and see what happens. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Clown here. If it can turn into a real article, we should give it that chance. Friday (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll undelete it and give the folks a chance to improve on it. Thanks for your feedback guys! --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I should love to have an uninvolved party examine the AfD on Leigh High School (Friday, July 28). The passions are running very high. Would someone neither in SchoolWatch nor a usual school voter who is also an administrator please take a look. In particular this edit [42] got to me a bit, as I'm accused of making a personal attack, and the other user's respose is to simply delete the words. Honest brokerage requested. Geogre 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I closed it no consensus. I think we should do that as a matter of course for every article with the S word in the title to save pain; it is against some people's religion to allow a school to be deleted or merged. I have long since given up any attempt to compromise with the schools inclusionists, they will not accept any solution other than their preferred one - I seem to recall being told that keep all schools was the compromise... Tempting though it might be to

rouge things up a bit, at least they do a fair job of neutralising the really crap articles. Just zis Guy you know?

20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I call it the Ivory Percentage of School Article Deletion: A real post-primary school (such as a secondary school, college, or university) nominated for deletion has a 99 44/100% chance of being kept.

Heck, I've even seen a couple of hoax school articles blindly voted keep by these folks until someone actually did some research and found out that the school didn't exist. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it almost, for fear of dragging the muck to AN/I, but I've seen two where someone I opposed on RFA had voted to keep after it had been demonstrated as a hoax. I'm not joking. That person said that he didn't need to read the article. Most, since then, have been much more cautious. I don't feel that I can support any RFA on any person who believes in an "automatic" vote on anything, myself, but I am definitely cranky. Geogre 21:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. And even after it's pointed out as a hoax the S word still causes some to vote Keep, IIRC. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of those that won't accept any unofficial official policy, like "anyone making a personal attack is automatically blocked" or "we have successfully bused voters to the point where things are paralyzed, and therefore we have made policy," so I think that every article should be considered individually. I'm as tempted to rouge as the next, but I was really looking for some input on the possibility that, saying that I did not wish to argue with the feeble (and I was referring to a bit far below, actually, where someone wanted to get in a fight over my saying that the super rich get things), I had attacked some particular person's character. I didn't think so, obviously, as I'm not generally an insulter, but I figured I'd be as good as my scolding and call for outsiders to take a look. Geogre 21:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I couldn't agree more. It frustrates the hell out of me that the majority of Keep votes on these articles are purely on religious grounds. It is a travesty of policy, consensus and guidelines that schools, alone out of all subjects are judged worthy of inclusion regardless of any objective measure of significance. I thank the good Lord that we don't have a McDonalds branch inclusionist cult (is that a

bean I see there?). I have no idea what to do about these disruptive individuals and their vacuous directory entries, but they exist and we have to live with it. My preferred solution is to set up a sister project, but that (along with every other solution that is not "keep all schools, they are inherently notable") is unacceptable to the schools inclusionists. I went to a genuinely notable school, over a thousand years old, the only school in the English-speaking world to have educated a pope. It has a short article which cites reliable sources for facts other than its mere existence. That would seem to me to be the bare minimum for an encyclopaedia: non-trivial mentions in reliable sources which attest to more than the mere existence of the place. But I have absolutely no idea how to achieve this, and duking it out at AfD is not going to help. Just zis Guy you know?

21:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For my part, the only form of actual militancy I'll take is, per above, to not agree to anyone's RFA if they believe that there are sacred topics that trump accomplished articles. Again, no desire to bring this kvetching to the general AN/I group, though. I'd rather see sweetness and light. Geogre 21:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the editor who has suggested that saying "I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble" in the course of an AfD discussion is a personal attack. It seems clear to me that it is an uncivil personal attack to name-call other editors "feeble", even if in a "generalized way". If it isn't, thats fine, but I just want it clear so I will be able to use the exact same phrase in future discussions without being accused of making a personal attack.--Nicodemus75 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've finally gone ahead and really looked at the AfD in question. It's fascinating to me to look at the heated, venemous tone of the post by Nicodemus75 that Geogre was responding to when he made his purported "PA". Note that Geogre, when accused of "heaping condescencion" and bragging about his own contributions, somehow didn't find it productive to start slapping PA warnings on Nicodemus75's page. (Sorry about failing to hit the right tone of sweetness and light here, Geogre.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for at least looking at the discussion in question. Unfortunately it sort of fails to answer (at least to me) whether or not the phrase "I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble" is a personal attack or not. I can concede to whatever characterization you wish (i.e that my comments were "venemous" or what have you) and apologize for them. I just want to know if admins at wikipedia consider it acceptable behavior to state "I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble" in the midst of a discussion. If a statement such as that is not a personal attack, I'm sure you won't have any objection to my using the phrase in future discussion.--Nicodemus75 04:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have something to apologize for, then? If so, maybe you should have started there instead of by escalating the situation with these PA warnings. As far as your specific question goes, any future uses of the phrase "I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble" will need to be evaluated within the context they occur; there is no universal answer I believe. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Bunchofgrapes, the reason I haven't been answering here, or much of anywhere, is that this stuff becomes a virtual Tarbaby rather quickly. However, for the curious, there are three sentences in succession that are necessary. All may see it for him or herself in the diff above, but it's this: 1) I don't want to argue with the feeble, 2) Still, it is worth arguing this point: attacking nominators is horrible, 3) Trying to badger people is antithetical to Wikipedia. I.e. I was saying that I don't want to argue with anyone, and especially not people with feeble reasoning, but I will argue in this AfD because I have seen general SchoolWatch voters accusing all who disagree with them of villainy. We have long ago established that Nicodemus75 didn't get that point. My question was merely whether anyone else understood me, or if I had failed to communicate myself clearly, or if I had failed and made an insult to Nicodemus75. I know my intent, and I figure most people know that I'm not the insulting sort, but I suppose that's not the issue (which is why I so vociferously remind people that NPA is not quite policy). Geogre 04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NPA specifically states that it is "official policy".--Nicodemus75
    04:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I could see Nicodemus75's point that it appeared you were calling him feeble. Knowing your tendency toward the use of complex rhetoric and syntax, I didn't think it was the case, but being slightly soft-brained, I wasn't actually sure either way. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to watch them. Nothing but vandalizing.

21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please put these at

WP:AIV from now on. Once they've been warned enough, just post it there for blocks. Frankly, there's about a million IP addresses that are vandalising Wikipedia. Sasquatch t|c

00:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Kirk - vandalism

22:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 48h for blatant 3rr violation and eprsonal attacks. Circeus 23:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On many occasions my edits have been reverted by Ragib (talk · contribs) . In current situation, he is bit rude and very reactionary. Wikipedia is for general public use it is no ones personal property.

Please help me to resolve the dispute.

Maakhter 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

All editors must abide by the

three-revert rule. Ragib (talk · contribs) has made legitimate edits, removing a {{merge}} tag you added that suggested a merge with a non-existent article. Nothing to see here. Isopropyl

23:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On a closer inspection, these two users appear to be engaged in content disputes that span multiple articles related to India and Pakistan. Isopropyl 23:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, Maakhter (talk · contribs) has put a malformed merge tag in several articles, however the only "content dispute" that may be there are the following two pages:

• India: Maakhter added a comment, and a POV-section tag regarding a map. I looked into the map, and didn't see any problem with the map as mentioned in the comment. So, I removed the tag, and replied in the talk page about the mismatch of the allegation and the map's actual content.

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 : Maakhter made a comment about neutrality, and added a malformed merge tag. I removed the malformed merge tag as the merge tag does not point to any existing article. From an anon IP, which from edits I presume belong to Maakhter, the tags were re-inserted. I reviwed the talk page comment, and since the specific NPOV issue is not specified in the comment, I removed the merge tag and the disputed tag. I also explained in the talk page and requested the user to be specific rather than generic, when commenting on POV allegations. Next I added a reference
  to a line that might have been questioned by Maakher. Other than this, I don't see any "rude" or "Reactionary" behavior, or claiming something as "my personal property"

From Maakhter's contributions, it seems that Maakhter has suddenly found a whole lot POV issues in a lot of articles, and copy-pasted the same argument without being clear. He hasn't discussed any thing further in the talk page despite my request to specify the POV issues. He also went right away to file an RFM claiming that this issue has been submitted and the "dispute" has been attempted to be solved via AN/I and RFC, while in reality, his attempts for filing RFM preceeded these events.

Anyway, I have asked and will ask the user once again to discuss the issue in the talk page of the relevant article, before claiming that there is a "dispute" that needs "mediation/arbitration/rfc" etc. The diffs are all above, and I haven't intereacted in any other article recently with this user, which my contribution log will show. Thanks. --Ragib 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Said RFM has since been rejected for lack of agreement to mediate. Just FYI for anyone interested. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Several other malformed tags inserted by Maakhter (talk · contribs) (which needs to be corrected, but I'd prefer some other admin to do that) include:

• Jammu and Kashmir [43]
• Jammu [44]

Thanks. --Ragib 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right (Isopropyl ) my many edits have been reverted by pro-Indian editors. I request that these articles should be balanced and put a point of view which represents the views of all parties concerned. Furthermore, these articles must be based on facts rather than personal opinions or references to unsubstantiated allegations.

The article I want it be merged with is Indo-Pakistani Wars. It does exist.

Maakhter 01:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Has any Pakistani been charged for genocide? What about the current relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh? The relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh are very friendly. If someone accuses Pakistan for genocide then why Bangladesh is so friendly with Pakistan, while no one has charged any Pakistani for genocide.

Has Bangladesh given up its allegation of genocide against Pakistan? If not then, why they are so friendly with Pakistan? Why Bangladesh does not want to chase its allegations of genocide against Pakistan?

Do you mean that United Nations and everyone else in the world kept quite at this alleged genocide? Who gave you the figure of three million people dieing in the conflict?

Therefore, its not just Pakistani who are denying it, the rest of the world by not asking for investigations, actually supported the Pakistani point of view. The allegations were not worth a formal investigation.

The reason is that there was no genocide. It is Indian propaganda.

Maakhter 01:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As you may know, earlier this year, a minor scandal arose out of the adware company Zango having created an article on Zango Messenger in this format. Another Wikipedia user engaged in an edit war with the anonymous user, whose IP address can be tracked to 180 SOLUTIONS HOOKED-2 through any free IP address checking website such as www.dnsstuff.com. Eventually the anonymous user seemed to give up.

I have discovered that Zango has been editing Wikipedia more recently, with edits as soon as April, May, and July. These edits manipulate Zango related articles, or else edit articles related to computer games and video in order to linkspam the Zango website. Here is a list of all IP addresses known to be used by Zango, with the Wikipedia contributions list linked first and the Reverse DNS results linked second. These provide either 180 SOLUTIONS HOOKED-2, which contains the company's old name, or Zango Canada.

• 206.169.156.2 **Reverse DNS
• 205.205.86.4
  • Reverse DNS

These yield another set of information, but they engage in the same tactics as the Zango IP address.

• 207.236.93.210
• 24.151.46.207
• 24.126.92.199

The most recent edits by these IP addresses took place today, July 28. In the edit summary, it claims the edit was made for "Fact checking and bias redirection." See: [45] The same IP address that made this edit also wrote on the article's discussion page,

"29 June 2006, reworked the corporate advertising copy for accuracy. I hope you don't mind me having a little fun with these shills. If you object to my copy, please exchange it for your own, so long as it is not advertising and/or misinformation in Zango's favour. Thank you and good night. [Anonymous]"

Two things are clear from this. First, the user admits engaing in corporate advertising. Second, the user thinks he is anonymous, and thus must not be aware of IP addresses. Zango has allegedly engaged in tactics similar to this on the website MySpace, paying users with many "friends" an amount of money to put a video on their user profile that asks Zango to be installed when viewed. When questioned, Zango replied that this was an "accident." For this incident, from a company with 150 to 250 employees, according to the Wikipedia information, I would expect management to be able to reign in employees enough to be able to know what they are doing with their computers.

Though the IP addresses have reverted vandalism or made spelling corrections in about six of their total edits, I do not think this outweighs harm the addresses have made elsewhere. I am seeking a permanent ban on these users pending administrator intervention, especially those the reverse DNS reports reveal to be owned by Zango.

00:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird, several are from a Radio Shack in Canada.

rootology

00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out 205.205.86.0/24 for 3 months but I'm not yet sure about the other IPs.Geni 01:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

207.236.93.0/24, the Radio Shack, for what its worth is just editing it looks like corporate type articles it looks like related to Canada. Not sure if thats a violation or what, based on the other stuff...

rootology

01:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind about the radioshack 207.236.93.0/24 one. It seems that he was reading an old revision by the Zango IP addresses and edited it while looking at it, resulting in it being reverted to the old version. He had edited it to comment that it will make your computer run like a Commodore 64. The other addresses, though, should be blocked.

Daniel Bush

01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Was just perusing their logs to see what was happening...

rootology

01:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• You should probably pop over to Meta to ask that it be added to the link blacklist. --Improv 06:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I could be totally off here, but is

01:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for advertising the password, which was actually 3456. I also "hacked" the account and chamged the password. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

moved from AN:

I'm not sure if I'm reporting this to the correct place, but

) 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Shougiku Wine has clearly moved into the realm of personal attacks against those who don't agree with him as well as using racial language.[46] --TheFarix (Talk) 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be on /Incidents, but I've given 24 hours. Circeus 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous display of personal attacks, and I will not even consider gracing with an answer. I am tempted to lenghten the block though. Circeus 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he may be do for a permablock as it's pretty evident to me that he is is just trolling. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There he goes again. Is anybody interested in reading the whole thing? Circeus 21:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He has now resumed his inflamatory editing: [47], [48], [49]. I'm giving him one week this time. Circeus 15:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever been accused of being Korean. So now, I'm either Korean, Japanese, or American. I'm so confused. (^_^) ···

joe

18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As amusing as this... Person might be, at this rate they are headed straight for a permban. Circeus 05:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he is claiming that you and Pilotguy are engaging in "criminal vandalism" for blocking him and that you two are "only crazy Korean-racism-sided persons" because you will not lift the block.[50] It's pretty evident that he is just trolling and that it is highly unlikely that he will straiten up after the current block is lifted. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit to being crazy and a person. (^_^) ···

joe

21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That was getting way beyond ridiculous. I've protected his talk page. I'm willing to see if the current block is enough to poutrun his patience. By thattime, the Takeshima Islands AFD should have run its course too. If he resumes at that time, it's guaranteed permblock, or a least a pretty long block. Circeus 17:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Lingeron keeps inserting a section on Thomas Jefferson,[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] claiming that he was significant in the development of anarchism as a socio-political philosophy. There is no mention of any such thing in the article on Jefferson himself, and the claim seems dubious to me. A few sources have been provided, but nothing that escapes, in my opinion, the policy on original research. I would appreciate it if somebody stopped by and explained the policy to Lingeron. She appears not to trust anybody who disagrees with her, claiming that we are Communists bent on destroying Wikipedia and subverting America. No joke. Anyways, she seems determined to have this in there, and we've got an edit war brewing, so any help would be great (on a side note, she has also been making some highly POV edits, like this, and could probably use an explanation of that policy, as well. I've tried, but she won't listen to me.) --AaronS 03:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right, Aaron, I won't listen to you. I tend not to listen to editors who have no tolerance for edits that don't coincide with their POV pushing agenda. Honestly, Aaron, your need to dominate all articles pertaining to anarchism, and even to destroy the one that has featured status, is revolting. I would appreciate it if someone would look here at

WP:OR and yet, sadly, he has no actual grasp of it. Also, there are several other editors who agree with my edits. Shannon^{duck talk}

03:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll just let those comments stand on their own. --AaronS 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You should really tone down your rhetoric. It's not going to help matters at all. The Ungovernable Force 09:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess what? I'm going to watch both those pages, then decide which one of you deserves to be slapped. =D --mboverload@ 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody deserves to be slapped. Shame on you. --FOo 08:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are User:Lingeron's comments describing her own activity:

The Ungovernable Force, when I study I like to study the actual history and the events that happened rather than rely on another researcher's point of view. I like to just get the facts and then draw my own conclusions. It's like reading a newspaper. One can read a right or left leaning paper, where some of the facts are left out, and come to right or left leaning conclusions. I would much rather just get the facts and make up my own mind about the event.[60]

If that's not the definition par excellence of original research, I don't know what is. --AaronS 12:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has stepped in to help yet. A most recent revert had this edit summary: reverted back to fact - there's just no way that Europeans taught Americans more about freedom than American thinkers did this is insane. --AaronS 17:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And your point is, Aaron? I still say that. The U.S. was inspired by the French Revoluion and vice versa. Aside from that, well, read American history. FOo, Thanks for what you said. Nobody deserves to be slapped. Shame on you. You are absolutely right. Shannon^{duck talk} 20:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this edit warrant a block of the article just to please

12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For a recent few days many articles written by User:Ghirlandajo are under attacks from an anonymous stalker. See for example:

• • 83.5.250.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.214.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.192.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.191.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.221.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.223.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.242.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.200.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.192.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.249.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.226.204 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.246.132 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.221.193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.190.31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.187.142 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.219.182 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 83.5.197.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

All the attacks come from the same B-type sub-net 83.5.*.* . The attacker is an obvious sockpuppet of an established user. All the contributions of the anonyms is just some reverts of Ghirlandajo's edits (mostly picked up from some stale edit war) and more or less abusive complains on Ghirlandajo. Some users suspect that the anonym is a sockpuppet of User:Molobo circumventing his one-year block, but on this stage I am almost sure that it is not the case.

I am tring to get to the bottom of this, but as a first step I indeed semi-protected a few articles. The anonym's puppetmuster is an established user and can edit semiprotected articles if he wish abakharev 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course attacks and stalking are newspeak for editing and increased scrutiny after the incidents I have posted above, providing the rationale for my actions (Sortavala being the first case, where he used deliberately inflammatory language "reunited with Russia"). Notice the stress put on the word "attack" as to discredit me. I am hopeful the actions of the above mentioned pair will be brought to the attention of a much wider audience, especially Alex's protectorate over Ghirla's unhindered slander. PS Not my fault I have a dynamic IP. 83.5.249.155 13:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with Alex that we are seeing sockpuppetry here, and with the disclaimer I have not reviewed all edits of those anons, those that I have does not look like attacks. Yes, they are revert warring, but that requires two to tango, and I'd suggest protecting the articles and let Ghirla and the anon solve their differences on talk, unless there are anon edits that are clearly vandalism, I see no reason as far as content goes to penalize contributions of anons over that of registered editors. That said, on the first sign that the anon main goal is indeed not content creation but some kind of trolling, vandalism or harassment, I would fully support semi-protection and/or ban.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As a proof that User:Molobo has nothing to do with this stalker he put a message on my talk page on Russian wiki [61]. It is easy to see that his IP does not start with 83.5. abakharev 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alex, did you have a good look at the contributions of the last mentioned IP? One of them was on Telex' talk page. It was (later?) signed NikoSilver. As I was on that page a little bit later, I actually told Ghirla and Irpen on their talk pages NOT to worry about this IP because it was Nikos who forgot to log in. Now I am starting to wonder: of course, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY Nikos could be this stalker, so, there could be something "funny" going on here. Unfortunately, I cannot reconstruct what happened, because Telex archived that part of his talk page. [[62]]From a (Belgian with a limited knowledge of) Russian. --

Pan Gerwazy

17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well,

Pan Gerwazy

17:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

With the disclaimer that I am one of those often targeted by Ghirlandajo, I second Elonka, and would like to point out that this is an example of common behaviour on Ghirlandajo's part (as shown by this RfA from last year and this RfArb warning), and that Ghirlandajo has already been blocked once for incivility; a longer block should be considered.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no excuse for this, and yeah, I see that it's been a recurring problem. I've blocked for 48 hours and explained on User talk:Ghirlandajo. As always, I welcome review of the block by anyone, and invite other admins to adjust the block as they see fit, if they strongly disagree with what I've done here. Friday (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Expressing no opinion on the crrent block (I just edit conflicted with the note), why do you not try

17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you are asking me, I prefer content creation to politics, and I believe the accumulated evidence is pretty clear; besides, ArbCom has enough to do to bother them with such a clear case. If community disagrees with Friday (whom I strongly support), then perhaps I will take the case to ArbCom, but hopefully nobody will defend such gross and recurring violations of WP:CIV, and Ghirla will learn his lesson after two days vacation (I am an optimist, but what's wrong with it?). PS. Mediation was already tried and Ghirla refused to participate in it, as he often shows contempt for DR procedures.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, if there is someone who is habitually crossing the border, it's sort of a community service to get the roots of the problem exposed. I know that mounting an RFAR is painful and time consuming, but, especially if one party refuses to mediate, it's the only way to separate the issues and get a more lasting solution. N.b. I have no opinion whatever on the merits of the case and have had no poor dealings with any of the editors in question. I just have to agree with Dmcdevit that we're too often too weary to see things set right, if there is some promise of mere relief. Geogre 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As I would have thought, it's not "such a clear case". If the evidence is so compelling, then there's the evidence that arcom is appropriate. There's no denying that Ghirla is very prolific, which makes this something other than clear cut, anyway.

t

03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ghirlanda is continuing to rant against "the Poles" at User_talk:Ghirlandajo#Personal_remarks. I have no knowlege of the history of this situation, but it's possible I've kicked a hornet's nest here. Friday (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid Elonka have to learn to read English language here. There was no

22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Balcer is not an admin. Perhaps you would like to double-check your other facts, too. And or the record, I find this 'mild personal attack' a highly offensive one. And yes, the original quote was not offensive, but Ghirla took it out of context and with additions such like "The Poles, however, do not like to be accountable to the same standards as others" and "the Poles are so different from all the rest" I find quite offensive.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I obviously second mikka's opinion. This is completely ridiculous. For instance, a few months ago, a user that will remain anonymous said "if he speaks Russian, drinks vodka and sings Katyusha - he's a Russian". However, he never got blocked for that, while I think we're talking about the same level of mild offense.

This whole story remains me of one alledged historical episode. Someone asked Churchill: "Why is there no anti-semitism in Great Britain?". And Churchill answered: "because we don't think Jews are cleverer than us", or something in that tune. A balanced and normal person does not care about such kind of petty remarks. IMHO, jumping on the gun because of such remarks only reveals one's hypersensitivity and insatisfaction, and not much else... :(

Furthermore, what admins should have investigated is why Piotrus and Ghirla get along so bad with each other, which could bring some quite interesting elements for a possible dispute resolution.

Consequently, I ask admins to review the block. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

whoa, could somebody review this block? Ghirlandajo said nothing like "Poles are holes", kindly look at the diffs in context. This appears to be a typical case of nationalist editors ganging up until one feels compelled to shake them and ask what is it with your precious nationality. Taken out of context, such exasperation can be too easily dennounced as "ethnic slurs". Nationalism (the bad kind, as opposed to sane mild patriotism) is evil and has no place on Wikipedia. I recognize Ghirlandajo himself sometimes shows nationalist inclinations, so I leave it to a completely uninvolved party to review this. A comment of "the Poles [the Polish nationalist editors on Wikipedia] treat other Wikipedians as holes", while not necessarily inspired as a pun, cannot be taken as a block reason without looking at some context. thanks,

22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding? I am sorry, but "Poles treat other wikipedians as holes (as usual)" is a comment I view as highly offensive. fanatics is pretty ofensive too, and if descring Poles as 'fantatics' is not an ethnic slurr, then I don't know what is. morbid polonization is yet another example, and I think every single one of them is a sufficient ground for the block Friday enforced. And even if Friday (and me, and Elonka) were completly mistaken, a user reaction to the block such as saying: "this project becomes less reputable day by day and evolves into a haven for brainless admins who seek to oust content creators. If you didn't bother to look into the matters before fucking me, fuck you all too" is not only not a proper way to request unblocking, but further proof that the block is right and if anything, should be extended until that user learns what

WP:CIV is about.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla objects to what he alleges is a "morbid Polonization of Wikipedia". He does not as much as object to a "moderate Polonization". I see no ethnic slur here, the question is rather whether there was indeed "morbid" nationalist edits on the part of Polish editors, or if Ghirla is exaggerating. To establish this, context is needed. Either way, I see no ethnic slur. I know Wikipedia gets a lot of nationalist crap, and sometimes the perpetrators come here calling "discrimination" if people object. This appears to be such a classic case. Point out some actual offence, or unblock the man.

dab (ᛏ)

22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read

WP:CIV. Ghirla is "being rude, insensitive or petty [which] makes people upset". I - and many other users - find 'morbid Polonization of Wikipedia', as description of our actions, highly offensive. We can live with one such remarks, but not with dozens Ghirla constantly hurls on us every day. Proof of those dozens is cited above, up to an including RfA and comments by ArbCom. Last, but not least, you are insinuating that Elonka, a respected user that to my knowledge has not ever displayed the slightest 'Polish nationalist tendencies', to be a 'perpetrator of natinalistic crap'; this is an offensive remark for which you should apologize to her, and please avoid personal attacks.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the request to review the block (see arguments above)... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, if anyone thinks I made a mistake please adjust the block as you see fit - that includes removing it altogether. I thought the gratuitous grouping together of editors by nationality was sufficent grounds for a block given the recent warnings and other history here, but I could easily be wrong. I'll admit I have a strong personal bias against prejudice and racism, and that's what I thought I saw here. I don't intend to let editors blame problems on this or that ethnicity or nationality. It creates a poisonous atmosphere. I'm not at all suggestion that either side is right or without blame- I merely reacted to the diff I gave in the block notice. Friday (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I feel a bit offended by Ghirlandajo's comments, especially after calling Polish Wikipedians 'fanatics'. In my opinion the block is justified, due to breaking Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks (personal attacks hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia). Jacek Kendysz 23:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto! I don't have any personal argument with Ghirlandajo, yet I get offended as a Pole. What is really sad in this case, is that the behaviour repeats continuously, causing additional problems, like showing other editors that this way of addressing Poles is perfectly acceptable in Wiki and worth following as arguments in discussing articles. I also find it disturbing that such respectable editors like Mikka and others defend Ghirlandajo in this case, because it only encourages him in his misbehaviour, and assures him that he can be above Wiki policies.--SylwiaS | talk 00:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid Sylvia you are in a yet another confusion about cause and effect, deed and punishment. Imagine a child running here and there making mischiefs, big and small. Parents toleare hiw up to a cetain point of losing patience, and when this boy spills a tea on the table he gets spanked and deprived of computer games for a week for "bad behavior". The boy is genuinely bewildered: to be grounded for a week for a spilt tea!!!! Here is exactly the same case: Ghirla was blocked for spilt tea. I don't know and don't care how long and heavily he offended Poles before, but at this very moment the block is a typical knee-jerk reaction. If Poles want to block Ghirla, let them sweat a bit and collect a solid evidence. But if someone wants to modify Ghirla's behavior, a genuine peacekeeper must be involved. `'mikka (t) 03:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that Ghirla should be blocked for something else? Feel free to do so, I will not object. Linked RfC had more then enough evidence, plus all the recent evidence from the past few days, all nicely linked above. That's not solid enough? As for genuine peacekeeper, as Ghirla doesn't call for mediators and habitually removes criticism from his talk, as was suggested here, RfArb is the only option, but I think evidence is 'solid' enough that it is not needed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the tea is a problem here. The problem rather is that I don't have to imagine a child, in this case I simply see a child, and I think it's high time to grown up! Really what's so difficult with stating arguments like: not according to this source... instead of blaming everything on the opponents' nationality? I don't think that Poles want to block Ghirla, rather they/we are looking for the best way to put this madness to an end. Perhaps you're right that it's not a good way to modify his behaviour, but would you consider mediating with him? I tried and as you can see without success. BTW what do you mean by another confusion?--SylwiaS | talk 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I already said that somewhere (PLWNB?) that I hate to see Ghirlandajo return to his bad old ways. Following the previous RfC and the ArbCom decision, it seemed that the things have gotten a tad better. Some minor accusations of conspiracy here and there, some personal remarks from time to time, but not in large numbers, as it used to be before. However, if his campaign aimed at offending Poles is to continue, I believe the matter should be solved - and the faster the better.

It's not up to me to judge whether the current block is legitimate or not. I'm the person offended and I should not be the judge in my own case. However, I must underline that racist remarks, based solely on someone's nationality, are not what Wikipedia wants. If Ghirla wanted to call me personally a fanatic - it's his choice. But calling my mom, my neighbour, Adam Mickiewicz and Marie Curie fanatics just because Ghirlandajo did not know how to stick to civil behaviour is definitely a step too far. //Halibutt 06:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, please, don't put things in other people mouth. You know exactly what Ghirla meant and what he didn't mean. When you made your own "Russian/Vodka/Katyusha" or "Russian steal watches from Poles" remarks, I knew exactly what to make out of it and what it was not. The matter did not end up with a sneaky report at the boards that may lead to blocks. So, we don't need you bringing up Adam Mickiewicz, Marie Curie and especially your mom. You know perfectly all right that those were not in the remarks in the first place. So, please move your unwarranted indignation out of this case.

There were no blockable offences here as there weren't in your case. The block needs reviewed and lifted. --Irpen 06:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Irpen, but I can't agree with you. Any generalizations based on someone's race or nationality are harmful, and especially so when presented as an argument in a discussion. Here Ghirlandajo disagreed with Balcer's interpretation of a proper WP:RM procedure. But his argument was not that WP:RM does this or that, but that The Poles treat other wikipedians as holes (as usual).. First of all this is slander. A clear-cut case of inciting bad emotions towards one particular group and generalizing one's own beliefs into a remark on the entire nation. I'm a wikipedian yet my mom (who is much more of a Pole than me, BTW) does not treat me like hole. Nor do I treat Ghirlandajo like hole - neither accidentally nor as a general rule. So his remark is not only offensive (as evidenced by numerous declarations above) and wrong, but also misleading and apparently consciously and deliberately aimed at spreading bad word of a particular group. As such, this single case is a clear-cut violation of etiquette and civility. As such, this is a perfect example of a blockable offence.

Having said that, I also admit that perhaps this particular case is not as grave as countless others. However, Ghirlandajo's long and colourful history of offending other Wikipedians (RfC, ArbCom) makes him quite vulnerable, as it is somehow less likely people would assume his good will in such borderline cases, when he's proven on numerous occasions to be uncivil in even more obvious situations. The benefit of a doubt works well only up to a certain point, and I'm afraid Ghirla has crossed it a long time ago.

Oh, and I must say I'm glad you still remember one of the best jokes I ever read. I mean my comment explaining what a stereotypical Russian is to the westerners, then taken out of context and presented as an alleged proof of uncivil behaviour by no other person but... Ghirlandajo. During my past RfA I even proposed him to report me somewhere for others to check whether I crossed the lines, but he decided to ignore that... //Halibutt 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I don't want to spend time refuting your mere repetition of what was said earlier. It is totally clear, however, that what happened does not amount for a block. Your insencere indignation is unconvincing and it is clear to everyone that there was no implication of your mom in the above remarks. --Irpen 08:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I find it telling that while we cite linked evidence and policies, most posts are simply statements about how great Ghirla is and how bad faithed are your opponents. For the most part I could simply copy your posts, change a few names or negations, and indeed we could talk indefinetly like this. Fortunately, we have those evidence and policies as cited above (and below, too).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A thorough review is requested

That's getting really too far, dear friends. First of all, as it was exposed above, there was no ethnic slur. We have a deceiving complaint and, unfortunately, an immediate block instead of the investigation. Second, grouping of editors by nationality is a sad practice, that frequently happens, but throwing blocks for that is a new development. I am not sure how far this will go even though, I was never an opponent per se of the practice of the blocks issued by admins' personal judgement. I can provide plenty of examples of other users, grouping colleagues by the nationality, and Piotrus have done that as well. User:Ukrained and user:AlexPU habitually call their opponents by nationality all the time. I suggest you check their edit summaries and/or talk page entries, recent or from months ago is up to you. They are there anytime. There were no blocks and no one even asked for blocks.

What we see here is a sad practice of certain users who try to "win" through having their opponents blocked by any possible means. Sadly, this is not the first time Piotrus is doing that. Even more sad is that some buy into this and issue blocks without proper investigation. There has recently been an

for details).

I would ask Friday and/or some uninvolved admin to give the issue a full review and then they will hopefully see that the block here is simply a mistake, at least. If they agree that the block is unwarranted, I respectfully request the block reversed with an unblocking summary that would clearly state the error in the initial block. What is written in the block logs matters sometimes too. TIA, --Irpen 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am putting a {{unblock}} on Ghirla's page to make sure this matter is attended. --Irpen 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there was no ethnic slur- I don't believe I ever said there was. However, complaints directed at a particular ethnic group are still inappropriate here. To me, if someone uses the word "nigger" or says something like "The blacks are causing trouble here" these are in the same ballpark and either remark is undesirable and unhelpful to the project. Also, I have to say, I don't believe this was a knee-jerk block on my part. I took some time- but, I admit, perrhaps it was only 10 minutes- to look things over. I saw a history of civility problems, and, what to me looked like a solid indicator of a current, ongoing problem. If someone has a problem with the behavior of a particular editor, or even a group of editors, it's ok to name them and criticize their edits. But remarks aimed at an ethnic group can serve no useful purpose, and do much harm. I appreciate any and all feedback, but so far I still stand by my block. The minute I personally thought it was a mistake, I'd undo it myself. I continue to invite any other admin to change the block if they feel it's appropriate. Friday (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Grouping editors by nationality is of course no basis for a criticism, and certainly not a block. But calling such a group with demeaning names (fanatics, etc.) is, and this is what Ghirla is guilty of. I am not currently involved with any content dispute with user Ghirlandajo, and so Irpen suggestion that I try to gain something by this block is a sad example of bad faith on the part of an otherwise reasonable contributor (and please note it was not me who reported this issue here, but another user who felt offendend, and if I count correctly there are at least four users so far who stated here they are offended by Ghirla, all of them in good standing). The link to archived discussions Irpen provides is interesting, but you seem to miss some key points: not all editors offences are equal, and Ghirla deserved his block, while other editors we talked about didn't. Lumping them together weakens your argument. That said, I ask that reviewing admins make sure that carefuly review the situation, especially the evidence of many repeated offences provided of Ghirlandajo provided at the talk of this thread, and the way Ghirlandajo attempted to defend himself (in essence telling all administrators to f... off, as referenced above). If this defence convinces you that the block is unwarranted, and Ghirlandajo should not be discouraged from breaking WP:CIV and related policies, so be it - but it will send a sad message throught community, one saying that we don't care about WP:CIV and it is impossible to do anything to users habitually breaking this policy.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say, immediate and harsh blocks are warranted only upon clear and heavy offense. Punishment for cumulative violation must follow the way of formal complaint, with reasonable deliberation. I hate to teach admins rules, but the normal way of non-acute case is to start with warning on the user page and with a request for an apology (and unoffensively, by the way). I've seen Elonka started this way, but unfortunately she did this in a confused fashion: Ghirla didn't call Poles holes, so no wonder he ignored Elonka's comment. 03:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but is a fact that the name in the Wikicorner of Culture/History/Ethnography/Geography it is a convenient shorthand to describe people writing about a particular country using the name of the main ethnos living there. We do not have a way to measure the pigmentation of somebody skin or a shape of his nose or even place of the residence using the name of wikipedian's account. In that sense "Russians" include me (self-described Australian Jew), Irpen (Ukrainian) or e.g. Pan Gerwazy (Belgian with a limited knowledge of Russian), and does not include e.g. User:Oleg Alexandrov, who is interested in mathematics, not Russia. The same is with the "Poles", as far as I can tell from the self-descriptions, some people referred in Wikipedia as Poles do not live in Poland, some are not ethnic Poles and there are some who can not read Polish. Still they are sometimes described as Poles since they share interest to Poland and some sort of a polonocentric point of view. I share the feeling that it is counter-productive to divide editors by any (supposedly warring) groups but in situations of achieving some balanced view such divisions are sometimes inevitable. E.g. 48 hours that Ghirlandajo would not work on wiki means quite a lot to me or other "Russians" since we will probably miss a couple DYK-quality articles and a number of stubs plus a lot of smaller wiki-related activities. Quite possible it looks in a different light for e.g. Piotrus.

I would rather not see any ethical jokes on wiki, since someones light inoffensive joke for is a grave national insult for a somebody else and I wish to say sorry to all (been they Poles or Dutch) who feel offended. But I do not see sufficient venom it, nor did I remember any other ethnic joke or slur from Ghirlandajo. I might see the grounds for a short block to send a message but IMHO 48 h for the first offence of this kind to an extremely productive editor is very excessive. I am partial here, so I would not shorten the block myself, but I ask uninvolved admins to review it. abakharev 03:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a policy that sais that blocks can't be done for cumulative offences? I thought that happened often, with escalating blocks for cumulative 3RR violations and such. I am not sure how much cumulative offences of Ghirla weighted on Friday's judgement, but there is enough immediate offences (linked above) to warrant his block for it. And yes, Alex, Ghirla block looks different to me: it means I am not likely to be called a 'Polack', 'nationalist', 'rogue' or offended in other way by Ghirla for that period, and neither is any other Polish editor. That said, I agree that blocking of Ghirla is not perfect solution, but you have to weight his contribution against those of editors he scarred/offended off wiki, and those forced to discuss here instead of writing content (like me). The perfect solution is Ghirla behaves in a civil way and he is not blocked ever again. Barring that, we have two solutions: either we let him violate

WP:CIV in exchange for his contributions, in effect saying that if a user is active enough he can violate Wiki policies that he doesn't like, or we block him for violations of WP:CIV until he learns to behave. If you prefer the first solution, please don't hesitate to sumbit WP:CIV for AfD, as it will mean we don't really need such a toothless do-gooder policy. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

05:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the review demand. All Piotrus proved here is his inability to withstand even the slightest amount of criticism. As I said earlier in this thread, any normal and balanced person should not be affected by such comments.

If someone makes such a kind of comment to me (be it on Wikipedia or IRL), well I'll just shrug and walk away. If you jump on the gun for every kind of such a remark, you're either:

a) A fanatic nationalist thinking your nation is perfect.

b) A person with a blessed ego that takes everything on his personal account because of an oversized pride feeling.

c) Someone deliberately attempting to block a user.

I let you choose the answer which you think is right, but in any case, running around yelling "OMG! My nationality and my pride were insulted, OMG!" is a quite poor way of reacting.

Finally, you will notice that Piotrus always unblocked his favorite disruption specialist without even bothering with a block review.

Based on all this, I request a review. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's decompose the post above, as well as the previous one by Piotrus to expose the issue properly:

• "I am not currently involved with any content dispute with user Ghirlandajo" cannot be taken seriously. The dispute between you and few others with similar POV and Ghirla is perpetual and never ending. And even right now there are edit disputes.
• Of course you "gain something" from this block, despite you deny it, as for incredible editors like Ghirla blocks are especially humiliating and disrespectful. Such blocks often resulted in them leaving the project altogether in disgust while trolls happily return or reincarnate through socks. Don't tell me that you won't be happy to see Ghirla gone. You wrote yourself some time ago, and I thoroughly agree with that statement of yours, that you main problem with Ghirla is his edits, not other stuff. So, its not his remarks, but the edit disputes that is your primary consern, and I must say, I agree with you. I've seen worse from some here and can't care less until the POV-pushing goes into the articles.
• Your claim that it was "not you", who reported is here is a total hypocricy. It was you who wrote Elonka, asking her to take action, and specifically pointing her to WP:ANI to make sure the action above is taken. And now you claim it was not you? At least next time you use off-Wiki space for behind the scenes dealings.
• The rest is your desperate attempt to make sure this blocks stays. This is not new either. You are trying to have him blocked all the time (including a false 3RR report you once submitted) and your input to the discussion above seems to be
  • please report him,
  • please report him such that he is blocked,
  • please block him and for long time
  • I hope nobody unblocks him
  • a good block
  • block extention needed
  • keep him blocked
  • keep him blocked
  • keep him blocked
• While so many highly well-known and aware of WP in general editors, of course also not infallable, like
  • Dmcdevit
  • Mikka
  • dab
  • Grafikm
  • yours trully
  • and abakharev

clearly expressed their unease or outright disagreement to this action (I do not doubt Friday's good faith, though.)

This time a one-sided report was bought and acted upon without the proper investigation. I only hope somebody else would take time to look at the issue in debth, especially since the blocking admin, following this block, added a statement to his userpage that he takes lightly the reversal of his blockings in general, perhaps perceiving that this block is indeed controversial. --Irpen 05:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I also want to point out that Ghirlandajo at least tried to defuse the situation [67] while Piotrus intentionally inflamed it [68] abakharev 05:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, yes, I am perpetually being attacked by Ghirla, so by this reasoning, yes, I am in diapute with him, but I don't recall we have edited the same article in in the past week or even a month in any content dispute (reverts and such) manner.
  • Yes, one of the main problems with Ghirla is his tendency to engage in revert wars (which already resulted in him being banned for short time some time ago, December, I believe). But his extremly uncivil behaviour causing other editors to leave this project is another major concern. And yes, I don't deny that I and many others would gain from him stopping his relentless assault on WP:CIV, although we would all prefer this is achieved through him learning civility, not leaving the project.
  • Get your facts straight. It was not me who reported it here, but Elonka (although I support her actions, no doubt about it). And it was her first who suggested ANI as the place to report it. So please apologize for 'total hypocrisy'.
  • Yes, Irpen, I fully support this block and I have long tried to make community take notice of his behaviour, thank you for pointing that out, willing editors can easily use those links to follow back to yet other specific offensive comments by Ghirla that caused me to comment on them.
  • I find it saddening that some editors feel Ghirla should be given the right to break WP:CIV, but hopefully statements by others - like Friday, Balcer, Sylwia, Halibutt and others - show that many in the community don't approve of his behaviour.
  • Mikka, wrong facts. My post does not refer to the comment Ghirla later stroke out (a commendable refactoring on his part), but to a similar if even more offending comment he made immediatly afterwards. This shows that he does not really understand - or wants to understand - what Elonka asked him to do. To use your 'little boy' metaphor: a boy scolded for calling a person 'moron' sais: 'I am sorry I called you a fanatic, you fanatic.' I am afraid this does not show good faith on the part of the boy, nor Ghirla. And yours and Irpen's toleration of his abusive behaviour is not helping.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I'll only add that Ghirlandajo's reaction to the comment by the blocking admin is particularly instructive. He was blocked for lack of civility, yet all is right there: slander, accusations of bad will, brainless admins, the F word, conspiracy theories, belief that nationalist remarks are 100% ok and so on. And soon afterwards Ghirlandajo explained that he meant no harm... and said exactly the same thing again, loud and clear. I'm sorry I called you a moron, moron is a nice metaphor here. //Halibutt 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, and I would like to add that I find curious that even when Ghirla himself states that I am "an editor with whom I [Ghirla] have not spoken or otherwise interacted for months" Irpen above insists I am engaged in a constant content disputes with Ghirla :) Let the man speak for himself, will you? As Halibutt notes, his comments are always particulary instructive... PS. Not that Ghirla has a good memory as far interaction goes.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because your way to DR is inadequate? Or maybe you should try third-party DR before yelling everywhere "OMG I was insulted"? Really, you suppose too much here. -- As for "Let the man speak for himself" for a blocked user, this is the most inadequate remark I have ever seen. <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I will note that I have no idea why my name is at hte top of that list. I even prefaced my comment by saying I was expressing no opinion on the block. I don't have a problem with an admin enforcing civility, only in the complainants coming here and dragging this along in many places, including my talk page before, when, as the top of this page makes clear, such is not dispute resolution (note "Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here."). I have yet to be satisfied with any response to my suggestion. ArbCom is not just for clear cases or complicated cases, mostly, it offers calm for tough cases that are tense and can find no consensus. Cases like this which generate a lot of discussion but which will never be solved otherwise.

t

07:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, you were placed in the list because you said above that this matter is "something other than clear cut". BTW, you may consider responding to my last message at your talk a while ago in relation to another controversial block. --Irpen 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Piotrus, no current content dispute? How about WP:RM discussions to start with?
• I also had problems with a good friend of yours breaking various policies on myself. Not only I did not attempt to get him blocked through biased announcements at WP:ANI, I did not try to inflame the conflicts by posting announcements at RU:Portal where those would find lots of interested readers. You, OTOH, as Alex pointed out, always inflame matters by posting your "indignation" at PL boards
• Yes, report was submitted by Elonka, but only after you first pointed her attention to the matter and specifically recommended this board. And then you disclaim the authorship of this matter assigning it to Elonka. I called it a hypocrisy then and I called it so for what I saw and still see it.
• Yes, you supported the block of a invaluable contributor, and, as I pointed out, you see nothing wrong in attempting to see your opponents blocked. Links are above
• I do not approve Ghirla's remark. I just see the block one sided, harmful and unfair.
• There is no toleration and support for the unfortunate statements Ghirla occasionally made. There is simply a strong opposition that anything here amounts to a block.

This is a highly controversial and harmful block. All I am requesting is a review and not another set of accusations by the party which achieved its goal of blocking and (I hope not) expelling the content dispute opponent. This block is unwarranted and should reversed. Two Russian admins said so, but did not interfere for ethical reasons (something Piotrus should learn to do as well).

I request the matter reviewed by an uninvolved admin who would read this discussion, click on the links and makes a judgement. This will take time, but taking on admin duties was a serious commitment and the preventing the harm of loosing or even unnecessarily aggravating an invaluable editor is worth of the admin's time. --Irpen 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Setting aside that even Ghirla himself couldn't recall any interaction with me, care to provide a link to the article we had content dispute in? Reverted each others edits, etc.? Barring that, a talk page where we engaged in a meaningful discussion? All in the past week or two, preferably (I am not denying that occasionaly, last time I think over a month ago, I do encounter Ghirla in article or talk pages and sometimes we disagree).
  • So what relevance does it have to this case that you did not bring some matter here?
  • I am not denying, as I wrote above, that I asked several users on various occasions to look into Ghirla's behaviour. I am not the only one to do so, and I don't consider myself an initator of the discussion on ANI, it's as simple as that. Of course I joined it, but that's is not justifying your acussations of hypocrisy.
  • If my opponents deserve a block, I see nothing wrong in taking the matters to a proper place (like AN) and asking neutral admins to review the case. And I don't consider Ghirla an invaluable contributor: his contributions can be counted and valued, and while indeed they are immense, there are not 'invaluable'. Just a minor point of NPOV :)
  • I am glad you don't approve of his remark. Nonetheless I still see his two year harassment of editors (Poles and others) as one sided, harmful and unfair, and current block as part of the remedy.

This block is only controversial if one thinks that breaking WP:CIV is not enough for a warrant block. To this day, however, Wikipedia community has not given WP:CIV any lesser value then to its other policies, and it has not given editors immunity if they are very active. Feel free to suggest changes in relevant policies, if you want to give Ghirla immunity from breaking WP:CIV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to make this out as an "ethnic slur". If anything, it was a slur against Dutch people, although I doubt many Dutch would be offended by it. If Ghirla is occassionally abrasive towards certain users, it's because they've been after his head for ages. Piotrus and Halibutt have been targeting Ghirla for quite some time. The origin of it all is frustration over PolCab, the perceived "Polish cabal", where highly nationalistic Polish editors use their notice board to congregate and use collective effort to POV push and win revert wars. Ghirla being Wikipedia's main Russian history contributor became a victim. Ghirla is ordinarily a nice guy, and a quite exceptional contributor to wikipedia. At the very least, wiki admins should exercise some caution before blocking a top class user like Ghirla. I'll admit that Elonka, who reported it, is not one of Ghirla's traditional enemies. And I agree with her that some action should be taken by an admin, but this should be to discuss grievances and rebuild mutual respect, rather than exercising a ban which Ghirla will (perhaps rightly) perceive as a personal victory by Halibutt and Piotrus' one-upmanship. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's quite an adequate summary here. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The merit of Calgacus unlinked accusations is well seen by

WP:CABAL...). Anyway, Calgacus not only refused to particpate in the mediation, but was so offensive on that page that his comments were removed by mediator for incivility and personal attacks. I can understand how you would sympathize with Ghirla, as you both seem to think that WP:CIV is a useless policy. May I recommend AfD it first? If you suceed I promise never again to bring the issue of your incivility up.[Refactoring update: this post is a reply to Calgacus, not Grafikm, whom I consider a very civil and respectable editor - Piotrus]-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a disgusting attempt of accuse me of something I never did. I never said WP:CIV was a useless policy, and have warned Ghirla of it both on its talk page and by mail (and even in the FAC of Pilsudski btw). However, what I say is that this whole story of "Poles-holes" does not even remotely qualify for such a block.

To others: do you see the style above? Instead of argumenting, Piotrus tries to accuse me of things I have never done. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, Grafikm, I didn't meant this as a post adressed to you but to Calgacus - seems like the post was 'moved' accidentaly to the right creating an impression it was a reply to you, not Calgacus. Let me make it clear that I have never seen you behave uncivil and it was never my intention to create such impression. Calgacus, however, is often uncivil, as indicated by the example of comments removed by the neutral mediator for incivility.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, that page was a sham opened by you. If I was going to waste my time patricipating in a mediation page, it certainly wouldn't be in one like that. As to Polcab itself, I know you don't want anyone mentioning its existence, but sometimes it just comes up. Sorry if Polcab makes me rude sometimes, and yeah, I do share Ghirla's frustration sometimes. But almost everyone who had encountered Polcab has a similar reaction. I hope to be a changed man in future, and to keep my cool despite the provocation of you, Halibutt and other members of Polcab. Sorry that you still bear hard fellings Pete, I hope things will be better in future. As for this, isn't it better to concentrate here on the particular allegations against Ghirla, rather than assaulting the characters of everyone who appears to be defending him? Don't you believe in free speech unspoiled by intimidation tactics? Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's

To the reviewers

Please accustom yourselves with the following practices of the editor in question- other admins who have stood up to him were pounced on and demeaned, while innocent contributors are regularly bullied, harassed, and called trolls and socks [69], save a few "Ghirla fans" who believe contributions to Russian articles give him immunity. [70] [71] [72] [73] Note this is the tip of the iceberg. Though if you- the reviewer- are afraid of being attacked as previous admins have, I would undestand your inaction/defence of Ghirla's practices, which however doesnt change the fact that they are detrimental to the community, just as some of his contributions are beneficial, though not all (another tip of the iceberg, innocent corrections of his blunders are reverted). Please take my points into consideration despite my modest user name. 83.5.247.158 14:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey User:Molobo, how are you? Long time no speak. Enjoying your year off? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank Alex who went to the trouble to investigate this IP and concluded it has nothing to do with Molobo. And Calgacus glee from seeing one of his opponents blocked from Wikipedia is not what I would call a proper behaviour withing WP:CIV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While I absolutely agree that his comment is borderline, I must confess that Molobo's block made more than one person sigh with relief... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And this is how Calgacus tries to discredit my comments, while incriminating an innocent user, probably thinking he can kill two birds with his mighty stone. Your smug attitutute is eerily reminiscent of Ghirlandajo's- it wouldnt be you who is his puppet, or just some evil twin? Besides, youre not doing him any good, as accusing critics of Ghirlandajo's practices as being fanatics, trolls, nationalists and socks doesnt serve his case. Anyway, the evidence is there, straight from the "horse's mouth". Regards. 83.5.247.158 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't Molobo? Yeah, I don't believe that. The user is based in Poland and is intimate with the situation. Who else could it be? Molobo I thinks. Glad to see you're still enjoying life Molobo! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alex has shown that this IP is NOT based in Poland, but I guess linked evidence is not enough for you, as you have your 'beliefs'. :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, you're funny. What on earth are you talking about? You can find out he's based in Poland for yourself here. I also know it is Molobo because the chap has been emailing me gloating. Of course, this may only mean that Molobo is reading this, but I think that's a long shot. 13:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your violent verbal campaign against others in your defence of Ghirlandajo's incivility isnt helping his case. Ghirlandajo just needs to change his antics- it's in his own good that he smarten up. That's my answer to your OT insinuations. 83.5.247.158 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I don't think it's fair to characterize my defence of Ghirla as a "violent verbal campaign", do you? I know you don't really. Anyways, I've said my bit. All I'm doing now is responding to character assassinations. And that's not why I'm on wiki. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To the rest- youre kind of missing the point... while the comment alone mightnt have warranted a block, it was the proverbial drop in the bucket to Ghirlandajo's abuse spree. Repeat offenders receive less tolerance, that's just the way it is. Maybe this will teach him to show more respect for his fellow contributors? 83.5.247.158 16:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it really funny. People keep pointing out how bad Molobo’s English is and that it’s one of the reasons for which his edits spoil articles, and in the same time they accuse other editors of being Molobo. I’ll say only this, Molobo and this anon user could be one person only if Molobo took a speedy (and a very successful) English course.--SylwiaS | talk 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking by Mikka

13:47, July 28, 2006 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Ghirlandajo (contribs) (First block for this patricular offense with insufficient processing)

Well, I would like to point out this is a second block Ghirla has gotten for incivlity, first one being from July 7, 2006 by Circeus for 'incivility in edit summaries'. Nonetheless I am not going to oppose Mikka unblock, even through he is not a neutral admin here: the block has lasted for 24h, which is a reasonable progression from the last 3h block, and there is a chance Ghirla will be more careful now. If he will not, then I expect community to implement further, longer blocks, and/or start an RfArb. Still, let's hope Ghirla has learned his lesson, will respect

18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• (copied from User talk:Ghirlandajo#comment): User unblocked after 24 h. I maintain that immediate long blocks are warranted only in the case of grave abuse. Any "cumulative" accusations require deliberation. We are not going to block Elonka for defamation of Ghirla when she wrongfully insisted that Ghirla said "Poles are holes", are we?

(BTW I don't see her rushing to apologize for misunderstanding, but rather a flurry of "yes, but..." from Polish wikipedians. Which hardly can be interpreted as an intention to bury a hatchet. I suggest everyone to stop for a while and think: what is the ultimate goal: to punish Ghirla or to improve the cooperation?) `'mikka (t) 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin deleted evidence I was offering to support my complaint and to respond to accusations. You may review this history to see how this happened.[74]. I made my complaint and then when challenged, I offered further evidence and since it is difficult to read the history given the fact that it has been deleted without clear edit summary, I posted the salient passages that I restored. Slim then came along and "ruled" it to be "trolling" and deleted my post. That doesn't seem appropriate, does it? How may Wiki users make complaints if admins come along and simply revert and remove comments from their complaints? It is appropriate for administrators to remove evidence offered by users to back up their complaints on this notice board? Thanks.Ptmccain 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep it up and we are going to quit using the word "trolliing" and start using "Ptmccaining" Fred Bauder 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would consider that an honor, but only if you start referring to abusive administrative behaviors as "SlimVirgining" Ptmccain 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to name it after an abusive admin, rather than a good one who's forced to put up with nonsensical trolling? --InShaneee 00:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Call it Samiring, I'll go for any verb named after me -- Samir धर्म 06:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Danny will appreciate your kind sentiments. Isn't it more than a little pathetic to realize that "SlimVirgin" spends every waking moment tinkingering around on Wikipedia in what is ultimately an exercise in irrelevance and futility? Ptmccain 01:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is probably less pathetic than tinkering around wikipedia 24/7 for the sole purpose of annoying people.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Skip the "Ptmccaining", the word "trolling" will do. (→Netscott) 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This looks to be a dispute between you and one admin. Maybe you should take it to filing an RfC, and take it to ArbCom if you're not happy with the result. Edit warring here isn't helping anyone or moving anything forward.

rootology

01:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ptmccain: admin action requested

I'd like to request admin action against

01:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do your homework! I blocked him half an hour ago for trolling. :) --InShaneee 01:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, InShaneee. I'm a bit slow today. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

After the following e-mail exchange (addresses have been anonymized) it appears safe to assume that this user would like to be banned... I'm not one to disagree with such a request:

To: Netscott <[email protected]>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
From: Ptmccain <[email protected]>

Do you get special decoder rings when you join the "Cult of SlimVirgin" aka Danny Wool?

To: [email protected]

Subject: Cult of SlimVirgin

Delivered-To: [email protected]

No, there's no brownie button system. You've definitely crossed over into

trolling territory though. That said your dispute with Mantanmoreland is

understandable but the way you've been going about trying to get your issues

resolved is just wrong. If you continue in the direction you are currently

you will undoubtedly find yourself eventually indefinitely blocked.

-Scott

From: <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Cult of SlimVirgin

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:35:00 -0500

To: Scott Stevenson <[email protected]>

I eagerly desire to be indefinitely blocked and thereby will be able

to avoid associating with the likes of SlimVirgin and her fawning

syncophants like you.

(→Netscott) 01:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and taken just such a liberty, since he's pretty much stating (and showing) he's not going to be playing nice anytime soon. --InShaneee 02:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate others looking into comments left recently on my talk page from User:Allan Wilson MSP and relating to the Allan Wilson (Scottish politician) article. These recent messages start at User talk:Wangi#Party Political Smearing and for three sections below - I have not responding to any of them.

Previous discussion with this user (on 22 July) is at User talk:Wangi#Recent edits to Allan Wilson (MSP) / Allan Wilson (Scottish politician), and edits related to this can be found here. All edits were cleanups and a move of the article to a more common disambiguation. Discussion at the time was well mannered and ended in consensus.

In short i'm confused by the user's speel (attack even) toward me... He seems to have taken insult by me removing non-encylopedic trivia (the line He is married and has two sons. Outside politics he was a keen footballer and a well known member of the Ayrshire football fraternity) and disambiguating the article using common "(Scottish politician)" rather than "(MSP)" - I only done this single article because, well you know that's all I had time to do. and as for sock puppets, well I never knew or said a thing...

Edit: I also seem to have redirected the user's page to the article - at the time I thought it was a duplicate article (missed the "User:" at the front). User:Commander Keane deleted the redirect. /wangi 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Any assistance appreciated. Thanks/wangi 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess some context would be useful, the users final comment on my page: (/wangi 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

“

Sock Puppets In response to information made available to Members of The Scottish Parliament involving Smearing" tactics being deployed on "wikipedia.org/" accounts for "Allan Wilson" were created in order to monitor and respond to such tatics. These accounts are: User Name: Allanwilson User Name: Allan Wilson User Name: Allan Wilson MSP You are likely to experience many more such incidents as Members get a handle on what is going on here and learn how to deal with it. Members of The Scottish Parliament have better things to do and simply do not have the time to deal with things such as this at this level, it would consume ALL their time if they even THOUGHT about it. They employ staff to do this for them. I am one of that staff, Administrator of his "Online Presence". A typical MSP would not have the slightest clue as to how to go about dealing with what is happening to them on this site. Let it be known that these are NOT "Sock Puppets" and are quite simply "Other" "Common" "User Names" by which he is known. Therefore, I would submitt that any "Personal" pages under these "User Names" SHOULD NOT be deleted as has been the case, and that; User Name: Allanwilson User Name: Allan Wilson Are NOT "Sock Puppets" of; User Name: Allan Wilson MSP Party Political Smearing on "wikipedia.org/" has to be brought to an end.

”

Seriously, I'd appreciate some input on this matter... My edits were in good faith and as a result i've got someone leaving rather OTT comments on my talk page, which certainly are not in good faith. They've now started going through other comments on my page: [75] - a comment which is only there due to a CfD I left a comment on... /wangi 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We have to guard against cases where someone uses the name of a famous person as their username, and then deliberately does prejudicial things in the hope of besmirching the reputatation of that person. That's a danger particularly in the case of politicians, where such abuse could be followed up by a report to a newspaper. This account hasn't done anything like that yet, but

WP:USERNAME is clear, where it says "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people" aren't acceptable usernames. Consequently I've indefinately blocked this account (and if, as your post above suggests, they've created several other accounts then those should be blocked too). I've left a (hopefully polite) message on the account's talk page, asking them to email the OTRS list from their official (presumably GSI.gov.uk) email address - with that confirmation I guess the OTRS volunteers will feel able to confirm he's editing with Allan Wilson's permission and he can be unblocked. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk

20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Finlay, the suggestion above regarding the other accounts was from the user... Rather surprising because i'd not noticed nor said a peep. The language and tone of the posts today are very different from those on the 22nd - I really do think it's two different people. On the whole I'm just taken aback by the whole bad faith of it all, especially when I took time to explain things originally and all my edits were in good faith and well explained... Ah well, I guess it's worth some time trying to put together a response... /wangi 21:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For now at least, I really wouldn't bother to respond to it. If he turns out to be the real deal, fair enough, but if not then engaging him in discussions is only feeding his trolling. If you see other accounts with variations on this name, or those of other Scottish politicians (both of which this account claimed were impending) they should be blocked for the same reason. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Allanwilson and User:Allan Wilson certainly are. Thanks/wangi 08:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Pram, dummy, out: User talk:Allan Wilson MSP#BLOCKED USER NAME. Thanks/wangi 17:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the two other accounts you mentioned for the same reason. He can protest all he likes; either he's authorised, in which case he can easily prove it, or he isn't, and can't. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapped_in_the_Closet_%28South_Park_episode%29#Satire (see history)

There is a contribution that I feel is valid and is public knowledge. South Park has an episode about Scientology (episode 912) This episode lampoons Scientology and some celebrities go into the closet (and stay there) Frank Zappa has a song that Lampoons Scientology (A TOKEN OF MY EXTREME, from album JOES GARAGE, 1979) This song also pokes fun at Scientology and going 'into the closet' as well.

Both are Satires Both are about Scientology Both use the words "in the closet" Both use sexual innuendo T here are no other satirical works of any form or fashion that deal with both Scientology and Closets.

This makes them uniquely similar. Any speculation toward any direction has been edited out due to Antaeus Feldspar's tenacious attack of this contribution of mine

user: Antaeus Feldspar said to me...

"First of all, no evidence has been presented that it is

22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)"

Antaeus Feldspar, I am sure, is trying to uphold the quality of the community, but in this correspondence, he admits that at best my contribution to the entry is "trivia." This is why I placed it in the "trivia" section. He seems to speak for everyone when he says "does it give US a reason..." I am not offering opinions here, I am offering facts that bridge two parodies of a similar vein.

He has personally reverted this entry three times, then issued a warning to ME.

If it is simply a matter of how I am choosing my words, please let me know. All the information I have put into this is factual, and I took every step to revise to Antaeus Feldspar's specifications but I need your help now because I am afraid we are dealing with a "pissing contest" now.

Thanks

Here is the line from the article that I edited... first I put it in trivia, I kept budging... Feldspar wouldnt let up. He finally deleted it with a warning:

Frank Zappa's song A TOKEN OF MY EXTREME is another satirical work that contains both a parody of Scientology and going into the closet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapped_in_the_Closet_%28South_Park_episode%29#Satire (see history) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.124.232 (talk • contribs)

• N.b. The three revert rule does not apply to vandalism reversions. If your edits are against the consensus established on the talk page of the article, and if they're clearly so, you may ask others to take a look to see, but it is quite likely, given AF's long history of careful administrative work and uncontroversial judgment, that he believed that your editing had crossed the line from adding to the article to insisting upon having your way, and so the three revert rule would not necessarily be in force. Geogre 04:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an ordinary content dispute. I am not happy, of course, that 68.174.124.232 decided to make his response to this dispute over content the filing of a report to AN/I that, when all the sound and fury is stripped away, amounts to 'He won't let me get my way! He said the factoid I wanted to include wasn't suitable for Wikipedia! He quoted all sorts of policies at me to explain why! Make him take it back!'

Though I am sure the factoid in question seems very significant to 68.174.124.232, let me restate it in a way that I think expresses all the significance to be found in it:

Of all the previous works, in a variety of media, that satirized or criticized Scientology before South Park took their turn with "Trapped in the Closet", at least one of them also used the phrase "in the closet".

That's really it. I should note that 68.174.124.232 now claims that the Frank Zappa song in question is the only previous work satirizing Scientology that has ever used the phrase "in the closet", but he has given no indication of who performed the exhaustive survey of past literature that would allow such a comprehensive statement. It is my strong feeling that if we are to present this factoid as having some sort of significance (and I would argue that the way it was originally inserted in the article attempted to assert just such significance) that we need a reliable source to assert that it has such significance. Since 68.174.124.232 thinks that it's enough for it to be an "interesting co-incidence" (such co-incidences being "what comprise all science") [76] and did not seem to be taking any other view seriously, I felt that it might be appropriate to warn him about the three-revert rule early. Some might criticize this, but I confess I have never understood why it is considered by some better to let people know about this rule only when and after they have broken it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Banned user User:YaR GnitS edit-warring over the same passage that got him banned, via anonymous IP and sockpuppet User:YaR GnitS 73--Rosicrucian 03:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Both have been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation, please review if the block of Ryulong was unnecessary considering possible extenuating circumstances. He still did technically violate 3RR, though. --Cyde↔Weys 03:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that this is a passage that has been repeatedly edited into the article by a known vandal, I would assert that User:Ryulong did not violate 3RR because reverts to vandalism do not count towards 3RR.--Rosicrucian 03:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to revert well past 3RR still doesn't solve anything. The correct course of action would've been to get administrator attention to block the IP address or sprotect the page, not just continuing to allow the disruption by repeatedly reverting. Still, blocks are preventative, not punitive, and I don't think Ryulong is of danger to Wikipedia, especially seeing as how he is a vandal fighter, so ... I wouldn't reblock, but I hope he understands that there are better ways to deal with POV-pushers. --Cyde↔Weys 03:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I did try to contact administrators through the anti-vandalism IRC channel, but my messages appeared to be lost through the various messages from bots. I did manage to get the IP blocked, but only after my breaking of 3RR and through a different channel. In the future, I will stop after the third time, and try harder to contact the admins. Ryūlóng 03:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget /msg Cyde ... I'm on quite often :-) Cyde↔Weys 16:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got to say that it's not 3RR violation, if you're reverting vandalism, so the block ends up punishing the virtuous with the vicious, here. Sure, we'd love other solutions, but it's not really blockable, and Ryulong did try to get a different set of eyes. That said, Ryulong should have let it slide for a bit while he went to get those fresh eyes, even if it meant that the vandal got "his way" for some brief period. Geogre 04:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the situation. The IP in question made edits identical to banned user User:YaR GnitS, and identical to the entire article Gay ICP which was recently deleted (and also made by User:YaR GnitS). The last edit of Gay ICP contained 4 references, none of which dealt with the issues raised, and, as such, I view the edits as being unsubstantiated. There has been discussion on Talk:Insane Clown Posse about the removed passage since 14 July 2006, include commentary that it was likely vandalism. Given this, I think it was right that User:Ryulong reverted these edits as vandalism, and I don't think he should be blocked for it. He says that he even tried to get administrative assistance on IRC for this. I've reverted the block. -- Samir धर्म 10:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And I see that User:Pilotguy beat me to it 10 hours ago. <sheepish> -- Samir धर्म 10:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this statement count as a legal threat? I am reluctant to remove it as it is in an AfD and I am not sure about removing comments there. Thanks, Ansell 11:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Judgement call but I'd go with no. Merely suggesting that someone else seek legal advice about a matter doesn't seem a threat to me. Just my opinion. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lar, it just appears to be generalized advice to the subject of the article. It doesn't appear to be a legal threar at all. Yanksox 13:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is. I believe they are just poking

dry fun at other users, especially with the reference to The Vicar of Dibley. Iolakana|^T

16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Talleyho (talk · contribs) who apparently is a sock of indefinitely banned Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs). Talleyho has only a few edits...9 to be exact...all of them associated with Brandt issues. I was particularly interested in this comment in which Talleyho brings up the issue of now retired editor Katefan0, who was harassed off-wiki by none other than Brandt. Just posting this here for others to review.--MONGO 12:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it is either a sock or a meatpuppet. They are not here to help write the encyclopedia. FloNight ^talk 12:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Suppport block. Question: should oppose !vote be stricken? or just remarked on? Or nothing? ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say strike the vote, since it's too late to revert it ("edits by banned users"). Not that it matters to the outcome, granted. 207.145.133.34 21:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It could be removed I guess, but it's been stricken (by MONGO, thanks for that) so no worries. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this maybe Robertsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading a block. Not sure, but check the contribs of the IP user - reverting the userpage to its former state then accusing the editor that placed the indef blocked user template and the editor who subsequently reverted the IP users revert of vandalism. Viridae^Talk 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User blocked for 48 hours. Viridae^Talk 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be identical to user 80.47.133.153, who vandalised

13:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And he's just reverted the page again. Lozleader 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Gave a {{

bv}} cause it does look like the same editor. See what happens and just keep reverting it. --james _{// bornhj (talk)}

13:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ice Cold

Ice Cold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just basically admitted to being a sock of a blocked user: [77]. I don't know if I am "an involved admin", so I request someone else to block for me. Also has a history of personal attacks and general incivility. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the user. Yanksox 15:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just spent several hours cleaning up really sneaky vandalism by User:24.181.67.89, who along with User:24.181.70.227 is pretty obviously a sock of permanently-blocked User:Woodylogan. All of them have the same edit pattern: making dozens of minor changes to articles on children's movies and the actors in them. Every single edit is to introduce misinformation such as changing the release year of movies, and listing actors from a sequel as actors in an original film when they weren't (and vice versa). The IP ending in 227 is just coming off an eight-day block. The one ending in 89 is on a 24 hour block. Any help would be appreciated -- thanks. NawlinWiki 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Xyzzyxn appears to be an account meant to impersonate me (—xyzzy_n). The user’s first edit speaks for itself: [78]. Also compare the user page with mine. Based on the locality and nature of the edits, I accuse User:65.8.88.157, aka User:Colonel Angus, aka User:Captain Longinus, cf. [79], [80], [81] and related edits at Talk:List of Internet phenomena. I have no idea as to what should be done, so this is a generic request for assistance. —xyzzy_n 19:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as obvious impersonation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

(Note that my above comment refers to the most obvious impersonator, Xyzzyxn. I'm still looking at the the others.)

A brief summary of the activities of the above editors.

• Captain_Longinus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Started editing 13 July 2006. 5 edits. Signed comment as Xyzzy_n here, and signed as Commander here.
• Colonel_Angus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Started editing 9 July 2006. 22 edits. Attacked xyzzy_n ("arrogant jerk") after being warned not to revert so often. Removed comments from an article's talk page: [82]. More namecalling: "Neo-Nazi sympathizer". Signed one edit as Captain Longinus.
• 65.8.88.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) No edits until 29 July 2006, 6 edits total. Signs as both Colonel Angus and as Captain Longinus.

Additionally, I note that Colonel Angus as been blocked before as a sockpuppet used to evade a 3RR block incurred for edit warring at List of Internet phenomena. All of the above editors have been involved – exclusively – in editing related to this article.

I have blocked the editors Colonel Angus and Captain Longinus as sockpuppeteering edit warriors, and blocked the IP address for a week for the same reasons. I will also be filing a CheckUser request shortly to see if there are any other socks. If the individual responsible would like to return to Wikipedia in a productive and useful capacity, he can choose one account on which I (or another admin) should reduce the block to 1 week. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Kungfudam just used his racist admin powers to block someone just for being korean, then locked their talk page to preserve their racist anti-korean taunts for all to see, even tried to (according to the translation) claim that this encyclopedia was only for people from Great Britian! I as an completely unrelated bystander could not just sit back and let this happen without saying something--Concerned Citizen 20:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And you, of course, are a new user that just so happened to stumble upon a "racist admin" and somehow knew about

WP:AN/I. You might find people won't believe you here. --Lord Deskana (talk

) 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean on User_talk:New_username where he tells "New username" to please use English on the English Wikipedia? Why not just use Korean Wikipedia if you want to contribute in Korean? 207.145.133.34 21:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

stereotypes based upon skin colour, ethnic identification, or bad nineteeth-century anthropology, you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider embracing racism than editing constructively. Thanks. Jkelly

21:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, wrong user, I'm not the one griping. Please fix indent to be replying to Concerned Citizen instead. Kungfuadam's one of my friends. :) Thanks! (I'm Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to send this whole thing straight to BJAODN, without passing GO, and without collecting $200, and without supper none the less--64.12.116.65 21:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There's still the actual gripe involved. Maybe someone should explain to "Concerned Citizen" that, in general, it'd be nice to try to speak English on the English Wikipedia, Russian on the Russian Wikipedia, and Korean on the Korean Wikipedia (etc) instead of thinking that it's racist, somehow? Poor Adam. :( 207.145.133.34 21:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the ANI troll at work again. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Two editors removed negative material from the talk page about a living person by referring to the policy

21:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. There's no need for administrative action here. Further, it seems that User:Jossi is watching the page closely and can deal with any policy violations. Jkelly 22:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi is a self-admitted student of this person and he also removed the negative information that I intend to restore. Please note that I may get blocked if it is later decided that I broke the policy

WP:BLP. I think Jossi violates policy by inappropriate removal of comments on the talk page, not me. Andries

22:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC) amended 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for deletion of the defamatory material from the talk page is that the author of that material himself, in a sworn affidavit with the Supreme Court of Queensland, referred to these articles as "articles that furthered the goal of defaming", and that where "based on no factual evidence" and contained implications that were "absolutely false and unfounded". On that basis the material was removed as being in violation of the

WP:BLP

policy that states:

"Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the retraction was never published by the reliable sources that published the negative information so the reliable sources are as valid as they ever were. There is good reason to believe that McGregor was put under pressure to write the retraction. I intend to restore the removed material. Andries 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As said above, that article did not appear in "reliable sources", but on an independed Sunday magazine (an "insert" as it is called). The magazine did not retract anything, because it did not need to. The article is not of the magazine, but of the author. And the author has clearly addressed that it was defamatory, in a sworn affidavit. As the defamatory comments relate to the personal life of the subject of this article, applying

22:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It also appeared in newspapers and it was never retracted in those newspapers. I intend to restored the negative material. Andries 22:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps administrative action is required here. Are you expressing your intent to engage in pointless

edit warring? Jkelly

22:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

the policy is intended to avoid unfactual slander presented as fact. It doesn't prevent us from saying a living person has critics. As long as each instance of criticism is attributed to a source, I see no problem with WP:BLP. Whether a given criticism has sufficient notability is of course a content dispute: try

dab (ᛏ)

22:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps administrative action is required here. Are you expressing your intent to engage in pointless edit warring? When the editor removing the content believes (rightly or wrongly – sometimes in spite of reliable sources) that s/he is exempt from 3RR, it is hard to imagine how edit wars will not be the result. This policy is already being misinterpreted in other articles to cleanse criticism that is well sourced [83]. As the policy becomes more widely known and potential for misinterpretation and/or abuse of the policy grows, a forum where one can appeal these situations – beyond the normal content dispute – may eventually be needed. The policy may embolden (by the exemption from 3RR) those who want to cleanse criticism to believe they are exempt from normal mediation and good faith negotiation and discussion. Sandy 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would rather not engage in edit warring. Perhaps someone else can restore the well-sourced negative information that was inappropriately removed by

WP:BLP, but I do not think that this removal was justified by this policy. Scroll down to the bottom. Andries

22:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem on Wikipedia:How to edit a page

Talk

) 23:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been taken care of. --

Talk

) 23:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Harassment and Legal Threats

I'm currently having a few problems with harassment with regards to the article Actuarial Outpost. I was advised by User:WAvegetarian to bring my concerns here.

First, and by far most importantly, one wiki user (64.7.136.166) is gathering the IP addresses of those who disagree with him and using that information to harass people at work. For proof of this see [84] and [85].

Second, some of the comments made to me by User:Avraham in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SkipSmith appear to bump up against

.

I have some other concerns (regarding false sock puppet accusations), but they are less important, and don't need to be covered here. Thank you. SkipSmith 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Avraham_sockpuppet_case. Secondly,

defwarn}} as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkipSmith&diff=65813822&oldid=65797242 Lastly, the person which he claims has harraased him does not have a wiki account to my knowledge, as can be seen from this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Actuarial_Outpost&diff=next&oldid=53950210 and no one argues that Glenn was the only webmaster at that time. Thank you. -- Avi

02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess we can talk about the sockpuppet case too, although this might not be the place for it:

(1)I was accused of filing a sockpuppet case in retaliation for Avraham's case, but a simple check will reveal that my case was actually filed first, and his was in retaliation. Notice the line "I was hoping I would not have to do this, but Skip's accusation forces me down this road." in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SkipSmith.

(2) The accusation by investigators that my case was filed in bad faith violates a wikipedia norm: Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith --- I actually compiled a plausible case if anyone bothered to read it. I might be wrong about the sock puppetry, but assuming I did it in bad faith is out of line.

(3) In Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SkipSmith Avraham listed every account besides mine who disagreed with him on Actuarial Outpost as a sock puppet. All were blocked, including one of my work IP addresses where I was not logged in but clearly identified myself (in other words, clearly not a sock puppet). It is true that other accounts only edited Actuarial Outpost once or twice --- I believe the off-wiki harassment I documented above accounts for this.

(4) I'm not the only one who thought Avraham was making a legal threat in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SkipSmith; User:WAvegetarian was also concerned, as you can see on my talk page.

(5) Not having a wiki account does not excuse off-wiki harassment. Could we possibly block that IP address or take some other action to discourage this user from this behavior?

Thanks. SkipSmith 05:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Why does it matter if he said this?
2. Look very carefully at the case you created, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Avraham: you have not cited any evidence of your accusation. It is only inclined by you that such things happened.
3. I'm sorry, but, oh, I don't believe a word of that. That is not off-wiki harassment. That does not put you in any danger whatsoever.
4. "That is grounds for a libel and slander suit." — I do not feel that this is a legal threat; of course, this is my interpretation. I believe you are over exaggerating the phrase.
5. What are you talking about? And what user?

• Iolakana|^T 13:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Let me address your questions in order.

(1) My first point addresses your assumption that my sock puppet accusation was in bad faith, and was in retaliation for Avraham's sock puppet accusation. The times the cases were filed and that statement by Avraham show that his case was actually the retaliatory case.

(2) It is simply untrue that I provide no evidence of my accusation, as anyone who bothers to read the accusation will see. At the minimum, I provided at least as much information as Avraham did in his case against me.

(3) My third point is not related to the off-wiki harassment, but is rather related to the sock puppet case against me --- I have already stated above it is a user other than Avraham that is engaged in the off-wiki harassment. This point was pointing out another flaw in the sock puppet case against me. I mentioned the off-wiki harassment as the reason why some users edited just once and then never returned.

(4) On the legal threats, I was actually going to let this slide until User:WAvegetarian was troubled by it. Perhaps we are both exaggerating the phrase, but with two people concerned by it might be worth discussing.

(5) See my original concern with off-wiki harassment at the top of this section. Someone is taking user IP addresses from wikipedia and using them to harass people at work. Did you actually read and investigate my concerns here, or did you just jump in to belittle me and defend Avraham?

Based on the tone of the response to my legitimate concerns here, I suspect User:Kilo-Lima is not impartial in this matter. Incidentally, User:Kilo-Lima is also the one who accused me of acting in bad faith with my sock puppet case against Avraham, and endorsed Avraham's case against me without investigating. I believe we need someone impartial to investigate my concerns. Thank you. SkipSmith 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(2) Suspected sock puppet cases require diffs in order for an administrator to view and determine. You have not done so. Yes, and I agree now, that you have added evidence, but this is only in the form of quotes. It would be easier to add a diff. Iolakana|^T 11:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I think I know the point of confusion now. Since I'm fairly new to wikipedia, I didn't know the procedure to ask for a sock puppet investigation, so all I did first was put a sockpuppet warning on User:Avraham's talk page without formally filing a case. Someone (you?) deleted it for having no evidence. Thus, I went back and read the actual rules for filing sockpuppet suspicions, and filed it formally with evidence as you now see. Could it be that you confused my earlier abortive attempt to file the case with the actual case I filed above, leading to your suspicions of bad faith? There was nothing in the instructions I read about using diffs, but I certaintly could have --- thanks for the tip in case I ever need to file a case in the future. However, I think this sock puppet case has already done more harm than good to the discussion on Actuarial Outpost, so I doubt I'll pursue it further.

However, one thing I do want to pursue is doing something about the off-wiki harassment by 64.7.136.166. Is there any recourse to prevent this user from looking up IP addresses on wikipedia and faxing threats to people at work? Thanks. SkipSmith 06:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, There is an edit war happening in

03:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved, user has not responded on talk page and a 3rd user introduced a compromise. Thanks. 82.29.227.171 14:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope he/she is back deleting the information again [86] comment says: "Moved AIPAC reaction to section involving House and Senate resolutions" when in fact he/she just deletes it. This deletion is despite more evidence supporting the edit appearing [87]. Reported him/her for a 2nd time for vandalism [88] 82.29.227.171 12:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

More attempts to confuse editors and the RfC against her. She has moved the talk page to the user page, then back, then to another user's name, then to a subpage User:Rrock/stuff, then wrote over that page with a unix man page. This also deleted all reference to User talk:Ste4k/Archives of first three weeks

By moving the page, getting an admin to delete the page she has covered this up, and currently wants the pages speedy deleted to do a final cover up, and look like she never existed. The user she moved to she claimed was her "husband" (who challenged me to a fight in the RfC}.

User has a history of deliberate deception.

So, when does the communities patience |run out? --mboverload@ 02:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, excuse me bud, but, your talkin about my account here. Any reason you makin a big deal out stuff without tellin me first? Rrock 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Uhm, by the way, what you mean by "rfc against her. She told me that rfc was spozed to be helpin her. you got bad faith or sumpn? Rrock 02:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, you'd better get your facts straight, especially when bothering admin's on a notice board. I hear that people on WP frown on trouble-makers. If you've got an issue with my account, then send a me a message in my talk space. Rrock 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• You are either using deceptive methods to hide and destroy another users talk page or you are using deceptive methods to hide and destroy your own talk page. Either way, I recommend blocking both accounts (at least 48 hours so we can talk about this) and reverting the moves; also post this at Ste4k's RFAR.
  Thatcher131 (talk)
  02:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The arbitration committee looks at all sides when user conduct is before arbitration. Ste4k would not be the first person who brought a case only to find herself at the wrong end of the hammer. I urge you both to calm down and play by the rules while you still have the chance.
    Thatcher131 (talk)
    02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Your overwriting the Talk page with other content was a deliberate attempt to hide Ste4k's Talk page. You could be blocked for disruption just as easily as he could be. I suggest you not help him do something like that again. I have moved it back by the way. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are the same user, rrock is a sockpuppet --mboverload@ 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats a pretty serious charge, you'd better have some data to back it up. How about you show me that right here. Rrock 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't tempt me.

Thatcher131 (talk)

02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Aw. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

i was talkin to the other guy. i sent you a note. Rrock 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents of the note: She wont be back. Rrock 02:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty convient --mboverload@ 02:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you sockpuppet yourself? Why are you talkin for that other guy, huh? Rrock 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A meat puppet is also a puppet. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-29 02:53Z

lol, whatever. Rrock 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

move to block indef as having exhausted the community's patience, for both accounts. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

i think i already said that, but you've got it backwards. later. Rrock 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I say 6 months; it's enough time for all this animosity to dissipate. But the gist of it is, I support a long block. Mangojuice^talk 03:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As expected, checkuser confirms they are the same user. Indefblock the sock and decide what to do with the puppetmaster. If the checkuser result is needed for the RfAr, I can provide it to the AC. Essjay (Talk) 03:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to go through an RfAr?.... *chokes himself* --mboverload@ 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is already a request on RFAR where Ste4k is a party; if the AC believes this evidence is relevant to it, I'll provide it. Essjay (Talk) 03:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No block? *gets out a posioned knife dipped in

Dart frog posion and smeared with feces* --mboverload@

03:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay likes to stay out of disputes by blocking the socks but letting the community decide what to do with the main accounts. It's not a bad policy, and it's probably the only way he can run checkuser without redlining his stress levels.

Thatcher131 (talk)

03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sock's blocked already anyway. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

After years on the internet I have never seen someone with this kind of behavior change for the better. Although it is possible, I think it is highly unlikely. Ste4k has exhausted almost everyone involved with him/her and run others off of WP. I think Ste4k should be permanently blocked. If not, they will just return later (and smarter) and this will all start up again but will be harder to spot.—Who123 03:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess the question is: Who's going to do it? Who's going to rid us of this demon? --mboverload@ 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not me, obviously. I don't think the problem is unfixable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You truly honestly think this user is ever going to change? Their response to the RfC shows this user will never alter. --mboverload@ 10:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I did think so, yes, having had several quite civil exchanges with her by email. But it is now moot, I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 15:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

2006-07-29 03:15:21 Rebecca (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ste4k (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (per ANI) [89] —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-29 17:01Z

Yay. Attention: Rebecca now has balls. She may not of had them before, but she does now =D --mboverload@ 23:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ambi/Rebecca/whatever's always had balls ... figuratively, at least. --Cyde↔Weys 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to get somebody to talk to

04:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The user Lingeron (talk • contribs • count) has been warned by user:Bishonen [90] and myself. [91] I'd like to see a checkuser run to substantiate or disprove the sock allegation made, though. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Lar, pending the checkuser request, the user is a pretty obvious reincarnation of a permanently blocked user. At the very least, the summaries and contents are identical, and we can presumptively block given the abuse that brought her here. Geogre 13:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

anyone able to maybe review my request once made? I've not done it before, and might flub. (But do know it's well documented and do understand the concept of following directions!) ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fixing to go to wp:rcu to make the request. The beseiged volunteers at checkuser can only reject the request. Geogre 14:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. --AaronS 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No need for CheckUser. CheckUser requests that we handle obvious socks without bothering them; this is an obvious Thewolfstar sock. The account pretends to be a new user, using the "clever trick", typical of Thewolfstar socks, of "ignorantly" asking how to sign talkpage entries. Yet it made a beeline for RFA, a sure sign of an experienced user, and generally knows its way around. It displays the same very unusual political interests profile as Thewolfstar, the identical unique aggressiveness, the same disintererest in article editing and the same ranting on talkpages. Also some telltale turns of phrase. And have people noticed the Bishonen angle? It knows and hates me (who originally blocked Thewolfstar indefinitely), and obviously followed my contributions to User talk:MSTCrow, a good place to rant. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC).

• Note: I have indefinitely blocked user:Lingeron as an obvious reincarnation of permanently blocked user user:thewolfstar. I invite any suspicious administrators or anyone wishing to review the block to take a look at the contributions and/or seek a checkuser. Geogre 22:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fairly obviously I would think, I completely support this block. Please note bias on my part though, as Lingeron has been participating (in a way that I find not at all helpful) in User:Phaedriel's RfA... ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I sincerely request that you make a case for why this user is "obviously" a sockpuppet of Thewolfstar. They don't bear any resemblance in my opinion, other than that you might not care for the both of them, but I don't think that alone qualifies as sufficient evidence. I really hope I am wrong but it looks to me like you have just committed the worst wiki-sin: permanently blocking a good faith contributor under false charges. — GT 03:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Struck per Lingeron section below. — GT 21:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

All these articles are cut and paste jobs, but someone needs to explain it to the user. I have to sleep, so if someone can pick up where I left off...

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCF_%28RN%29_The_Rule_of_the_Road
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCF_%28RN%29_Seamanship
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCF_%28RN%29_Tides_and_Charts
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCF_%28RN%29_Lights_and_Bouys

See the user's logs, there are probably more and there are more being created every few minutes --mboverload@ 10:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi - yes - I've explained this to Chaser - I'm just transferring a bunch of articles from my own website onto Wiki. Siepmann 10:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What ever happened to "

Samuel Wantman

07:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A number of templates were tagged for speedy deletion today, citing

13:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

(bias disclosure:PRO-USERBOXES) There have been a series of out-of-the-ordinary processes going on with userboxes for quite sometime, from deletions, salting, speedy this-is and speedy that-is. Thousands of userpages have been altered via the use of

WP:CSD#G6 as "Userbox since migrated to userspace under [[WP:GUS]] which now has no incomming links, and is a cross namespace redirect or a redirect to a deleted page. ([[WP:CSD#G6]] - housekeeping deletion)". There are currently 102 templates left in this category. Some of them will not be workable under this housekeeping task (see the category talk re ist->ism template redirects). — xaosflux ^Talk

13:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

These likely also qualify under

WP:CSD#R1 and R2 as redirect to redlinks and/or x-ns redirs to userspace. Please note, that the efforts of this cleanup have NOT been to MAKE more redirects, just to clean them up. — xaosflux ^Talk

13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• talk
  14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A similar process has been going on with userbox list pages in the Wikipedia namespace, often without tagging the pages as CSD. I've attempted to dialogue with the responsible admins about these deletions not meeting the noncontroversial test of G6, but, once I make my point, I usually get silence. I think any CSD application about the userbox issue is frought with peril. The consensus in the community is not settled, and for that reason, deletion efforts that don't fit with crystal clarity into one of the CSD should be put up for deletion. --Ssbohio 15:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As mentioned above, and if the deletions AFTER REPLACEMENT have not seemed to garnish any complaints about the loss of the page, just the process used, if we are running the process just for the sake of the process, it may be time to (suspenseful music plays)
      not follow the process. — xaosflux ^Talk
      16:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • To this point, the only indication I've seen of any controversy is this noticeboard post. It does seem like CSD R2 would also be a criteria. Xaosflux is implementing a reasonable way for POV userboxes to be migrated following the discussion of
        WP:GUS. αChimp ^laudare
        16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There will be no last hurrah for userboxes. Everything is proceeding as it should, and a few non-admins urging a strict adherence to process aren't going to follow it. I'd never thought I'd see Xaosflux say "Fuck process", but there it is. Given that, I'd say this issue is pretty much over. I'm fulfilling my responsibility to delete T1 userboxes just as everyone else is fulfilling theirs to redirect inclusions from Template: to userspace. --Cyde↔Weys 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of process... Just because you've been screwed, it doesn't mean you can't be a virgin all over again! [92]

talk

20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears this was prompted by the template pages that I tagged last night. I just want to say that the pages I tagged had no transclusions (actually, I fixed the few that were transcluded) at the time of tagging. This isn't about deleting userboxes, this is about deleting unused redirects. —

19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But there were incoming links (e.g. User:UBX/gay). Not sure if this is a problem, but there are being "used". Cheers TigerShark 07:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whenever possible, links like those should be bypassed, but sometimes a red link tells the story just as well.

talk

20:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking that page as an example, I count ten pages with incoming links. One is the

ra

00:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on Talk:British Shorthair has degraded into a flame war with various people coming in from anonymous IPs to directly launch personal attacks against those who oppose the inclusion of internet meme content into a breed description. I have tried to be as civil as possible and work towards a compromise over the issue, and nobody seems to be giving me any room to work with them. I would seriously like an administrator to step into this issue and take appropriate action. --Targetter 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Aeon1006 keeps blanking his talk page despite my request for comments from him, and placing of warnings on his page. I am writing to seek mediation with this individual because of his campaign of harassment against me the other night. I will be upfront and admit that the other night started with my getting angry at another user, and I am not fully in the right as to the other night, however his actions today are wholely uncalled for, and his actions last night were abusive. 74.136.222.198 07:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that part of this dispute has carried over onto my user talk page (see the sections labed "Hey" and "Aeon" at the bottom). I doubt Aeon1006 will be commenting on this thread, as he has decided to retire from Wikipedia for unrelated reasons. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quick reply. 74.136.222.198 was a vandal and also comited various personal attacks with his talk page. I reverted him and warned him with both sets of warns inorder to attempt to stop him from continuing. He was blocked for his actions. Also he was reverted by several others as well. Sorry about this and not sure how it happened. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 07:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have fully admitted I did some wrong things Aeon, however I did not launch personal attacks with my talk page. You embarked on a campaign of harassment, knowing I was already angry, in an attempt to make me angrier for your own amusement. You abused your authority to harass me, and removed my ability to protest your harassment by constantly reverting my comments and incorrectly labeling them as vandalism. While I may have also been wrong yesterday in some of my actions, it does not excuse your behavior. 74.136.222.198 07:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say I have had problems with Aeon recently. The issues stems from a failed mediation case, where Aeon was the advocate for

User:Insert-Belltower. Apparently, Aeon's conduct in the case was questionable, and another user, User:UCRGrad felt that he needed to put this, in great detail, all over other user's talk pages. I blocked UCRGrad for 24 hours, later reducing this to six, because I deemed UCRGrad's posting of his 'concerns' to be disruptive and inappropriate. I asked Aeon to alert me to any more questionable postings from UCRGrad, because I believed Aeon to be the wronged party. When Aeon later presented me with a message from UCRGrad on Insert-Belltower's talk page, which was nearly identical to the types of messages I blocked UCRGrad for in the first place, I blocked again, this time for one week. However, just this evening, Insert-Belltower posted on my talk page informing me that the message UCRGrad had left on Insert-Belltower's talk page was invited, and Aeon's reporting of the message as evidence of further abuse was inappropriate. I immediately unblocked UCRGrad. However, I warned all three that I am tired of this dispute, especially of Aeon's misleading comments. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!)

07:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that

) 07:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The matter is CERTAINLY not over and further action does need to be taken, I am still unable to edit my own talk page. Reverse this at once. 74.136.222.198 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Since I'm gone (A came back for a few minutes because of an e-mail.) there is no issue at my end. ThanksÆon ^{Insane Ward} 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

See,

10:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave him alone, KevBo. He 'aint never done you no harm.--TheLame 15:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. JoshuaZ 16:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

These articles are now being vandalized by sockpuppets of Roitr:

.

Active sockpuppets:

• • Hyrold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Tibol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Oliversi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Liuos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
  • 88.154.89.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 88.154.50.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 88.155.8.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Dfrdgf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
  • Erawew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
  • Iyuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Bonaqua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For most recent information please refer to

. Please, help to stop this new attack of the vandal.--Nixer 10:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In my talk page [93] he claims that it is impossible to stop him because he has thousands of IPs. He also threats me that he will revert any my edits.--Nixer 11:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

we would need to block

dab (ᛏ)

11:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Obvously the old methods does not work. He says I am an idiot because it is impossible to block him. I think blocking Bezeq is nessessary as a temporary measure until we desided how to manage such vandalism.--Nixer 11:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That suggests by Nixer to block temporarily all Bezeq - nonsense and it breaks the all rights of all users of this provider and many users in Israel.--Oliversi 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

well, if you could behave, there would be no need for such measures. If you continue this, we will indeed block Bezeq. Established users will be able to edit regardless, thanks to the new mediawiki upgrade. This wouldn't be the first time a major provider is blocked because a single person just does not Get It.

dab (ᛏ)

15:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_reports#Roitr --Nixer 15:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since this exact message has been places on 4 different admins by two different accounts, I would say that sockpuppet is perfectly reasonable. The only thing I see in common with these admins is that we have all blocked Nixer in the past. (You'll also notice that none of us of chosen to do it now).
  • my talk
  • User_talk:Dbachmann#Nixer
  • User_talk:Ezhiki#Nixer
  • User_talk:Mikkalai#Nixer

I think the contribs of the users posting look suspicious as well:

• • Oliversi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Bonaqua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikibofh_(talk) 15:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

these may be blocked as as blatant socks, but that won't help since the socketeer apparently has the entire Bezeq range at his disposal. I would advise a short block of Bezeq to see what happens.

dab (ᛏ)

15:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nixer

These articles are now being vandalized by Nixer:

Russian Empire - Reverts without provides. Rejects official sources and does not specify the sources. Refuses to cooperate.

- multi 3RR violation

• • Nixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please, help to stop his attack and reverts.--Oliversi 11:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oliversi is a sockpuppet of Roitr (see above)--Nixer 11:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of a long-term vandal Roitr. Provide your accusations and suspicions. Still even if I am a sockpuppet of Roitr - is do not give you the right to break a rule of wikipedia.--Oliversi 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

if you are a sock, rolling you back is 3RR exempt. And I have a hard time believing a newbie with 7 edits would come here complaining about "3RR violation"

dab (ᛏ)

15:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you guys want to take this to checkuser we can try figuring out a manageable range-block. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

the range is known, see

dab (ᛏ)

15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Bah...won't let us block a /14. It's 88.152-155 at least. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked the range for 30 minutes. Anon and account creation. I suspect we'll have to go with a longer block that does is anon, but not account creation. That should be enough as it shifts the burden a little more to the puppetmaster. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about blocking this range in his most active hours? That would greatly relieve us of the burden to revert him every 5 minutes or so. I need to check his activities, but they seem to be evenings (GMT+3) for the most part. That said, I'd still have his principal targets semiprotected or even fully protected. --Dmitry 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please block also this account: Tibol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as he continues vandalism [94] even in semi-protected pages--Nixer 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the other day some either misguided edits or subtle vandalm from

13:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whomp t/c

16:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request a second opinion on many of the posts by 203.208.102.224 (talk · contribs). It appears to me as though the user is repeatedly adding non-neutral information regarding Lebanese Australians. You are, of course, free to browse over the user's contributions, but many of them appear to add references to subjects' nationalities (usually Lebanese) and religious preferences (usually Muslim) when it's not necessary. And so opinion on these types of contributions would be appreciated. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The above muslim user seems to be very confused, he refers to articles on hate crimes committed by Lebanese Muslims in australia against white women...i don't think he understands that sometimes muslims commit hate crimes too...he needs to look at his NPOV...this man has vanadalised several articles where race info is the determining factor in the crime or criminals mentioned...I do not think he is willing to accept that race hate crimes are not just committed by skinheads. PLease ban User:Tariqabjotu he is a vandal.--203.208.102.224 14:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be an over-generalization. Yes, most of the victims were white and yes most of perpatrators were Lebanese. But that doesn't mean it's a hate crime. The Sydney gang rapes article mentions in the intro that the set of crimes was part of a hate crime, as cites three sources. However, each source is just quoting the same newspaper columnist's opinion that it's a hate crime. See also Talk:Sydney gang rapes#Introduction. Anyway, this is starting to edge away from needing admin attention; I'll try to resolve the issue with the user on his/her talk page, but I hope an admin can keep an eye on this. The user was blocked for three hours about twelve hours ago for similar conduct on the Sydney gang rapes article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A prominent UK media community is currently discussing and evaluating Wikipedia's article on

15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Rah Crawford article consists primarily of text lifted wholly from the artist's website. I've removed the copyvio text more than once, but User:Tywho puts it back without any comment or explanation ([95] [96]). This is even after notifying him of the copyright problems at his talk page. I don't want to remove the text again, so as not to violate the 3RR rule. I'm not sure what else to do, or if there is a more appropriate place to bring this up. eaolson 15:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the situation, but if you're removing a copyright violation, you're reverting vandalism and illegal content, so 3RR doesn't apply. Geogre 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the content appears to be simply an "exhibition list". A list of works, or exhibits, etc is generally considered "public information", not subject to copyright violation. If these exhibits or works are private, for distribution to friends, not the public, that would be a different issue. Wjhonson 16:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone else removed the copyrighted text, which is why only the list remains. I will remember that about the 3RR rule for the future, thanks. eaolson 18:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel-29 (talk · contribs), possibly Johnny the Vandal was able to attack dozens of new users before getting blocked. Not a nice way for new users to be greeted here. I am in the process of welcoming all these new users, please keep an eye out in case he does it again. NoSeptember 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted and welcomed all of the ones that D29 was still on top of. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and also Dcooper, who did a great job of welcoming others on the list. If anyone sees a string of brand new users with blue linked talk pages, investigate it, this sort of attack may be a possibility. NoSeptember 18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please anybody block these active sockpuppets of Roitr!

Tibol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hyrold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Iyuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oliversi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gjyuity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kyuieg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kusik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Leonemirovsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mufas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jkhkd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gjyuityi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Nixer 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Bluegold has been removing sockpuppet templates from his various alleged sockpuppets, and has removed the puppet master template from his own user page. He's caused some disruptions in the past; right now he's claiming that old "WP is founded by porn!" business.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, I thought that it was OKAY to remove it, Cuchullain (the puppy of Ulster, Old Irish) put it back on again. Bluegold 20:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And now he's trolling my talk page. [97][98]--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Now he's vandalizing my user page. [99]--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, deleted trolling and warned. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

He asked for an indef block on my userpage. I was happy to do as he demanded. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User appears to have registered an account, used Curps's user page [100] and user talk page [101] as his/her own via transclusion, and as his/hers only edit, put a nonsensical AfD nomination on Spain. I reverted the Curps stuff, speedy-closed the AfD, and now post here to request action by an admin. Thanks, --20:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User has been indef. blocked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zoe! --MCB 22:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

More attempts to confuse editors and the RfC against her. She has moved the talk page to the user page, then back, then to another user's name, then to a subpage User:Rrock/stuff, then wrote over that page with a unix man page. This also deleted all reference to User talk:Ste4k/Archives of first three weeks

By moving the page, getting an admin to delete the page she has covered this up, and currently wants the pages speedy deleted to do a final cover up, and look like she never existed. The user she moved to she claimed was her "husband" (who challenged me to a fight in the RfC}.

User has a history of deliberate deception.

So, when does the communities patience |run out? --mboverload@ 02:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, excuse me bud, but, your talkin about my account here. Any reason you makin a big deal out stuff without tellin me first? Rrock 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Uhm, by the way, what you mean by "rfc against her. She told me that rfc was spozed to be helpin her. you got bad faith or sumpn? Rrock 02:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, you'd better get your facts straight, especially when bothering admin's on a notice board. I hear that people on WP frown on trouble-makers. If you've got an issue with my account, then send a me a message in my talk space. Rrock 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• You are either using deceptive methods to hide and destroy another users talk page or you are using deceptive methods to hide and destroy your own talk page. Either way, I recommend blocking both accounts (at least 48 hours so we can talk about this) and reverting the moves; also post this at Ste4k's RFAR.
  Thatcher131 (talk)
  02:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The arbitration committee looks at all sides when user conduct is before arbitration. Ste4k would not be the first person who brought a case only to find herself at the wrong end of the hammer. I urge you both to calm down and play by the rules while you still have the chance.
    Thatcher131 (talk)
    02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Your overwriting the Talk page with other content was a deliberate attempt to hide Ste4k's Talk page. You could be blocked for disruption just as easily as he could be. I suggest you not help him do something like that again. I have moved it back by the way. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are the same user, rrock is a sockpuppet --mboverload@ 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats a pretty serious charge, you'd better have some data to back it up. How about you show me that right here. Rrock 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't tempt me.

Thatcher131 (talk)

02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Aw. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

i was talkin to the other guy. i sent you a note. Rrock 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents of the note: She wont be back. Rrock 02:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty convient --mboverload@ 02:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you sockpuppet yourself? Why are you talkin for that other guy, huh? Rrock 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A meat puppet is also a puppet. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-29 02:53Z

lol, whatever. Rrock 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

move to block indef as having exhausted the community's patience, for both accounts. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

i think i already said that, but you've got it backwards. later. Rrock 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I say 6 months; it's enough time for all this animosity to dissipate. But the gist of it is, I support a long block. Mangojuice^talk 03:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As expected, checkuser confirms they are the same user. Indefblock the sock and decide what to do with the puppetmaster. If the checkuser result is needed for the RfAr, I can provide it to the AC. Essjay (Talk) 03:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to go through an RfAr?.... *chokes himself* --mboverload@ 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is already a request on RFAR where Ste4k is a party; if the AC believes this evidence is relevant to it, I'll provide it. Essjay (Talk) 03:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No block? *gets out a posioned knife dipped in

Dart frog posion and smeared with feces* --mboverload@

03:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay likes to stay out of disputes by blocking the socks but letting the community decide what to do with the main accounts. It's not a bad policy, and it's probably the only way he can run checkuser without redlining his stress levels.

Thatcher131 (talk)

03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sock's blocked already anyway. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

After years on the internet I have never seen someone with this kind of behavior change for the better. Although it is possible, I think it is highly unlikely. Ste4k has exhausted almost everyone involved with him/her and run others off of WP. I think Ste4k should be permanently blocked. If not, they will just return later (and smarter) and this will all start up again but will be harder to spot.—Who123 03:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess the question is: Who's going to do it? Who's going to rid us of this demon? --mboverload@ 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not me, obviously. I don't think the problem is unfixable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You truly honestly think this user is ever going to change? Their response to the RfC shows this user will never alter. --mboverload@ 10:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I did think so, yes, having had several quite civil exchanges with her by email. But it is now moot, I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 15:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

2006-07-29 03:15:21 Rebecca (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ste4k (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (per ANI) [102] —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-29 17:01Z

Yay. Attention: Rebecca now has balls. She may not of had them before, but she does now =D --mboverload@ 23:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ambi/Rebecca/whatever's always had balls ... figuratively, at least. --Cyde↔Weys 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am back, under the name Rick Kernigan. Please reinstate my admin powers. Rick Kernigan 13:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you produce some evidence to back up this claim, please? i.e. posting from you former account? Regards, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 13:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am Hephaestos who requests his admin powers reinstated. Please AGF. John Gunnar Robinson 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yyyyyyyyeah. You just hold still, and we'll restore you right away. Geogre 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Bureaucrat and CheckUser! :) TigerShark 13:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you need that? Just posting on

WP:ANI causes you to be magically sysopped!!!! Viridae^Talk

13:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I of course am Cyde (talk · contribs) and am now in need of an emergency resysoping due to an unplanned name change--Joe Liberace 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not. But you are .... blocked. --Cyde↔Weys 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely. RickK still has access to his old account. AGF is not a suicide pact. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, admin me! -- I am RickK and so is my wife 17:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha <3 monty python :) Viridae^Talk 00:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am Essjay come back under a different account, and I request admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, and boardvote access. --Jayess 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No you aren't. Essjay (spill yours?) 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:

Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated. This applies whether the personal details are accurate or not.

I would appreciate it if an admin would remove this personal and irrelevant info from the page and issue a warning to Hillman. Note that Hillman's request for a checkuser for DrL was denied as I did not violate any policy. This dig page came on the heels of that. Thanks. DrL 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Related context:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DrL

There will be related talk page threads around, but I don't feel like wading through the morass to find them.

The upshot is that

19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• That is simply not true! Any edits that I made were done in good faith and with NPOV. I strongly object to personal information being posted, particularly irrelevant information and links to one's supposed place of employment. It's positively Orwellian. I would love to resolve this dispute and I thought that I was doing the correct thing by posting here. If I am supposed to request dispute resolution in another way, please let me know how to do so. Thanks. DrL 19:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've pointed you at
  resolving disputes are, and how to execute them. --Christopher Thomas
  18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• For those who like to Wikilawyer, see "Keeping notes" on the Iloveminun "Proposed decision" page. Four members of ArbCom have signed their agreement to the proposition "It is acceptable to make a subpage to keep notes which document another user's behavior. Care should be taken to keep a factual record which avoids personal attacks on your own part." No oppose votes or abstentions to date. In fact, Minun (a.k.a. Iloveminun) is likely to be banned for attempting to destroy a page containing such notes. Now that I've said all that, I suggest it would be better to keep all discussion on this matter on the MfD page linked above, which is already filling up with argumentation. (I already posted this information there, too, in reply to a query by User:Stifle.) Anville 03:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This complaint is quite apart from the Hillman's MfD. Hillman's page on me goes well beyond factual data and contains irrelevant personal info. That need to be addressed, particularly when the subject of such "documentation" is a good faith user being targeted by a questionable source. DrL 19:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(Merged duplicate thread.)

One User:Hillman seems to be posting personal information on User:Hillman/Dig/Langan about other users. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-30 Hillman posting personal information for more information. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it, yeah. As per my usual routine: Anyone posting other people's personal information without their consent should be banned indefinitely as a hazard to other editors. --FOo 19:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above, at #Posting Personal Information. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please ban this user User:Hillman and edit or revert the page to something that does not speculate about my job, where I live, my place of employment and include irrelevant reposts of teen drug abuse and attacks on my character? DrL 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(Mediation case)

A mediation case regarding this dispute is underway. --Christopher Thomas 02:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe speedied the article on Jeanpaul Ferro even though it pretty plainly wasn't a speedy candidate, as the mirrors show [103]. When he complained, she suggested he recreate and revise the article. [104] After he did, she deleted it again without explanation, protected the deletion, and left an uncivil, taunting message on the user's talk page. [105] This behaviour is completely inappropriate. Even the most superficial Google search shows that the subject is a poet extensively published (mostly in obscure but not trivial magazines, like most current poets), and if Zoe questioned his notability she should have sent it to AfD, not speedied it without explanation and treated the subject abusively (and abuse is a common complaint about User:Zoe, valid or not). Since Zoe has eradicated the article and its history, the subject's claim not to be the original author can't be tested directly, but Zoe didn't dispute it, so it's probably true. VivianDarkbloom 20:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• So, the person's first name is not Jean Paul but Jeanpaul? The author never thought of using WP:DRV? The author never bothered to answer the other questions about the article, like its being a violation of WP:AUTO? Hopping in here like this isn't very persuasive at this point. Let's try the regular channels. Deletion Review will get a thorough consideration. Geogre 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Although Zoe was obviously acting in good faith it seems fairly clear that this shouldn't have been a speedy deletion, so I've undeleted it and sent it to AFD. --ⁿɡ͡b
  talk
  21:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Really, this should be
    WP:DRV rather than an automatic AfD. We don't go from deleted to speedy deleted to AfD unless there has been a deletion review step in between. This is just for future reference. Geogre
    21:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I did consider sending it to
      talk
      08:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting awfully tired of my admin actions being overturned without discussion by the admins involved. What happened to the zero revert rule and avoidance of wheel warring? TALK TO ME, DAMMIT!!!!! (sorry I got so testy, but this is the third time this has happened in two days, by three different admins). User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And please see User talk:Jferro67. I see absolutely no sign of abuse there, whatsoever. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my action has upset you, Zoe, but I nevertheless think it was the right call -- and, of course, I took care to notify you of my actions on your talk page, so although I didn't feel it necessary to wait for your approval, it's wrong to suggest that I didn't 'talk to [you], dammit'. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

07:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the third time it's happened in two days and she wonders why? This administror has harassed me for allegedly vandalizing articles that I either have not contributed to or have contributed to so minimally that my impact on them would be completely negligible. Also, cohorts of hers have heavily vandalized the

05:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)History21

Just so you're aware, that entire post was one gigantic violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Please review the applicable policy before posting on Wikipedia again as you may have missed it the first time. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:History21 is on his last legs at Wikipedia as a result of his repeated hoaxing involving the Eyre/Heller/Peters family. He is one of three users/sockpuppets I have admonished in this manner, and he's decided to attempt to blacken my reputation as a result of this warning. I have no cohorts, so far as I know, and have no interest in or knowledge of any edits to the

First Family of the United States article, save that all three of the User accounts I have admonished about hoaxing have edited it. User:Zoe|^(talk)

21:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your cohort is apparently me. I reverted his changes to the first family article with the caveat that I would not remove anything that he inserted with reliable sources. He included some links that I have not verified in his most recent attempt to edit the article, and as such I did not remove his contributions on sight. I will go over his sources shortly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not on my "last legs" at all; some people have simply been attempting to put me in that position for reasons of their own that I cannot begin to fathom. Unfortunately for these people, my record contradicts their words, and such ridiculous stunts as the reversion at

do not sit well with responsible contributors and administrators.

Secondly, I am not attempting to blacken anyone's reputation but have simply revealed some of the things that Zoe has done throughout her history, things clearly available in public records. If your editing list blackens your reputation, that is your fault and not mine. The fact that this section was even created to deal with you in the first place is a statement in itself.

Also, I would greatly appreciate if you would stop insinuating that I am a sockpuppet, especially given that most of the articles you've accused me of vandalizing lack any contributions in my name. Really, this is just getting silly. I expect both of you to refrain from such nonsense in the future.

Oh, and the vandalism of Judy Feder is not appreciated. There is no copyright violation; I state very clearly in the article that the official positions are "as stated on her campaign website." In other words, I am making the encyclopedia readers aware of the platform that she has espoused. I go out of my way to say that the words are hers and not my own:

1. For said copyright purposes 2. To maintain objectivity

I hope that I do not have to report this incident as well.

History21 05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)History21

While on CAT:CSD, I declined a CSD, which didn't bode well with another user[106]. I responded on their talk page in regards to their complaints[107]. I know this seems vague and rushed, and I apologize, I was wondering (since I've only been a SysOp for 26 hours) if I acted correctly and to bring this to other's attention. Thank you, Yanksox 04:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I do do newpage patrol sometimes. From my perspective, the version that you de-tagged isn't really an attack page.

Kevin_b_er

05:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

FOUR different editors tagged it for speedy deletion. More than one administrator thought it proper for speedy deletion. One administrator finally did delete it:

I agree that this page was indefensible and had to be deleted. I've deleted it as an attack page. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) {copied over from Admin board by jawesq 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)}

That did not include an administrator on WIkiquote:

Delete. Jim Shapiro must not use the Internet to get business, as this ill-sourced attack page has been around for nearly two years. Our article was created only 1 day after the WP article was created, and the second WP edit was made 3 minutes later to add the WQ box link, strongly suggesting that both article creators are the same person. The sole external link provided in the WQ article appears to be a squirrely personal website with no provenance. (I've listed some details about it in the AfD for the WP article.) All in all, this looks like a set of bad-faith editing by someone with an axe to grind. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, per discussion below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [copied over from Wikiquote. jawesq 00:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)]

It wasn't a proper speedy, and I applaud you for taking the time to make sure it fit the criteria. If you continue to do so (as I hope you do) you'll periodically get complaints; the proper response is (as you did) to explain that speedies are only for specific cases where it is completely clear that no other opinions are necessary, not for cases where you're pretty sure the article should go. So, good job!
An additional comment, though, is that unsourced and/or excessive elements in biographies of living persons should be vigorously rooted out. This seems to have been done, in the case of this article, by simply stubifying it. In this case, that was a better approach than speedy deletion, so everything has been done correctly here. -- SCZenz 05:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call -- Samir धर्म 05:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who deleted everything but one sentence, naming the attorney and where he was located. I did that to point out why it DID warrant speedy deletion. Evidently, this was lost on some. It was not a stub. There was no reason to even have the article but for the disparaging remarks. In fact, its author admitted that was why he wrote it - to show the over the top (sleazy) advertising, and evidently to also call him an ambulance chaser, who been sanctioned by his state bar, and other assorted bad things. So this is encyclopedic? The fact is, there would have been NO way to make this article NPOV. None.

What about it was not a 'speedy delete'? In fact, it has been speedy deleted, finally. EVERYTHING in the article was unsourced and disparaging. That was the whole point of the article. That fits the definition (below) of what should be immediately deleted to a 'T". In fact, other admins seem to agree and have since weighed in (not just the one who deleted the article).jawesq 22:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a speedy delete attack, even if it was a "criticism" page. The AfD nominators generally nominate things that should be deleted. The CSD taggers miss a great deal more often. The article's an AfD case, most likely, but not a CSD. Geogre 11:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check the history as to why that article was tagged for a speedy delete. I had removed all the unsourced negative statements about this attorney, which left one sentence as to his name and location. ONe reason it should have been deleted (and was finally) immediately is WP:BIO.

FOUR different people tagged this article for Speedy delete, and another admin finally DID speedy delete it.

There was a reason it was deleted. This lawyer was not known outside his community (So he was not infamous), and ALL the statements about him were "negative in tone" - in fact, they were plainly disparaging. There was no way to make that article NPOV. This exactly meets speedy deletion criteria. jawesq 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

THIS is what he stated:

I agree that this page was indefensible and had to be deleted. I've deleted it as an attack page. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [Copied from Admin page by jawesq 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)]

Why are you yelling? User:Yanksox said it was his first day as a sysop and he wasn't certain what to do so he didn't delete it and posted here. It was the right thing to do. Leave it be now. -- Samir धर्म 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not yelling. Why are you being uncivil and accusing me of yelling? In fact, the article was deleted. And the article is not salvageable because (1) the guy is not notable and (2) the entire article was an attack on a lawyer known only in his local community. It also does not meet the WP:BIO standards. WHy anyone would defend this is totally beyond me. I am not attacking Yanksox. I am astonished at the standards that some seem to have when it comes to turning WIkipedia into a gossip rag.jawesq 02:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the article at

WP:DRV now, can we contain the discussion to there from this point forward? Metros232

02:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification: the alternative to speedy deletion is not leaving it alone, but AfD. The article failed WP:BIO, and its function was a criticism of a local figure, so it should have been on AfD, where it would fail spectacularly, but it wasn't the sort of attack page that qualifies under the speedy deletion criteria. Yanksox did the right thing by not speedy deleting: it did not qualify under those very tight criteria. That's not by any means to suggest that anyone thinks it's a valid article. Geogre 13:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it would fail spectacularly under an AfD. As it was at the time of SD, it did qualify, since there were no citations/references. As recreated on a user's talk page, it may not now meet SD, but it surely would still fail spectacularly under AfD. IMO. And yes, there is a

WP:DRV

.

Thank you. And YankSox, thank you for being polite through all this.jawesq 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG blocked me even after warnings by another administrator not to abuse his administrative power. ([108] [109] [110] [111] [112] ) There is an explicit rule not to to this: Block policy#When blocking may not be used: 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. Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith. I had been unaware of the fact that after three wholesale reverts by others, partly without even an explanation, editing one factually wrong word would violate the 3 revert rule. I apologize and will not do it again. I however protest the harrassment by the admin who now already blocked me three times over the same content dispute even though I am very active in the discussion and the issue is very controversial: One side says the Lance Armstrong article is like a fanzine [113] this article need not do the work of his attorneys and PR team while others argue that it is libel to list well known and widely reported allegations over drug abuse. After blocking me the first time for "violating wikipedia rules for biographies of living people" JzG violated the same rules at articles about two journalists who wrote a book about drug abuse allegations against Armstrong, [114] [115]. He took advantage of his last block of me to make one of these articles a redirect without discussion, [116] even after a third opinion had mediated about the content of that article. I protest the abuse of administrative power and would like to get some advice how to deal with the conflict. Socafan 11:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As one might expect, this bears only a superficial resemblance to the truth. The problem here is, once again, Socafan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log).

• No warnings have been issued against me for abuse of administrator powers
• First block of the user occurred before the ArbCom case was requested
• Protection of the article occurred before the arbcom case was requested
• The ArbCom case was soundly rejected on the grounds that I was acting in good faith, reverting potentially libellous material per
  WP:BLP
• Socafan has violated
  WP:BLP
  the reverse is true: Socafan must take the content he wants included to Talk, we don't have to persuade him before removing content we view as potentially defamatory)
• My only involvement on
  WP:BLP
  (almost exclusively against Socafan), and trying to recriut more eyes to oversee it; not one of these additional people appears to support Socafan's edits
• Socafan reverted four times in short order, and reverted three separate admins. He has consistently engaged in tendentious editing in respect of a biography of a living individual
• As usual, when I blocked Socafan for
  WP:AN
• The major result of the block was not an advantage for me (I have pretty much no history on the article other than trying to neutralise guilt-by-association and innuendo added by Socafan) but the opportunity for User:Steve Hart to substantially rewrite the contended section in very much more readable and substantially more neutral terms, a net gain for the encyclopaedia, e.g. [117]

• Slight correction, I initially did this edit: [118] Steve Hart 05:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• A block for 3RR is entirely uncontroversial, especially for BLP issues, and the block was reviewed by other admins and pronounced acceptable
• At least one uninvolved admin has already proposed a community ban due to Socafan's "trolling" (see
  WP:AN#User:Socafan
  )
• The redirects at
  David Walsh (sports reporter)
  reflect the fact that both articles contained substantiallly the same content, most of it word-for-word identical, discussing a book they co-authored; there were no biographical details such as dates of birth or anything else of substance, just two articles with near-identical content and identical edit wars (in respect of which, once again, Socafan is in a minority of one); this I made clear in the edit summary, I also made clear that turning them back into articles when other detail becomes available is no problem at all. In the mean time the pair both redirect to an article on the book, which containsd the duplicated content and the description of the legal cases surrounding it provided through a third opinion and previously stated identically in both articles. After, that is, Socafan had tried including his "spun" version of it.

I could go on but what's the point? His reversal of the burden of proof in editing shows, I think, that he is ursuing an agenda to spin the unproven doping allegations against Lance Armstrong in the most damaging way possible. Just look at the comments above: it's not that we should not be doing LA's PR for him, the issue has always been that we may not do the work of his detractors; the onus is always on the editor trying to include content to satisfy others of its neutrality, especially in cases of

WP:AN. This very recent edit from Jimbo makes the point as strongly as one could want: "The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of ALL KINDS, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." [119]

The way to "deal with the conflict" is for Socafan to respect policy and guidelines and the opinions of other editors, and to recognise that in sensitive areas we must be small-c conservative.

WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know?

13:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG clearly violated several rules. There is no willingness to resolve the conflict, his reaction to my message to him was "remove trolling". He took advantage of his block of me to make an article into a redirect in spite of a third opinion that had commented on the content. He now even deleted the history of the article such that it cannot be restored. [120] He had been edit warring on that article, violating the same rules for biographies of living people that he claimed justified my blocks by him. He had been warned about his abuse of administrative powers by another administrator as I have showed above. The links are there, it cannot be denied. Please help to resolve the conflict and please restore the deleted article

David Walsh (sports reporter). Socafan

23:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Calton made three reverts, deleting a POV-tag and requests for citations for quotes without discussion, with derogatory remarks, and even after being warned. [121] [122] [123] Socafan 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. This is where Socafan -- once again -- attempts to re-introduce his spin on the use of a word, an introduction for which he was originally blocked for violating the 3RR. Yes, I made three reverts: you've made -- what? seven? -- so using reverts as a basis for complaining is probably not a good idea here.

Toss in a vextatious slapping on of a POV tag and a couple of pointless requests for sources for Lance Armstrong quotes -- yes, everything must be sourced, but the triviality of the request got to me on top of everything else, so I just reverted those along with the rest. And, personally, I consider calling edits made in a content dispute "vandalism" far more derogatory than anything I said to him.

Free clue: being a

vexatious litigant doesn't get you very far here. --Calton | Talk

02:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism explains that no editor should remove a POV-tag more than once in 24 hrs. Calton did it three times. Calton also removed requests for citations of quotes in the quotes section, someting completely uncontroversial. Argumentation on the talk page would help much more than derogatory remarks and insults that say more about the one they are made by than about anyone else. Socafan 02:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, no other editor on that article appears to agree with you. No other admin appears to agree with you either. The time has come for you to consider that maybe you are the problem. Just zis Guy you know? 07:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan is blocked for 72 hours revert warring and blatant 3RR violation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Stevepcf (talk · contribs), a webmaster of the Aloha Shoyu Company (he said so on one of the images he uploaded for it) keeps inserting a section on Hawaiian soy sauce in to Soy sauce that is basicaly just an ad for his company's products, I reverted him once, but he put in back in. I'm not an expert on how to deal with corporate "product placement" in articles so I would apreciate a second opinion on this one. --Sherool (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted his latest changes, and left a note on his talk page about what Wiki is not. Syrthiss 13:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for edit warring and spamming, haivng reinserted the spam after the above warnings. Just zis Guy you know? 15:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam with soy sauce, sounds yummy </sarcasm>. —freak(talk) 03:23, Jul. 31, 2006 (UTC)

Which brand? [http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijto/vol2n1/soy.xml Hair™]? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked CrazyInSane and am coming here for communal approval (full disclosure, I had a brief encounter with the user when they were POV pushing on December 25). I have been keeping track of the various BC-AD/BCE-CE conflicts while staying uninvolved. CrazyInsane is one of the worst POV pushers in that regard despite the prominent claim on his user page that all he cares about is NPOV. The user has been problematic from the moment they joined Wikipedia, including using sockpuppets to push their POV [124]. The user claimed to be an atheist as a repeated rhetorical device despite his status as a strongly believing Christian which he now acknowledges prominently on his user page. He does occasionally have a good edit, but these recent edits [125][126][127][128] [129] and others have convinced me that he will not stop other POV pushing and will use/abuse/ignore policy to suit his purpose. JoshuaZ 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you remember to notify the user in question about the block and the reasoning for it? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just did. I had blocked him, posted this to ANI and was then interrupted. He has now been notified. JoshuaZ 16:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I am an established user and have most definitely not made any POV-pushing edits in the past very long period, the "evidence" that "JodhuaZ" presents do not show any evidence of POV pushing. The edits in regard to

18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence above is self-explanatory- you have repeatedly claimed things were POV and used that as a reason to delete material even as a few days before you add in exactly the same sort of unsourced material that supports your view. I also strongly suggest that when contesting a block, not to state your intentions of avoiding of it as you did here. JoshuaZ 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked User:NewUser0001 for block evasion. CrazyInSane is probably the worst POV warrior I've ever seen on Wikipedia. See the Secularization of Christian holidays as an example of the sort of POV footholds he's been building on the 'pedia. That I've seen, there's been a definite net loss of NPOV on any article related to Christianity in the modern era that he's edited, and I don't think that blocking him would harm the project. With that said, I'm still a bit bothered by this indefblock. It seems to have come without any warning, and while he's certainly exhausted the community's patience, I think there ought be more warning before such a block is given. JDoorjam Talk 19:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm still a somewhat new admin. In the future, I will warn users more before commiting to such actions. JoshuaZ 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• On the basis of my dealings with this user (at
  WP:Block accordingly.--A Y Arktos\^talk
  21:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::One might think that the block evasion might be enough to understand why the block was administered. Besides, what leap in illogic would have you support a block on a sock, but not on its owner? In any case...

[143] removed tags because....why? [144] not sure what gov't workers he spoke with, but... [145] this speaks for itself. [146] defending his AD view (implicitly)... [147] again... In fact, going thru his/her last 200 edits shows a strong inclination to push his/her POV regarding the "secularisation of Christmas". This is not a neutral editor -- this is a frequent POV pusher and edit warrior. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This has some of the edits that I was going to point out. Others include these where he reverts and leaves in the relevant citation and does not apply one himself. [148] Even fights over which one AD/CE should redirect to [149]

Calls it POV to list the CE -era meaning of CE first [150] which has to be one of the most ridiculous edits I have ever seen if not for this one and this [151] makes me curious as to whether Crazy has any knowledge of Chinese, or just can't stand the thought of everyone using a more secular notation. [152] is again yet another example of his applying double standards, declaring a source to not be reliable enough when he doesn't like it, yet adding things he does agree with with no sourcing or minimal sourcing. Describes reasonable edits as vandalism: [153]. If you want I have many more edits of this sort, and his editing behavior is identical to what he started at when he first started editing. JoshuaZ 22:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If the community sustains this indefinite block, I have from the

9/11 conspiracy theory nexus a list of egregious POV pushers who will be next up. I can support a block of up to a week for failure to learn from previous blocks, and the expressed intent to evade the present block. I see some blocks for edit warring as well. If there is any more of that, I support blocks for it as appropriate. Beyond that, I do not see persistent revert-warring, or personnal attacks, or sockpuppetry at the User:Giovanni33 level. This looks like a content dispute, and it looks like CrazyInSane is on the wrong side of it - that is, not my side. I find the whole CE/AD thing annoying; I wish everyone would just leave it as he finds it. But unless I'm missing something, it is just a content dispute. Has there been a request for comment? Tom Harrison ^Talk

22:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's more than just the CE/AD thing, and there has been at least some persistent revert-warring, but you've definitely gotten to the heart of this: there's been no RfC, just a number of editors who became increasingly frustrated and now aren't heartbroken to see him go. I agree with Tom: User:JoshuaZ ought to file an RfC and reduce the block, and ferry comments from CrazyInSane's talk page to RfC. JDoorjam Talk 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• In response to what leap in illogic would have you support a block on a sock, but not on its owner? - I support a block of a sock because using a sock while blocked breaches the
  user warning system before blocking. --A Y Arktos\^talk
  22:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And the sock did that all on its own, eh? Kinda like imprisoning Mr Hyde, but keeping Dr Jekyll out of gaol, no? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While some users seem to endorse my actions, there seems to be a significant fraction which find it premature. Therefore, I will reduce the block to 1 week as a block for persistent edit warring and stated intention to avoid a block. I will file an RfC when that block expires. Does this make sense to everyone? JoshuaZ 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is a start and certainly better than the present state of affairs. However, I would like you to review the Blocking policy and ensure that your block lines up with that. It is policy! Under disruption for example the policy states : Users will normally be warned before they are blocked. but more importantly Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia. I do not see any evidence that this user makes it difficult for others to contribute. There is no way in my view that you have met the requirements for a block under "Users who exhaust the community's patience" as you have not escalated the matter appropriately and tested for community concensus. So what exactly is the rationale under the policy for the block and how do you justify a week when the policy states Block duration may vary, but normally lasts 24 hours?--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• To respond to your comments here- I would interpret prior blocks for 3RVR and edit warring as reasonable warnings about disruption. Similarly, POV pushing is inherently disruptive and takes up other editors time "making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia." As for your claim that I had not tested community consensus, I most certainly did- I talked to two admins before adminstering the block and reported the block here specificly asking if there was a consensus for the block. Note my above request for community approval in the start of this thread. As for the 24 hour part, the user has been repeatedly blocked before and has stated an intention to avoid blocks. That seems to me to pretty easily merit a block longer than 24 hours. JoshuaZ 23:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "So what exactly is the rationale under the policy for the block and how do you justify a week when the policy states Block duration may vary, but normally lasts 24 hours?" See the definitions of norm and mean (and probably median and mode). All "normally lasts 24 hours" means is that that is the average, or most common, period. It does not imply a period that must be adhered to, although many seem to infer that it does. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think reducing it to a week is fine, and I want to make clear that I do not think you did anything wrong by blocking. You made a thought-out decision, brought it here for discussion, and were open to reason about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• The block log indicates that the blocks you refer to are some time ago, the most recent is two months old. Testing community concensus is not talking to two others. Moreover "FYI, I have decided to indefinitely block
  blatantvandal}} template if nothing else.--A Y Arktos\^talk
  00:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Overused quotes from Voltaire aside, I think you misunderstand the situation a bit. First, the comment to Jayjg was because he was one of the admins I had already discussed the matter with (I discussed it with him because he had done some of the work linking sockpuppets to CrazyInSane). Second, I don't know how much attention you pay to

WP:ANI but it is common practice to report a possibly controversial block here for approval - a procedure which is endorsed in the blocking policy. Third, I'm perplexed by your suggestion of the blatantvandal template here since that template is generally used for edits which are largescale unmistakable vandalism, not repeated POV pushing. Fourth, you seem to have ignored the fact that part of the week block is for his new sockpuppet and stated intent under that sock to resume sockpuppeting if his main account stayed blocked. If you still feel that I have not acted appropriately, you are welcome to file an RfC about my actions. JoshuaZ

00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A week seems a bit long, but within reason given the sockpuppetry. He should know better. I look forward to the RfC; I have much to say, but this is no longer the place for it. If you could drop me a line when it's created, I'd appreciate it. I'll also watch CiS's talk page. Powers 01:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Using a sockpuppet should be a bannable offense on its own. Why isnt it? --mboverload@ 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it has legitimate uses, described at

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet. --cesarb

03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think clear warning of where behaviour is leading to is very important and indef blocking at this stage is not acceptable. However, POV pushing can be far more disruptive than overt vandalism, and editors doing it have to learn and change. It's up to us to help them, and progressively longer cooling off times turn out to be the last resort. I would have thought at this stage make it fairly short - 24 hours as a reminder, 3 days to get the message home, or a week if you're feeling that severe (don't mess with JoshuaZ). With the interval since the last block, I'd feel very uncomfortable with anything more. Let's show this editor we mean business, but give him every chance to get it right. After all, it's easy enough to slap on another block if things go pear-shaped again. Tyrenius 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Happycat

I've put a {{deletedpage}} template on this page to prevent the YTMND crew from posting it. Can an admin lock it for me?? --TheM62Manchester 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It has only been created once and was deleted 21:51, 28 July 2006 and not recreated since (except by you for the deleted page tag). What makes you believe there is a problem? --pgk^(talk) 18:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. It's just the YTMND are attacking British Shorthair now, hence it's semiprotection! --TheM62Manchester 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I just redeleted this,

salting pages is generally only done when there is a demonstration of recreation of delete content., that does not appear to be happening at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk

18:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching this one, so will do the needful if it is recreated. Just zis Guy you know? 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A friend in need

Folks, please nip over to User talk:A Man In Black and calm down a friend in need. Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Trinidadian English terms

Guettarda (talk · contribs) has twice reverted my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Trinidadian English terms (an AFD in which he/she is involved) and restored List of Trinidadian English terms, despite being asked to instead take the issue to DRV if he/she dislikes how I closed it.

Can someone please resolve this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, it's discouraged for participants in an AFD to close/unclose it, but I do agree with Geuttarda that it is no consensus, and there are similar lists. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 22:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that lists of words violate the provision that Wikipedia should not have articles which define individual words, nor should it include Lists of such definitions. However, we have Category:Lists of words, Category:Lists_of_slang and Category:Lists of phrases, among others. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Is this policy still being applied (in which case, all of these articles must be deleted), or not (in which case the wording of the policy needs to be changed). I have raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists_of_Words.

For some reason AMiB believes that he is free to IAR, but for everyone else in the world "the rules" must be fetished. This is the most twisted wikilawyering I have ever come across. Guettarda 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, a third party admin (AMIB) closed the debate, so the next (and only) available option is deletion review. — Deckiller 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone do something about this nonsense, please? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're both violating WP:CIVIL (you at this edit). You both need to calm down now. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I admit my profanity was inappropriate, and the initial incivility on Guettarda's part is unfortunately but understandable, but I don't think accusing me of being autistic is appropriate with any provocation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree with Finlay. Let's just see how the deletion review turns out and move on with editing. — Deckiller 22:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that something has been deleted in error, and especially if you believe that the closer was improper, then use DRV, even if you're an administrator. It would also be preferred to talk to the closer before undeleting (that's "before," not as a fait d'accompli). I say this because of my own history in a slap fight with another admin and because the principle is pretty important. Once we begin using administrative powers because we "don't need" to involve process, we open the door to endless abuse that amounts to self-abuse. Please, please, please use the processes in place. If the deletion is overturned there, the closer shouldn't be horked off. If it isn't, then at least you know that there are other people agreeing with the position. Geogre 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While I've been known to practice self-abuse on occasion, the thought of our administrators deriving onanistic pleasure from wheel-warring is too horrible to consider. - brenneman ^{L} 04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So does this mean we should be asking questions about deviant sexuality on

WP:RFA? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops

) 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Next on Loveline: wheel-war-o-sexuality. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Pat8722

WP:NPA. After comments from two administrators on this page stating that perhaps, instead of an indef block, we should simply keep an eye on Pat8722 for now, the block was removed. Today, Pat8722 began editing again for the first time since the block was removed. Pat8722 has labelled a legitimate edit as "vandalism" ([156]) and made accusations of bad faith in the course of merely arguing a point over content and policy, instead of sticking only to the relevant issues. Pat8722's edits today have done nothing to indicate he deserves the good faith Knowledge Seeker extended toward Pat8722 in removing the block. I encourage another admin to look into Pat8722's conduct (especially his recent personal attack on User:Davidruben, which is detailed at the bottom of the user conduct rfc). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk

· 00:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Also of note is Pat8722's response to Knowledge Seeker on Knowledge Seeker's talk page. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose a two week block per above diffs, repeated inability to deal with him, and in general this user just being detrimental to the encyclopedia, followed by an indef if the 2 week does not send the message. Thoughts? —BorgHunter (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Pat8722 continues to refer to the legitimate actions of three other users in one article as "vandalism". · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks are not necessary. It wasn't a favor, except to the Wikipedia community at large...Pat8722 has been very disruptive. He would be a great contributor, I think, if he could assume good faith. That seems to be the root of most of his problems. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My thanks are meant merely as gratitude for taking time to look at and assess the situation. I would emphasize, too, that I was not asking for a favor here. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dagobertus

Just thought I should report this user has been blocked indef for page move vandalism- moving a Wikipedia page to article space under a non sequitur title. His other contributions have been prodded by other people. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

First Family of the United States

- weird tags

The

First Family of the United States article has been marked as a possible hoax despite the fact that it does not even come close to meeting what would constitute a hoax. History21

02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)History21

Why don't you ask Hipocrite why he made these edits? Jkelly 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how hoax could apply to the topics of this article. The families obviously exist. Perhaps he meant to use a different tag, such as {{disputed}}, meaning that certain sections contained incorrect information. If it makes you feel any better, he's not an admin. —freak(talk) 03:19, Jul. 31, 2006 (UTC)

User:History21 has a substantial history of adding hoax information to the encyclopedia, as explained and corrected by Zoe. If his edits going forward lack strong reliable sources, many will believe they are hoaxes, regardless of how plausable they appear. Months of good edits to this encyclopedia would make this go away. Finding editors in unrelated disputes to the ones he is currently involved in and attempting to recruit them to assist in adding hoax material to the encyclopedia will magnify the problem. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the {{hoax}} tags as clearly inappropriate for the situation, and trimmed out some irrelevant information from the sections. (An article on the First Families doesn't really need to describe the Watergate scandal and Nixon's subsequent resignation, unless there's something to say about its effect on Nixon's family - which there wasn't.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Libellous personal text

How to handle this? [157] Socafan 03:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

with deletion of course!! :D -- Drini 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And while we're about it the whole set of articles are straight copy and paste, identical pretty much word for word, so I've redirected them all to Hamdania incident until such time as some verifiable biographical data becomes available in addition to the facts of the case stated in that article. This should make it easier to keep a lid on blatant attacks. Just zis Guy you know? 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:203.184.36.120

Juvenile threatening a vandalism spree here, Doubt it will amount to much, but worth watching for. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Appears to be about to go to bed. Bless. --Tagishsimon (talk)

BTW, Tagishsimon, be careful

not to insult the vandals, no matter how juvenile, as that tends to only encourage them. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!}

16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Boulders the Merciful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have indef'ed this account and deleted the user's talk page for including personal information in an attempt to incite to vandalize. As always, review is welcomed. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems alright to me - after all, better safe than sorry. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. This particular vandal has been spamming this nonsense "incitement" all over the place; I've deleted a lot of them. It's probably a good idea to check the new user log going back a bit for any similar names we might have missed. Antandrus (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Good move. Tyrenius 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RJII is back

I guess he couldn't stay away for long. After weeks of pretending like he had nothing to do with RJII, User:TheIndividualist/User:IndividualistAnarchist has admitted to being one of the people editing as User:RJII, if there were ever multiple people using that account. RJII was indefinitely banned for being a multiple-user account, but, afterwards, I think a lot of people came to the conclusion that he (or they) would have been banned, regardless, for disruption, abuse, and POV-pushing, all of which RJII admitted to in a grandiose farewell. This person (or persons) is highly disruptive and is a detriment to the Wikipedia community. He has already ruined the great discussion that was occurring on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism and Template:Anarchism sidebar, just as everybody was coming close to an agreeable compromise. I do hope that someone looks into this matter. --AaronS 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess AGF requires we wait and see how this editor behaves. I have no problem with the RJII editors coming back indivdually, although on a short leash with respect with consensus, civility, POV pushing, etc.

Thatcher131 (talk)

21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about this discussion. I blocked the sock indefinitely and extended the RJII ban to run to this day next year. We only have this fellow's word for it that the account was shared. I'm not inclined to waste further time on this editor who has already failed to conform to restrictions placed on him by the arbitration committee and been banned. --Tony Sidaway 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think that the individual editors should be given a second chance, although I would suggest they admit it up front. The RJII persona was a pain in the ass and on a fast track to a community ban, but I'm not entirely sure its fair to pin that on each individual member. OTOH, how do we know it was a group account in the first place, and/or how do we know any particular reincarnation isn't the same group account again?

Thatcher131 (talk)

21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be relevant to note that RJ was banned for more than just being an account used by multiple users: "For continued violation of his previous ruling, by incivility and edit warring, RJII is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year." [158] I never really took his claim to be more than one user seriously, it seems to me far more likely that it is one person claiming to be many. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason given for RJII's block [159] is: "admits to being a shared account." I am unable to find a policy though, perusing the

Intangible

22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK#"Public" accounts --pgk^(talk

) 22:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should individual editors be given another chance, and why, given RJII's behavior, should we even believe that it was a multiple-user account? --AaronS 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Intangible (

Thatcher131 (talk)

23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Something went wrong there earlier. Sorry bout that.

Intangible

23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and blank the userpages of those two users and block them indefinitely per RJII's ArbCom ruling, and the contents of their userpage[s]. If anyone disagrees please feel free to overrule me. -

·

22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like TonySidaway beat me too it. I deleted the userpages, which contained similar stuff to the old

·

22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the right action; RJII is under an ArbCom ban for 1 year in addition to being indefblocked for claiming to be a public account. The indefblock can be overturned at any time, but the year ban stands until the AC overturns it. The only user with any authority to unblock this user is User:Jimbo Wales. Essjay (Talk) 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Carrots

I'm just leaving so could someone check this. The red linked carrote put a picture on the blue link carrote but they look the same name to me.

• LeRoiCarrote (talk · contribs · count)
• LeRoiCarotte (talk · contribs · count)

The first is the only one to have made any edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither of them have vandalized, and there doesn't seem to be evidence of sockpuppetry, so I say we just keep an eye on it for now. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Also, the red-linked one has two r's and one t, and the blue-linked one has one r and two t's, so they're not the same name. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I was in a rush before and missed the letter diferences. I see that the first created the second. I thought it might be the obsessed carrot guy again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, the second user name doesn't actually exist, notice (Logs), in place of (Talk|Block Log|Logs), the tell tale sign of a non existant user--172.146.196.178 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I was ... you know... and moved the latter to the former. JDoorjam Talk 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ ^{a b c d} TMJ Syndrome: The Overlooked Diagnosis, A. Richard, D. D. S. Goldman Virginia McCullough, chapter 5, http://www.headandneck.com/book/Chapter5.htm