Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive148

You mean

Yes, correct Francis. Thanks for the note. -- Szvest → ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 18:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask user Gibnews to stop deleting or requesting speedy deletion of the copy of the article on my talk page. He already got it deleted from the talk page of Spanish Gibraltarians and has now requested speedy deletion from my talk page (??) This seems like an attempt to disrupt the current process of undeletion. Thanks. --Burgas00 15:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was deleted through the AFD. The original title was

Naconkantari

19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw a piece of vandalism[11] from TheBigDirtyBastard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and rolled it back. I then checked his contribs to see if it was a vandalism-only account, which I would have blocked indefinitely. It doesn't seem to be, but it is a fairly new account. In that case, I'd just give him a warning. However, I'm wondering should he be blocked for his username. My feeling is yes, definitely, but I think I would tend to be less tolerant of such names than other people might, and I'm not actually experienced in username blocks. I may have done one or two, but if so, they were really offensive names. As it is, I haven't even warned this user for his vandalism, because it seems a bit silly to warn someone for vandalism if I'm going to block him two minutes later regardless of any possible change in behaviour. Can someone please advise? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The name doesn't offend me, but I do suggest he should be pointed to Wikipedia:Changing username; He seems to have made good contribs so there's always room for change rather then a block. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as an opinion, there have been a lot of requests for uName blocks recently for names which are really fairly inoffensive, and it seems to me a trend is starting which may be ill-advised. We're not Disney, after all. This one could offend some; however it is not "profane" - bastard being a legal term, and dirty having several meanings - and may be a semi-witticism on the part of the editor. I applaud Ann's reluctance to block precipitously for uName. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he is a fat guy who works on a farm and gets dirty, and was born out of wedlock. This may be really funny to him, and not profane at all. Or perhaps it has less meaning. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history,

Review Me!

) 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The article had been protected since Nov 12 except for the brief unprotection on Nov 18 that I mentioned, that's why he didn't edit it. Look on the talk page to see his continued involvement in the dispute (8 edits since Nov 12). --Zero^talk

I think what Zero is saying is that he had the intent of doing so, and ought to have action taken against him. An attempted crime is almost as bad as a crime itself. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article" is a crime. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note:

Neo-Fascism. he requested unprotection, deleted the section in dispute, and then had his version protected. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk)

08:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

About Shamir1, if you look at his contribs he requested unprotection several times this week. He kept coming back each time after unprotection was declined [13], and yesterday (his third or fourth request) I decided to AGF and unprotect. It was promptly reprotected when the edit warring started again. I can't say I was surprised. --

I say they should both at least get a severe tongue-lashing, and, if it checks out on Isarig, the version should be reverted. If it happens again, they should be temp-blocked for disruption. I would do so myself, but I'm not an admin. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If anybody acted in bad faith it was User:Zero0000 himself. Note that this is not a content dispute per se - it's simply Zero0000 deleting mass sourced material. Amoruso 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not debating here the legitimacy of the changes, we're debating the fact that this user seems to have made a bad-faith request to get the page unprotected, so that he could get his own version back before it was reprotected. Regardless of the legitmacy of the claims, that's breaking faith if it was true. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked [email protected] (talk · contribs) is back and edit-warring on Irish potato famine (legacy) as 216.194.0.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can someone block please? Thanks! Demiurge 11:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• And also disrupting this noticeboard [14]. Demiurge 11:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put an autoblock on

rtinp23

11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean "put an autoblock" on, the original user was blocked quite a while ago before the option to disable autoblocks was available. Autoblocks themselves are not necessarily that simple, in this case it is unlikely the original user id has edited from that IP so an autoblock will not occur (indeed that user has come back under various usernames and IPs over time). I've blocked the IP. --pgk 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah OK - thanks.

rtinp23

12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I got a mail saying this( I have added the wikisyntax):

I have been autoblocked by you because I happen to be assigned some IP address that was used by a blocked user. I (A_Jalil (talk · contribs)) have nothing to do with the sockpuppet nor the edits that led to the block. Can you please unblock my username so I can do some edits. Thanks.

the block note is:

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Fred Chess for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Featured article (talk · contribs)". The reason given for Featured article's block is: "Blocked user, sockpuppet".

Your IP address is 213.216.199.6.

I don't have the time to investigate this right now, but I think it is important not to block innocent people, if that's the case here. Could someone take a look and take appropriate actions?

Fred-Chess 12:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP in question (213.216.199.6 was blocked on 01:43, November 11, 2006 for a period of 1 week. This means that it should not be blocked by now!

Anyway, i received an email as well from user:A Jalil who has nopthing to do with the edits of the IP as Jalil maily edits Morocco related articles. I'll unblock the IP which i believe should have been technically ublocked by today! -- Szvest → ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 12:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, 75.109.101.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was trolling The Haunted Angel's talk page previously, on the same topic. --Majorly (Talk) 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not just me either, take a look at

HJ's talk page. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name}

) 17:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Please feel free to pop over and delete a couple dozen. Or even a couple. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a {{db-bio}} candidate that should be expunged immediately due to the inclusion of

• Appears to have been taken care of as I was typing this. Thanks! --Kinu ^t/_c 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The user above creates new user-pages and adds spam-links (see User_talk:Buddy and User:Some). Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

I reviewed

User:Qbkd10. Hopefully this quick little "background check" will help the responding admin :) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle}

21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted a report here a while about about a user, User:Generic Character, who had plagiarised various texts in various articles and in addition was trolling on various pages. User:David Gerard blocked him. here is the initial report.

Since then, we've noted at least three users engaged in this pattern of behaviour. Articles targetted include

• Prescriptive Barony
  - reinstating the copyvio text
• Coat of arms of Wigan - removing perfectly good quotations, apparently in retaliation at being caught and blocked

The socks are User:Copiedimage, User:Tauex and User:Uhrwerkmaus. They've denied being socks even though this is quite blatantly obvious from the identical editing pattern. The vendetta has recently increased in scope, to attempt to remove all coat of arms from Wikipedia. I expect more socks to be created. This user has also vandalised my userpage (check contrib history of IP to match to other similar edits made). Please block on sight. Morwen - Talk 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Generic Mouse, Uhrwerkmaus, Tauex, Rodentiaest, Copiedimage, all blocked indefinitely. Generic Character still indef blocked from last time. I've also blocked the IP (which has been used as yet another persona) for a month for the relentless sockpuppetry - David Gerard 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverts that apparently skirt the three RR policy, but that are disruptive and indicative of edit warring, on Evidence of evolution [15].

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [19]

Comments: This user has a long list of rule violations (see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo). He habitually deletes any comments left on his talk page without replying to them, making it impossible to interact with him. NOTE: Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. •Jim62sch• 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider blocking

Tourism in Kuala Lumpur which is not an advertisement.This particular user is criticizing other editor's language ability and predicts i'm the person who comment in the discussion page without signing which i did not comment anything. User keep putting in comments which is not even related to the article.Therefore,i hope the admins can consider blcoking this user.Marcusaffleck

05:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Seriously, you have to make a stronger case for the block, after all, what I have mentioned in the discussion forums is nothing more than the truth, in view of the main article itself. Take a good look at your posts, the sock puppets you have created, the numerous pages you have started that has been since deleted... if anything goes, it is you who should be blocked and not me. -le petit vagabond 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider blocking

I came into the dispute only a few days ago as an uninvolved admin trying to sort things out. Since becoming involved my impression closely matches the above. This seems to meet the new guidelines on tendentious editing. A block might be in order. JoshuaZ 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User is continuing to disrupt, violating

single-purpose account as User's userpage displays clear partisan bias, bringing a potential conflict of interest in editing said article. Perhaps temporary block to allow cool-off for user should be enforced now? - Ekantik

01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as no one is going to see this section way up on the page, I would suggest reporting to

WP:AN/3RR. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is complicated by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. I will have a look at it. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, what we have here is a heated but legitimate difference of opinion between two editors in good standing. It's been to ArbCom but the disputed text is not really covered by that ruling (it's too content-specific). What it needs, more than anything else, is more eyes. I can't really pitch in because I have a pretty strong bias against the subject, plus I always tend to make things worse these days, so if any experienced pourers of oil on troubled waters want to take a look I think it will be appreciated by all concerned. It's certainly not straightforward. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Two users to banned

I've checked at the history of edits of North Korea and spotted in October two inappropriate users called User:DEATH TO ALL DIRTY FUCKING GOOK SCUM!!!!! & User:I FUCKING HATE GOOKS - PLEASE KILL THEM ALL!!!!! which are possible suckpuppets of User:207.200.116.10 due to the same style of vandalism [20] they are not banned or notified for inappropriate usernames. Can we banned them? Thanks!--JForget 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked on October 11. [21] [22] -- SCZenz 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a complex issue because there have been a number of editors banned on this page, and this editor could just be taken a hard nose skeptic to the article. My suspicion, however, stems from this editors "blanket revert" then edit. Also, there has been a number of sesible edits mixed with the blind importing of edits written by banned users. This were both characteristics of the banned editors, and a behaviour that led to months of circular discussion, failed mediation, failed mentorship, and bans. The banned editor had create a complex network of sockpuppets that work together to evade arbcom rulings. This editor, AlanBarnet (

• 'User in question: AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CheckUser request: [23] Tentatively unrelated - seek behavioral evidence.

• Arbcom case (Documentation of bans): Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans

Behavioral evidence for evasion of ban/blocks (latest at top): I will then concentrate on blanket reverts as that was a tactic used by the banned editors

• This revert was a blatant violation of wikipedia policy with misleading edit comment. The reasons given in following discussion was inadequate to justify the reversion. The changes removed by this revert were all properly discussed on the discussion page, entirely neutral, and based on paraphrases and summaries of peer reviewed psychological literature. Also removed pejorative words.
• This revert adds bias back onto the page. Removes some style guidelines for headlines. Adds a spam link back onto the page.
• Another blanket revert that removes NPOV-section tags, add some misleading statements, undoes update to cleanup tags, undoes cleanup of whitespace in headings as made by other wikipedian.
• Revert my attempt to make sense and clean up the "ritual/techniques" section without discussion. This was followed by a series of edits that imported biased information written by banned editors which is what initial raised the flags that this user may be evading blocks. --
  Comaze
  09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence (POV edits)

• This editor reverts then adds POV edits mixed with useful edits. The follow import POV text written by banned editors (HeadleyDown, etc.)[24][25]--
  Comaze
  11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I ran a CheckUser on

I reported the sock/main 3RR's to

T · C

 ] 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The sock has been blocked indef, and I've extended the block on the main (which was already blocked for a 3RR violation) to 6 days. Any admin is welcome to change that duration (longer or shorter) at their discretion. --

Steel

02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the sock's edits and crossed-out his votes at AfDs & TfDs as well. Khoikhoi 02:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've received an email from E104421 insisting that he's not a sockpuppeteer. He says he mainly edits from his office but sometimes from a guesthouse (which I assume is public). I'm not sure what people want to make of this. --

E104421 and Karcha both edit exclusively from the same university IP range.

t

02:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Steel: Sure we haven't heard that one before...

T · C

 ] 06:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Gimme an hour or so to investigate their edits further. From what I saw during the last days, I had the impression the contents and profile of their edits was sufficiently dissimilar that I wouldn't have supposed sockpuppetry. In particular, Karcha had some particular issues that didn't seem to be shared by E. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked into their contributions a bit more, let me express some doubts:

• IP addresses/checkuser: In his e-mail, E declares that his main IP is a stable non-shared address at his workplace, while others he's used are from a public pool. Dmcdevit, could you perhaps check if that stable IP has also been shared by Karcha? (I'll forward you the IP from E's e-mail).

• Temporal patterns: E and K have sometimes been editing simultaneously, in ways that only a very skilled sockpuppeteer could fake. For instance, 17 Nov, 10:16-10:17: 3 edits by K ([26], [27], [28]), one simultaneous edit on an entirely unrelated topic by E ([29]), all of them substantial. 16 Nov, 21:34-21:42 two edits each by K ([30], [31]) and E ([32], [33]), alternating with only a minute in between.

• Language: While both accounts are clearly not native speakers of English, K's English seems substantially poorer than E's.

• Editing interests: K has a bee in his bonnet about removing historical Ottoman spellings of Turkish names. E does not seem to share this obsession. Examples:
  • On
    talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Karcha insisting on removing the Ottoman spelling: [34], [35]; no such interest by E: [36], [37], [38]
  • Similar on Mughal Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): K [39]; E [40],
  • On
    Ak Koyunlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Karcha removing Ottoman name [41], E shortly later reverting to Khoikhoi's version (with the name), not Karcha's [42]
  • On
    talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Karcha rewriting [43], [44], [45], E shortly later reverting to a different, pre-Karcha version: [46]

What do you guys say? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hate to butt in, but I just would like to point out that even new users have a right to jump into the middle of edit wars.. Hasn't the possibility that K is a friend of E, and E told K about Wiki and his contributions, and when K joined wiki, he automatically went to articles that his friend E told him about, but later found his own interests, crossed anyone's mind? I am not vouching for the guy by no means, but let's just not be so impulsive and not slap six-day bans on users before a detailed check had been done, as was the case for E104421. So let's not assume.. If u assume, u make.. :)) Baristarim 10:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

T · C

 ] 10:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, tag-teaming revert wars are quite common on these articles, everybody seems to be doing it, and it's not really evidence of planned coordination. And about the reliability of the checkuser, I've only heard Dmcdevit saying they were using the same university's IP range. However, we are dealing with particular, stable workplace IPs, so I've asked Dmcdevit for clarification if he's also checked that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, what u say doesn't make sense: there are tag-team reverts happening by the masses by people who live in the farthest corners of this planet. I don't even know if E knows K, and the link that you gave doesn't mean anything, the fifth edit in question is 12 hours after the fourth one, how is that tag-team revert meatpuppetry?????? Such things happen in the space of tens of minutes. There is nothing wrong with a number of people who feel strongly about a subject to edit insistenly, without being part of a planned conspiracy. The six-day ban was given for sockpuppetry, and unless you have more evidence about meatpuppetry than a fourth and fifth edit spaced by a period of 12 hours, this ban should be annulled and these editors re-instated, and their revoked edits undone. The fact that their IPs are similar doesn't mean much, pls read my post below about that issue. Baristarim 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

People doing these edits believe in what they do, that's why they are doing those edits. We are not talking about vandalism here, the edits in question are legitimate edits. I also exchanged emails with E on this, he says that he goes to university in METU, a university in Ankara that has 50,000 students, and that teaches in English. So it is extremely probable that there are other wiki users in the same campus. And generally, big organizations like universities have computer centers that assure their Net liasion, and as such they dish out range of IPs. Your temporal check was particularly enlightening, nobody can simply switch back from a computer to another with 60 sec intervals. A six day ban is extremely unfair, since, even though not an administrator, I am not at all convinced by this evidence that they are the same person. I just think that it is not too fair to slap such a ban, without more concrete checks like the one you had done.. That's all.. Baristarim 10:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: In addition to what I pointed out above, I have forwarded some further evidence to Dmcdevit which, I believe, establishes with sufficient certainty that E104421 and Karcha are in fact two different individuals. They just happened to be both at the same university (which is one of Turkey's largest) and shared certain opinions (which are likely to be shared by 90% of all Turks). Contrary to all appearances (which, I admit, were strong), Karcha seems not to be a sockpuppet of E. E has plausibly explained to me that he doesn't even know K.

Unless there's some strong objections here, and pending ultimate confirmation from further checkuser details, I'd propose lifting the indef block on Karcha and reduce both blocks to something appropriate to "normal" 3RR offenses. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose lifting the indef block on Karcha. In his short time here, he has been nothing but disruptive, with 90% of his edits being reverts, and the rest being personal attacks like "Kill Persianism". I don't see what good to the project we'd be doing if we unblocked him. He is essentially just another version of -Inanna-. I have no problem with lifting the block on E104421, however. Khoikhoi 18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken - in fact, I have no doubt Karcha is pretty disruptive (just like many of the people he keeps warring against). Just a question of whether he's disruptive enough for an indef; I haven't watched him closely enough for that. But I'd like to cut back E's block to normal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I echo Khoikhoi. If you're confident they're different users then I have no problem with lifting the block on E<numbers>. Karcha has been edit warring quite a bit but I'm also unsure whether s/he's done enough for an indef. --

Steel

18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Watch what you say about "other people" Lukas. Keep it cool. Indirect remarks like that by a new admin is terrible behavior and can be seen as personal attack. See

WP:CIVIL. Khorshid

18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose to lifting both blocks. Karcha has made personal attacks against me and Iranian editors and has called me "Khorshit". No way thats just wrong Khorshid 18:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Even this other guy E112312 whatever his name is, look at his edit summaries. You trying to tell me that This is a productive user????? Khorshid 18:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with Khoikhoi; Karcha should remain blocked, as he is an extremely disruptive editor. As for E104421, while I can't help feeling something fishy in what seems his coodination with Karcha, I think we should always in doubtful cases assume good faith, so the unblocking is OK for me to.--Aldux 18:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit is the only admin here with the checkuser tool, his findings indicate that

ManiF

23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Problematic Turkish user".. Well great.. "Problematic user" would have sufficed since there are many "problematic" users of all nationalities. Please let's all take a chill pill.. Baristarim 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also this issue: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee#Comment_by_Fut.Perf.. Again for a new admin he is quick to criticise and single out others and speak on "admin authority". I can respect motivation but for a new admin he is too familiar with the "admin style" and technical parts and also as Mani says above its kind of weird for him to be so quick to step over Dmcdevits finding and make an unblock on a clearly troubling user. To me this all seems like playing games and WP should not be about playing games or backdoor politicalisms. Khorshid 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No backdoor what? Please stop attacking other admins because they don't agree with you. FPAS' check was thorough and in good faith. Please be more respectful. In any case, how is this any relevant? FPAS's comments in an RfC in a totally different issue has nothing to do with the case at hand. And I don't understand your beef with FPAS either, just because he made his own investigation, that doesn't justify such ad hominim attacks. Gees, what the hell is going on? Baristarim 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised, to say the least, to see that E104221 had already been unblocked. (Especially since we exchanged emails afterwards still discussing this without Future Perfect at Sunrise telling me he'd already unblocked.) The "further evidence" he sent me was not very strong, and he shouldn't have unblocked over it, without consensus. Keep in mind tha "CheckUSer is not a magic pixie dust" works both ways: seemingly vague CheckUser results are not proof that two users aren't the same person, especially when the behavior is proof in itself, and the CheckUSer only serves to confirm it. As I replied in email, Many of FPAS' objections seem oversimplification: remember that both were on many common shared IPs. The behavior is just too coincidental to be believable: hardly ever do two users on the same IP range, much less the same university, edit the same articles at the same time. But editing the same articles at the same time, both involved in the same dispute, reverting to each other, and doing it in such a way that each avoids 3RR by the other's reverts? I think we may be grasping at straws here trying to find a way to demonstrate their distinct, when the opposite is much more obvious. Please remove blocks without consensus in the future. I've reblocked E104221 since the sockpuppetry was in no way "disproven".

t

21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, they can be two friends in the same university. Did that cross your mind DMC? And how do you know how this university dishes out its IP addresses? avoiding 3RR blocks by tag-team reverting is done by people who lives tens of thousands of kilometres away, are we going to block all of them too? And besides there are many software tools and web-sites out there to escape such IP identification. This guy goes to Middle Eastern Technicla University in Ankara, the best technical university in Turkey, so I guess he would have been much smarter if he wanted to engage in sockpuppetry instead of just jumping into the computer next to him and typing away. There is no question of coincidence. So you are basically saying that I have no right to tell a friend at office or university "hey, why don't you check out wiki, these are some of the articles that i have been involved in"? I don't know that guy, and I don't know how anything happenned, but he told me that he doesn't even know Karcha. And escape 3RR in a period of 14 hours? You gotta be joking. In the case that got E suspended in the first place, there is a period of 14 hours between the fourth and fifth revert, how is that such a blatant case of tag-team reverting? Baristarim 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I don't think that calling another user "Khorshit" are the grounds for an indef. Bans should increase with every other offence. First give him smaller bans, and see what he will make of it. Maybe he continued being "disruptive" since nobody warned him that he could get banned for doing so. And he continued since he never got banned. Baristarim 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally I know what to do when a new user posts promotion across a number of articles and pages. But not this time. [49] is potentially a very sensitive cleanup, even though it doesn't need administrator privilege. And so I thought maybe I should bring it here. (Let me know if this was wrong). Notinasnaid 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted all of it and given a warning. Spam is spam. —Mets501 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See also the contribs from 71.243.87.210. Like Notinasnaid, I'm hesitant to wade in here. FreplySpang 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, not so hesitant - I've warned and am reverting. Anyway, keep an eye out for more of this in Holocaust-related articles. FreplySpang 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See this for what is claimed to be the interesting backstory to this one month old donations requesting one-man operated site. WAS 4.250 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This continues, and [50] appears to be a confirmation (in case one were needed) that the website owner/operator is adding the links. Which is a simple and clear violation of

WP:EL, perhaps? Notinasnaid

21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mhm. Thanks for the background info, WAS 4.250. It certainly explains why so many of the edits were replacing links to deathcamps.org. FreplySpang 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked them for 24 hours last night for these offences, and have tried to explain the problem in email, though I'm not certain if they'll change, as they seem to think they were correct (that's the impression I get).

rtinp23

07:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just reverted user:206.207.42.115. Has a history of vandalism and warnings. If blocked, how long is appropriate period? RJFJR 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say at least 48 hours, as it's the second time he's been blocked this month for the same thing. However, Tawker already blocked him for 24 hours... Titoxd^(?!?) 02:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found that type of vandalism in my first nine months since i've started to edit at Wikipedia. But over the past two days, i've been concern about a new trend of vandalism. There have been tons of IP's along with registered users doing vandalism by using the edit summary : Replacing page with XXXX (which is generally non sense). I've first spotted in the

I'm wondering if those types of vandalism are coming the same group or a same user using multiple suckpuppets and IP's or it. Or it's just a new option I haven't notice? Thanks!--JForget 03:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a new feature of MediaWiki. If someone doesn't use an edit summary and they blank or almost blank a page, it's smart enough to put that as the summary. There is no massive attack of vandals. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it’s an

automatic edit summary. — Knowledge Seeker দ

03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot for that! I was wondering about the suddent apparence of that especially when User:64.235.216.166 did that to my page. But it certainly make vandalism removal a bit easier for us. Thanks!--JForget 03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I recently was checking new pages, and I then received a message from Crzrussian. It was all about not biting newbies, and I was trying to be nice while still doing the right thing. So I wrote him back and said talk about biting the newbies, as I haven't had alot of time here myself. Then I got a message from an anonymous user telling me that crz has been causing alot of problems and "throwing his weight around like he owns the place". I'm asking now, to review what Crzrussian has been doing and deal with him or look into the matter deeper as you feel necessary. Not taking any sides here, just making a suggestion. Please read the respective comments on my talk page, and thanks so much. Ard0 04:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the message you received [51], looks like CrzRussian's got a stalker. Probably the same banned user who complained about him here [52]. Looks to be from the same ISP. Fan-1967 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ardo, welcome to Wikipedia in case no one's said that before. I wouldn't worry too much about the last person who posted on your homepage. He seems to be involved in a dispute with Crzrussian that you don't have anything to do with. As for the note you got from Crzrussian, I think he is right that you are probably being a little bit too quick to put deletion tags on bios of potentially notable people. You might want to wait a couple of days after an article is created before tagging it, for example, in case the original author is planning on expanding it, and speedy tags should only be used on bios of people who are definitely not notable. I might not have said what Crzrussian said in exactly the same words he used, but he does have a point, and I'm sure you'll bear it in mind.

In hopping over to your userpage and talkpage as you requested, I noticed that you have a lot of information about your "real world" self on your userpage. There has been a lot of discussion about whether it's a good idea for younger editors to be revealing too much identifying information. Especially if you're going to be active in vandal-fighting and proposing articles for deletion, you might not want some jerk who gets annoyed with you to be able to see that information. I say that not because I want to breed paranoia here, but it's a concern that's been expressed from time to time and you might want to delete the information like your real name and school from the page. Newyorkbrad 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, the angry Bahraini has come back as User:89.148.41.227 and is reverting everything I edit. Please block THIS IP as well. Does this guy work at the ISP, so that he can evade blocks at will? Zora 04:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

He's now using User:89.148.41.92 to revert all my edits. Please please roll back his edits and block THIS IP too. Zora 10:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not need to work on ISP. Usually many ISP have big pool of IP address (many class C or few Class B address). Hence each time when you reconnect to them you might end up having differnt IP address thanks to

DHCP (espacially when using dialup connections). Furthermore, in places like Lahore, Pakistan you can buy a one Euro card of any ISP use it for few hours and next time can get different card of differnt ISP. Remember we had there dozens of ISPs. So changing IP address is very easy. Just for your information and also I have never done that myself :) (that guy is not from Pakistan too but it was an example country) .... --- ALM

11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One editor named Stevewk has a problem with the major article on Abraham Lincoln. He says the article is too long and proposes to remove all the information on the American Civil War in order to shorten it. The other editors unanimously and strongly disagree with his insistence first that the information (over half the article) be blanked, and then that it be moved somewhere else. Warnings seem not to help, as he goes back again and again. Probably 3R is involved, and more serious anti-Wiki behavior as well. Rjensen 06:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Except for the 3RR violation (for which I have blocked Stevewk for 24 hours—five reverts in 10 hours is quite excessive), this is a problem for

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. — Saxifrage ✎

08:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have pointed the user at Wikipedia:Summary style, which discourages this kind of wholesale moving of content without leaving a summary in place. The cut-down version of the article was very non-optimal and didn't even mention the Emancipation Proclamation outside the lead : its excessive length is a minor fault compared to that. Morwen - Talk 11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the most current DRV was initiated by the sockpuppet of User:Brian G. Crawford to boot, and that Improv is the same admin who found it prudent to delete articles such as Teddy Grahams and Famous Amos as spam. I have a feeling, but no evidence, that User:Guglielmo Clintone, the 6th AfD'er may be a sock of Crawford too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't let process get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I hope nobody restores this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Too late. WarpstarRider 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't process meant to help improve the encyclopaedia? I've got nothing against debate on the merits of the page, just against admins making decisions unilaterally. The article has been restored (the talk page hasn't) now. Trebor 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Process (i.e. the rule of law) is the only thing that keeps wikipedia from descending into a Hobbesian state of eternal wheel warring. An admin that shits all over process - whatever the Cleveland Steamer of the moment - thereby demonstrating pure disdain for fellow users who are participating in good faith in the process, should not be an administrator. An administrator who becomes convinced that his judgement is more worthy than the collective contribution and thinking of hundreds of other users no longer has the self control to act as an administrator. This event was a good example of why all admins should be open to recall. --JJay 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Now now, I don't think we should be recalling Improv because of this. He's a good admin and deserves to keep those responsibilities. Does he make bad decisions now and then? Sure, but so does everyone. A bad decision once-in-a-while doesn't mean we should take away a person's admin duties. Here, just like with the cookie fiasco, I believe he was acting in good faith. He might have made bad decisions, but he was certainly editing in good faith. - Lex 20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, in the real world you don't get too many shots at fiascos before you are ousted. Just ask Patricia Dunn, Mark Foley or Nick Leeson. In the real world, the issue is competence, good judgement and the impact of decisions, not good or bad faith. This is not this administrator's first fiasco. Since in his remarks below, he indicates strong opinions on who should and should not be an administrator, let him show good faith by adding his name to Category:Administrators open to recall --JJay 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'd prefer that we not use Category:Administrators open to recall as a bludgeon. Improv is welcome to be in, or not in, as he chooses, that's the point of it being a voluntary category. ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You might note that a website encyclopedia is quite far from the state of nature, and that Hobbes was a bit mad. —Centrx→talk • 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the philosopher or the stuffed tiger? The Wikipedia article lacks any details about Thomas Hobbes' mental health. --- llywrch 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus can't override foundation issues. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. This should have been left deleted. Friday (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And we've been through all those issues ad nauseum, and they have not gained a lick of traction. At best, they don't violate any "foundation issues," at worst it's a judgement call - which is why consensus should rule the day. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You cannot assert that it overrides foundation issues, it is not clear-cut. If it was, there would not have been nearly so much debate. It was an issue with experienced editors arguing coherently for both sides, and in these cases consensus is the only way you should decide it. It is not up to the discretion of a single admin. Trebor 23:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I must say, though Improv might have broken process, that seeing it go would have been very good riddance. To give my nasty opinion, it's a shame that humanity would even think of such an awful deed, let alone practice it and glorify it with an article. One thing Wikipedia does not need for publicity is Jon Stewart standing on comedy central and quoting directly from this article. Granted, I can't support this with rule (hence the reason I didn't vote in the last afd), but wow, this is pretty low. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't at all clear to me that this should have been deleted. The matter is sourced at this point and I see no obvious foundation issue. As for Jon Stewart, I think Wikipedia can survive ribbing from Comedians. I could very well see someone see this as a reason to get rid of BDSM or some other sexual article that offends people's sensibility. Personally, I find this topic disgusting and revolting to the point where I almost have to work to suppress my gag reflex. However, none of that is a reason for deletion and is certainly not a reason for an out of process deletion.JoshuaZ 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely with JoshuaZ and JJay above. I don't see "Does Jon Stewart find this article amusing? (YES/NO)" on our list of inclusion criteria. A) I don't understand why this is a Foundation issue; B) It is inherently outrageous and anti-wiki for an admin to blatantly overide consensus; C) It is deeply offensive (far more offensive than the article itself) that anyone should seek to censor the encyclopaedia because they don't like the information it contains- see e.g. this, and many similar, for some examples of how and why this is done. 6 AfDs is enough. Badgerpatrol 04:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that people don't like it, but that the article consists of a dictionary definition, some original research, and "pop culture references" (aka cruft). There is nothing encyclopaedic about this article. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say to censor it, I said it would be good riddance if someone did. But, in any case, my personal opinion (not Wikipedia policy, so I can't ask for it to be enforced), is that sometimes we take free speech, which is supposed to be a means, and make it into an end. Free speech is supposed to help people become more informed for a useful purpose (a means), help improve something (a means), etc.; becoming offended at the lack of free speech (an end) does not fit into this category. It's proper to become offended at the lack of free speech where it's used repressively, or in order to hurt content. Do you see my point about free speech being a means, not an end (I'm not sure if I'm communicating it well). Even Wikipedia says Wikipedia is

NOT anarchy, meant to test the limits of free speech. Again, I don't think it's policy, so I have no right to enforce it or call for its enforcement; just my opinion, as we all have opinions. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The "useful purpose" is knowledge. Full stop. Badgerpatrol 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, too bad. Don't read it. We are not the morality police. RFerreira 05:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• For reference, my deletion had nothing to do with finding the subject disgusting or anything of that sort. I am libertine when it comes to such things. I deleted it solely because it was very clearly a dictionary definition. Consensus is not about voting, it's about discussion, and good arguments. This is an exceptionally clear case of when loud users who don't understand our project goals lead a bunch of fans away from them, ignoring everything our project is about and confusing consensus with democracy. I don't intend to redo my deletion (although I would encourage other admins to do so) because I don't wheel war, but I stand by it entirely. Wiktionary and Wikipedia are not the same project, and process is not sacred. People who would never go against a "vote", no matter how ill-informed and ill-conducted, even when it stands in the way of project goals, are people who should probably never be either closing discussions, nor should they be administrators. --Improv 07:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So although you have no intention of engaging in a wheel war personally, you encourage other admins to do so? Take a bow my friend. RFerreira 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I encourage other admins to delete it, not to wheel war. This is how we reconcile project goals, IAR, and a desire not to wheel. As you say, I shall take a bow. *bow* :) --Improv 07:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But the way you deleted it implied it was something you would have happily deleted on sight, seeing as you deleted it in the midst of a DRV (which is about process, not content), which was endorsing the previous decision anyway. If it is so "exceptionally clear", how come admins support both sides? Should the admins who closed the 6 AfDs on the article all step down? I would say that people who will happily delete something, out-of-process, against consensus from experienced editors and admins, because of their personal opinion of the arguments shouldn't be an admin either. Trebor 07:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Look at the AfD. Half of them don't even address the article, merely saying "abuse of AfD" or something, and are invalid on their face because they ignore the question of if the article should be deleted. None of the other arguments adequately deal with the fact that a definition and a few references that the term is indeed used does not make it anything more than a dictionary definition. Neither consensus nor AfD consist of taking votes. I am not proposing that anyone step down, merely that people had mistaken ideas about what AfD is about. We all make mistakes, and we all come to understand the project and its goals better as time goes on - demanding "justice" for an inadequately thought-out position would be a bad idea. I should note that what actually happens always comes down to judgement, whether from one person or from some combination of people - there is no shame in "personal opinion/judgement". --Improv 07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The reason they don't address the article is because there were five previous AfDs. The issue had been discussed at length and every time no consensus formed to delete. And no, you didn't ask anyone to step down, but you did say they shouldn't be administrators (and the only way for that to happen is via voluntary desysopping or arbitration). Of course the issue comes down to judgement, but when many users have the same opinion on something it is called consensus. Your opinion is not worth more than anyone else's, and where there's disagreement you shouldn't take action on it alone. Trebor 16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Or, alternatively, they could come to understand what's needed to keep the project working. I'm not a big fan of removing admin bits from people - if it becomes too common, then the project will fall to rabid populism and we'll see even more use of the resources of the project by people doing unrelated things. I'm not saying I don't believe in consensus, but I have a very different understanding/definition of it than yours, and to whatever extent yours means "let people vote and give them whatever they vote on", I think that's a recipe for killing Wikipedia. Long-term users should be educating less long-term users, and having discussions on where the project is going and how to interpret/apply policy. This is very different than voting, and it's what's needed to keep the project healthy. Previous AfDs don't give one a blank checque to not contribute to the current one. AfD is about judgement, not voting, and people pretending that they're voting while not contributing to the discussion should be ignored. The case is clear, most of the people aiming to keep are people who have never shown a significant understanding of policy (newbies), and previous people who closed the AfDs were not doing their job (as is anyone who goes by numbers rather than argument). --Improv 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • My opinion isn't so much "let people vote and give them whatever they vote on", but I don't think that this applies in this case. You say previous AfD closers weren't doing their job because they went by numbers, not arguments, but in this case I don't believe that applies. Do you honestly think that the decision on this debate was clear-cut, that it should be deleted beyond a doubt? Because that means there are a lot of experienced editors and administrators who are seriously misunderstanding policy, which is not encouraging for the project as a whole. I think this is a judgement call. Trebor 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • You have it exactly. I believe that the decision was clear-cut, and that the project as a whole is not in a good state. What we need, I think, is a very hard push against voting and towards discussion with a strong reliance on project goals. As a thought experiment -- what would need to change about the article to make it a dictionary definition? --Improv 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I needed to find out what the term "Cleveland Steamer" meant. I looked at WP first. Now I know.... Knowledge isn't always pretty. Hamster Sandwich 22:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Not a great deal, I admit, but I think it has the potential for expansion beyond that (plus I generally think it is a useful article on a topic which won't be covered in a dictionary). Can I ask you what you think of
          WP:CSD. Under what grounds did you think that was justified? Trebor
          22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I haven't looked at them, but if they're nothing more than a dicdef, then I'd delete them on sight if it became clear that Wiktionary did not want them. Very few "processes" on Wikipedia are hard rules - they're guidelines that, as per
            WP:IAR, are ignored when they lead to problem results. That naturally causes trouble/conflict when people notice (and in situations like this, people are bound to), but when people arn't so caught up in rules that they lose sight of the project, sometimes the right thing happens despite the rules and the people who are sticklers for them. Process is not sacred here, and out-of-process is not always a mark of something bad happening. I felt it was justified based on the content, the fact that we have a project specifically for that stuff, and that having talked with some representative folk for that project, they don't want it there either. Wikipedia is not a "rule of law" type community. It's a bit more cowboy, and involves judgement, give and take, a certain amount of oligarchy, and a lot of messiness. People who attempt to simplify it *into* rule of law generally find their stay here disappointing. --Improv
            00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
          • At this point, those first two articles are even more dicdef-y than this one. WarpstarRider 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree very much with your last 2 sentences, and I think I now understand your reasoning behind your action. The problem with
          WP:IAR, however, is that it can be invoked in either direction (and if I recall correctly, someone used it as an argument in one of the AfDs). You could say delete it on sight per IAR, because it violates policy. I could say keep per IAR (because it's useful and not actually gonna be found in a dictionary), and don't delete on sight because that violates policy. The result? A mess. I don't think you're going to change your mind and say it's useful and should be kept anymore than I'm going to say it should be deleted - we both have our views. I would merely ask you take more care over using IAR on an obviously contentious issue (and, I suppose, state explicitly that you're using it). Trebor
          01:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The big problem with

IAR is that it might encourage people to ignore all rules! The end result? Either a) complete chaos (likely) or b) domination of the project by an elite "superclass" of users (i.e. admins) who, despite making up, what- 0.01% - or less- of the project, can take action in spite of clear consensus. Depressingly, I often see comments by certain admins that come very close to actively agitating for the latter scenario. This article has been nominated for deletion 6 times, survived every time, and yet I do not hear trumpets sounding or the walls of Wiki-Jericho crumbling. Is there any scenario that would justify ignoring consensus in such a blatant fashion. By the same token, I'm not necessarily arguing that the admin concerned was acting in bad faith- but it was, IMHO, a bad, bad call. Badgerpatrol

19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Ignore all rules does not mean ignore all people. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it means don't follow a rule that will result in the wrong outcome. Ignoring people who want the wrong outcome may be a side effect. In fact, that's a desired side effect. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • But then you have to decide which is the "wrong" outcome. Which in a contentious issue is not agreed on. So how do you decide which is wrong? By looking at the arguments made by the people. Which you can then choose to ignore...it's a circular argument. Trebor 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone scrub the page history for

I deleted it, in accordance with the

WP:CHILD policy, as being too much potentially identifying information. (Antandrus (talk)

04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, of course, that there isn't a "

WP:CHILD policy" -- it's a proposal under discussion, without consensus. Not saying it's a bad idea to remove this stuff from Wikipedia, but you're doing it on your own, not as a matter of policy. --FOo

05:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder: Several of these "I'm very young, here's my photo and personal information" accounts cropped up recently that turned out to all be from the same IP. One theory is that someone was either doing basic trolling or looking for a perverted-justice style incident. Now back to our regularly scheduakled programming. - 152.91.9.144 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• However, we should also not be
  WP:BITEing newbies, and comments such as "We cannot allow you to post personal information about yourself" could have been worded a bit more tactfully. Perhaps we should create a template for this matter. (Radiant
  ) 10:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Radiant. Looking back on it, I could have found a slightly gentler way to phrase that. A template would be a great idea. --

Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs)

16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I went back and rephrased my comments on
  Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs)
  17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's right. Make a template so pedophiles can just search for all the pages the template is used on to find young kids easily. That's not a good idea folks. Neither is posting the information here, where now in the archives for all time, people will know how old that user is. Be smart about this. Find an admin and contact them priavtely to get info removed. pschemp | talk 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I still think the user posting said information should be told directly what happened (The deletion) and why to prevent them recreating the content because it disappeared without a trace and (for them) for no obvious reason.

68.39.174.238

00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes they should be told. but a template isn't the way to do it. pschemp | talk 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit that I have trouble thinking like a pedophile. If it comes up again, I'll contact an admin directly. --

NazireneMystic has removed two npa3 warnings I placed on his user page [53]. Please restore them. User subsequently received an admin warning and a temporary block, see warning.

This user also set up an alias SpiritualEbionite and copied over his user page in anticipation of a block. Please remove the sockpuppet. Thanks in advance. Ovadyah 23:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your Wikipedianlawyering never stops. It was clearly pointed out on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard in this following DIFF that your prior warnings were unfounded . As far as Im conserned unfounded warnings are vandalism to my talk page.

As no warning (other than some unnecessary ones from Oyidah at an earlier date) were issued, I've warned NazireneMystic for this edit, which was unacceptable. I would hope that unless he/she continues making edits of this kind, the matter is now closed.

type

15:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Most reasonable people would consider being called deceitful, ignorant, diabolical, and a meatpuppet to be personal attacks on their character. In this diff [54] this user admits to calling me these things and argues they are not personal attacks because they are all true. A continuation of this behavior is why this user was warned and blocked. Ovadyah 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins, See what I mean? After two admins have already read that post and after looking things over desided it was not a personal attack this editor keeps proving my points through his actions. Just defending myself becomes a personal attack in his eyes. Read the warning and block section of my talk page and you will see the reason given for both. Its worth noting the warning and block resulted from the same edit,at least according to the admins that posted them, maybe not in the mind of my accuserNazireneMystic 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as your unfounded report of socketpuppetry please read up on the socketpuppetry artical and maybe your unfounded personal attacks of me would stop. It is clear the account was created after I forgot my password to the Nazirene account and in my first edits using it I ID'ed myself as NazireneMystic. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=SpiritualEbionite Hardly a socketpuppet.

It should be noted this editor has already tried to claim on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard I evaded a block by the use of this account when it is clear from its contributions page it was not even used during that timeframe. So now the claim that I moved my tlak page because I anticipated a block? what evidence do you have ? I moved my tlak page because of past vandalism to it by you as can be seen in your frivolous warnings and wiki lawyering tactics and ongoing reports of things that do not exist. Please stop throwing invented crap up on the wall hoping something will stick.

Again, I beg to differ. The user page was copied over to evade an expected block.

09:17, 14 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:SpiritualEbionite (saving endangered info) (top)

The PA Noticeboard suggested I post a suspected sockpuppet report (see below). Ovadyah 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The other account hasn't been used since 11 November and the move occurred before I administered the block. Suggest you follow-up with a suspected sockpuppet report. Post again here if problems resume.

e!

01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes he/she did sugest a suspected socket puppet report after this editor made false claims I evaded a block. This editor still seems to be fixated on this even with evidence given from Durval in the above post that I did not evade a block and both contribution pages that during the block I did not edit. This is the hostile stance I have faced from him since I attemped to NPOV an artical he has strong religous and or political interest over and has lead to all the tactics shown in my talk page. Some of his deception I exposed that is on the talk page was mearly a defense from acusations against Allan Crownshaw in the edit were you called him my leader and tried to make it seem that Phillps person is a mear secetary as can be seen in the archived section or my talkpage. Just constantly facing his allegations becomes a personal attack to him. This editor has even ran off one of the scholars mentioned in the artical as a source and he is only after me because I stand up to this garbage he postNazireneMystic 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins, please do not say this is not the place to resolve this dispute, so far all Ihave seen from the RFC TO peerreview to deletion hearings is this editor act as a meat puppet and his POVshoping among other tactics. I only waht to present evidence that this is just another unfounded complaintNazireneMystic 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that user NazireneMystic has received an additional 48-hour block by the PA Noticeboard for personal attacks against another editor. Ovadyah 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the complaints department, as it says at the top of the page. Please use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. This user constantly trolls my contribution logs, and this sort of thing happens wherever I post. My purpose was not to complain or dispute anything. Please refer to my initial request: 1) to restore npa3 warnings placed on the users page. These were scanned by a bot, and should be removed by an admin if deemed inappropriate, not the user himself. 2) PA Noticeboard suggested I report duplicated userpage as a possible sockpuppet. Ovadyah 13:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages, so no can do there I'm afraid.
2. The sock allegations have already been given and discarded above (the other account hasn't been used to evade the block) yandman 13:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I will consider the matter closed. :) Ovadyah 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I need admin help with a persistent issue that keeps cropping up in different ways: I'm not sure where to take it this time.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourettes Guy

Tourette's Guy has been AfD'd twice, but entries about the website are often made to Tourette syndrome. The latest issue is a post [55] to Talk:Tourette syndrome by Turrets Guy (talk · contribs). I don't know if the user name or user page content is OK given the AfD, and if the talk page entries should be removed as spam/advertising. The people who follow and support that website are aggressive and coordinated, so I'm not inclined towards taking any action myself, and not sure if any action is even appropriate to the case. There are also constant posts of this nature on various pages. Thanks for any advice and help, Sandy (Talk) 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The page has been deleted as a G11 speedy. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I appreciate JzG's help. If they continue to troll the TS article or talk page, I don't want to delete the entries myself, as I've seen other people become targets of the followers of that site. Sandy (Talk) 13:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)