Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive150

Some time back I wandered into what is obviously a bitter external dispute between proponents of personal rapid transit (PRT) including User:Fresheneesz, User:Skybum and User:ATren; and a cartoonist and environmentalist, User:Avidor, engaged in a campaign against PRT, which was apparently being used as a stalking horse against light rail in Minnesota. I made many changes to the article which were initially welcomed, but the PRT proponents decided they didn't like the fact that, overall, I insist on the article reflecting the fact that no such system currently exists anywhere in the world. User:Stephen B Streater did some sterling work too, and they had less of a problem with him.

ATren, formerly "A Transportation Enthusiast" has a blog, http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com/, which attacks Avidor and also makes very plain the fact that ATren is a strong proponent of PRT. Which is where it gets messy. ATren is currently loudly demanding on my Talk page that I denounce Avidor's bias. I have said that that I am opposed to all abuse of Wikipedia for political ends, but ATren will accept nothing less than singling out one side of this plainly bilateral dispute. ATren flatyly refuses to admit that he has any bias, paints his bias as neutral, and insists that anyone more sceptical than he is themselves biased. I don't see why I'm supposed to have a view on the subject beyond an engineer's usual curioisyty about some new subject, but there is no possible doubt that overall the article is about a system of widescale urban tranport, whereas in practice after forty-odd years of debate we have a couple of test tracks and (now) two orders to service car parks at Heathrow and Dubai.

We have found a good, neutral, impartial source which states that the literature of around 200 published papers is typically favourable and marked by a lack of self-criticism. It states that the concept faces "formidable" challenges in the shape of political opposition, indifference, unproven technologies and vested interests (which I reckon is spot on - remember, this is supposed to replace use of the private automobile in entire cities).

Note: this is false - no PRT proposal I've ever seen aims to replace the car. PRT is always proposed as a multi-modal solution with cars and possibly other forms of public transit. ATren 08:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We have a statement from the Minnesota Sierra Club, a group which might ordinarily be expected to support anything which would reduce private car use, which enumerates these challenges and therefore resolves to oppose the PRT proposal in Minnesota. Nope. Can't have that - it's "astroturfing". Silly of me even to think that the Sierra Club might be actual opposition rather than fake opposition. Meanwhile the literature is still verifiably dominated by a lack of self-criticism and the technology still faces verifiably formidable challenges...

One day the Heathrow system will open and we will have a solid basis for an article. Until then we have a fanwank which desperately needs to be brought down to earth. But I find Avidor's Roadkill Bill cartoon (agit-prop for integrated urban planning) funny so obviously I am quite incapable of forming a balanced judgement on the issue. Or something. I don't want to lose my temper with this argumentative pair so I've come here to vent my spleen a bit and see if anyone else feels like chucking a bucket of cold water over them for me.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? Thanks for your time, anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Several points in response, since JzG is misrepresenting this dispute:

• The "stalking horse" theory that JzG mentions is unverifiable fluff that has no basis in reality. Avidor has been on an anti-PRT political crusade ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7], etc)for over 3 years, spreading disinformation like the "stalking horse" theory all over the Internet. He's also admitted to using sock puppet identities to spread his message. There is no basis to any of his conspiracy theories.
• I came upon Avidor when he tried to push his completely unverifiable POV here on Wikipedia, in order to sway local political elections in Minnesota. He spent several months gaming the NPOV tag on the PRT page, and using the "disputed POV" tag as evidence that the Wikipedia article was being infiltrated by "pro-PRT cultists", in his political blogs and forums. This seemed to be a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a platform for political propaganda.
• JzG came along in the dispute and immediately expressed admiration for Avidor and his cartoon - in fact, he created the Wikipedia article on Avidor's cartoon and later defended it from deletion. Despite his admitted affection for Avidor, he proceeded with the mediation. Personally, I was concerned that he was such a fan of Avidor, but I trusted that he would recuse himself if he couldn't be neutral.
• Over the next several months, JzG was positively hostile to the three editors on the other side of the dispute. Even though we all agreed on perhaps 90% of his edits without argument, he repeatedly accused us of POV pushing for any change we made, reverting of all our edits on sight and threatening (twice!) to lock down the article. The threats to lock the article were particularly egregious because (a) they were done at the behest of Avidor (Avidor posted this 30 minutes before JzG's initial threat), and (b) they were based on his own misreading of a single word in one of Skybum's edits. Even after Skybum (who, unlike Avidor, has always been a good faith editor) politely told JzG he misread the word, JzG continued to insist he read it right and threatened Skybum again, insisting he had read it correctly, even though the history showed he clearly didn't! It was clear that JzG was not only willing to do Avidor's bidding, but was unwilling to consider any argument from the reasonable editors on the other side (none of whom had a political agenda, as Avidor did). In the months after that, JzG continued to revert almost every change we made, no matter how small, and in many cases insinuating that we were POV pushing. The absoluteness of his reverts made it clear that he
  owned
  the article - and after his threats to lock it, we really had no way to fight it.
• The Minneapolis Sierra Club supports Minneapolis light rail, which competes against PRT for funding, and therefore they opposed PRT. They are a local chapter of an environmental group. Against this, the European Union has endorsed PRT in cities - they did a 3 year study of PRT and endorsed it unequivocally. The study was rigorous, involving 16 partners in academia, transit consulting, and city planning, and focused on 4 different PRT schemes in 5 cities. This augments 40 years of peer reviewed research, several textbooks devoted to PRT design, and fully-functioning prototypes that have carried passengers. Despite all this, JzG continues to call it "pseudo-science" - despite the existence of fully-functioning prototypes. He's also called it a "quixotic dream". To me, it's clear he is sympathetic to the unsupportable POV of Avidor, that PRT is a fraud and a hoax.
• I have absolutely no political agenda. I stumbled upon PRT a year ago, and I was shocked at the amount of blatant disinformation being spread by a single individual. I therefore decided, in the interest of truth, to set the record straight. Hence, my blog, which is apolitical. I only use it to answer the disinformation that Avidor spreads, and to call out the people who implicitly support him by quoting his propaganda. However, I challenge anyone to scour my blog and find any statement of political support. Even when I reference politicians, it's purely in the context of their statements on PRT. Despite this, JzG has begun to accuse me of having a political motive - apparently someone just fighting for truth can't be believed. In any event, I would be willing to reveal myself to a neutral third party to confirm everything I've said.
• I have nothing to do with PRT, PRT companies, or PRT advocacy. I have absolutely no financial interest in PRT companies. I've never even met a PRT "proponent".

The fact is this: when someone we admire is involved in a dispute, try as we might, it is very difficult to remain neutral. JzG has a clear affection for Avidor, and therefore has taken much of Avidor's views at face value, including the undue level of skepticism for a technology that has a large amount of verifiable support. JzG should have recused himself from this mediation from the beginning, because his affection for Avidor affects his neutrality. ATren 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

ATren 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

ATren/A.T.E. has been ranting about me all over the internet for a year or so... He got banned from the Seattle Post Intelligencer forum for ranting: [8] Here's ATren's trying to intimidate another Wikipedia administrator : "So now you're bowing out, eh? You went in and empowered that fucking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is.".... as for the claim that I am the only skeptic of PRT, read this: "Like gold standard crazies, intelligent design ideologues and cold-fusion enthusiasts, Personal Rapid Transit nuts see something the rest of the world doesn't see and think they are visionaries as a result. Since there is no "true" PRT system anywhere in the world for these people to spend all day riding around in, they spend their time comment-spamming blogs like ours. A similar blog, publictransit.us, had enough of it and decided to fact-check the PRT claims. They found claims of systems that don't exist and studies that were never conducted. I think that pretty much ends the discussion."[9]...I wish somebody at Wikipedia would do something to stop these personal attacks by this anonymous "editor"...Avidor 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I did write that comment, but it was my first month on Wikipedia, and I didn't understand the way things worked then. Also, that comment was after several weeks of Avidor edit warring the NPOV tag (for the express purpose of advancing his political campaign), as well as incessant linkspam and personal attacks on the talk page (repeatedly calling editors of the PRT article "cultists"), and I simply lost my temper. Some examples of Avidor's comments on that talk page: "If I fixed that, the PRT cultists would change it back...", "No links to anything real... just true believers in a lost cause following crackpot 'visionaries'...", "Yep, the PRT cult is in firm control of this Wikipedia page..." ATren 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, ATren, for giving everyone a perfect example of the problem: you portray your bias as neutrality, and anyone who disagrees with you as biased. Note that Avidor (unlike ATren) has not edited that page for over six months. This is not about your off-wiki fight, it's about a Wikipedia article (do not bring your battles to Wikipedia). Stalking horse is unverifiable fluff? Not according to the Sierra Club it's not - but of course they are biased, it's only you who is neutral, right? As Cotterell says, the literature is predominantly supportive and marked by a lack of self-criticism. Citing that literature as evidence of a lack of criticism is not terribly helpful and fails to explain the observed fact that after over forty years of discussion not one real-world system currently exists. The article is about a wide-scale urban transit system, but the only projects looking likely to be completed in the near future are in car parks, nothing like we describe in the article. You may think it's perfectly fine to document the PRT proponents' dreams and ignore the realities, I happen to disagree, based on my well-documented bias against using Wikipedia to promote new, great things which might one day change the world. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Locate me one single reliable source on the stalking horse global conspiracy theory. Go ahead. Find me one. For the uninitiated, the stalking horse theory is Avidor's pet conspiracy which claims that hundreds of researchers on 3 continents have spent the last 40 years perpetrating a hoax - all for the purpose of blocking a Minneapolis light rail line! This is the ridiculous conspiracy theory that I've fought nearly a year to keep out of the PRT article, as Guy has done everything he can to get Avidor's completely unverifiable POV into the article. He started out trying to get Avidor's tasteless anti-PRT propaganda cartoon in. Nobody supported that, so he tried pushing content from the Light Rail Now astroturfing group - a group that contains unverifiable anti-PRT content written by Avidor! When that was rejected, he found a single paper that kinda-sorta is critical of PRT literature - not PRT itself, mind you - and had used that one conference paper to invalidate 40 years of research. Now, Guy is pushing a resolution by the Minneapolis Sierra Club (which, for all we know, has Avidor as a member!) into the top of the article, while he suppresses content from peer-reviewed journals and engineering conferences as biased. Can anyone, even a well-respected admin like Guy, justify such a position? I am at wits end here - this has been a nearly year long dispute, and I'm still arguing that peer reviewed journals are a more reliable source than a local chapter of an environmental group! And yet Guy continues to say I'm the one letting my biases affect my judgement.

BTW, just a point of clarification: Avidor stopped editing the article because he no longer had to - Guy took up his fight. Whenever he wants something done, he just asks Guy to do it and the war starts up again. ATren 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hate to repeat it, but content resolution is not the role of admins (you know that, Guy). If it can't be resolved on the article's talk page, take it to RFC or ask for mediation.

type

12:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not an administrative action, never was. I went to the article as an editor. My problem is with ATren's months-long campaign of argumentation based on his obdurate refusal to admit to his own personal bias (and I really don't think it's a coincidence that every time I even allude to the dispute in any discussion he pops up and starts all over again). I think I'll just nuke the thread from my Talk page and leave it at that - nothing in the world will ever satisfy ATren other than getting his own way, in this case a unilateral condemnation of the massively less active side of a bipartisan dispute. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy came to the article as a mediator, not just an editor. He then proceeded to threaten to use admin powers to prevent any change to what he wrote (in response to Skybum's good faith edits - see links above). So which is it? Was Guy an editor, mediator, or admin, or all three? This all came up again because he wrote comments in an arb com case implying Fresheneesz was just bitter because his article was deleted, when the dispute went much deeper than that. In fact, Fresheneesz, Skybum, and I had repeatedly expressed exasperation at JzG's

ownership of the article and rejection of any changes to his version of the article. I am frankly sick of being painted as a POV pusher in this dispute, when in fact there were three other editors who supported me, and all three had the same level of frustration with JzG's actions. ATren

17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't. I have never been a member of the mediation cabal or mediation committee. I saw a notice of an edit war and thought the subject looked interesting (still do), so I came along to see what I could do. And you seemed not to have a problem with it until I said that I like Roadkill Bill. Given that Avidor has not edited that article since April, I hardly think his (openly admitted) bias is a pressing problem, and your insistence on continuing to fight a battle that was over, in Wikipedia terms anyway, months ago, does you no credit. Neither does your continued campaign of vituperation off Wiki - nobody likes a sore loser. But hey, frustration is a good word - exactly the word I'd use to describe someone who is still coming back with "and another thing!..." half a year after the discussion ended. Why not click Random Article and find something to improve? It's what I sometimes do when I get wound up. It was advice I picked up here, I think. Very sound. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a mediation? See [10]: "During a mediation process..." followed soon after with the threat to lock the article. It's clear you considered yourself a mediator, and we treated you as one.

Avidor has not edited the article - but why? Could it be because you are representing his POV - he just lets you know what he wants and you do it? It started with the threat to block the article (which he had requested just 30 minutes earlier -see links above) and has continued even until today:

• Avidor recently mentioned that the link to his personal page was removed, and you immediately restored it, calling his personal anti-PRT propaganda page "notable skepticism".
• Then Avidor gave you a link to a resolution by his local Sierra Club, and despite the questionable reliability of quoting such a group, you immediately added the link the article in the intro! Just to put this into perspective, you have removed journal-sourced content from us, but when Avidor sends you a link to a one-page resolution from a local chapter of an environmental group, you put it in the intro!

I can cite many other examples of you doing what Avidor asked, including the Unimodal page, which you submitted for deletion soon after Avidor started complaining to you about it. Why would Avidor edit the article when he can just ask you to do it for him?

I'd also like to point out that, in addition to Avidor's documented abuses, he has lashed out against Wikipedia (see the cartoon on his user page), has quit the project and returned at least twice, and is an active member of Wikipedia Review. ATren 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is at the core a content dispute... you should file a Request for Comment or a formal Request for Mediation (as was suggested above by an admin).--Isotope23 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not bring this up here - Guy did. I'm just here to defend myself. I won't file an RfC because, in my experience, casual editors like myself do not do well in mediation against respected admins - even when they have a case. ATren 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but my point is that you are all beating a dead horse here as an admin already stated above that this is a content dispute and should go through an RfC or RfM...--Isotope23 21:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. ATren has threatened ArbCom, but dcided not to because of "the cabal". Of the three of us - ATren, Avidor and me - ATren is the onyl one still actively editing that article, the only one pursuing the long-dead dispute, the only one to refuse to acknowledge any personal bias whatsoever. He says I reintroduced a link but forgets to mention that it was he who removed it, despite an ongoing off-wiki dispute with the owner of the site linked. Deleting it? Fine and dandy. Re-introducing it? Bias. Sierra Club article opposed to PRT? Astroturfing. PRT proponent's homepage? Authoritative source. Look at all the terrible things these sceptics - no - pseudoskeptics have done to ruin an article on a technology which will surely exist Real Soon Now! It's a silly spat about really very minor detail of the article, the amount of disruption caused is out of all proportion. He;s also still knocking on about

Skytran, a project with no prototype, no backers, no known realistic prospect of existence, which I still don't think deserves an article, but I have left it alone in its much less advertorial form. Left it alone. For months. The guy is obsessed, as his blog clearly shows. And above all, Minnesota, the closest they've yet come to an implementation, was defeated due in no small part to the completely untried nature of the technology. The whole argument is a teapot tempest. Bollocks to it. Guy (Help!

) 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We've been asked twice to take this elsewhere - so I will not respond other than to say that most of what JzG says above are outright lies. JzG - take it to RfC or ArbCom if you want - I have absolutely nothing to hide. This is the last comment I will make here. ATren 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us be thankful for small mercies. I seem to recall that you were the one threatening me with ArbCom, were it not for the fact that it is in the grip of a cabal who would not back you against me. At least your assumption of bad faith is applied consistently to all, which is something I suppose. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh... Very few people here in Minnesota give PRT much credence, from what I've heard. Other than

masterka

11:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOPRO

Just a heads up really - the page that had been in Raul's user space had recently been upgraded to policy. There are still a few discussions at

Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles

as to how to codify it.

The main change, and reason I've bought this up here, is that the policy now requires admins who protect or semi-protect the Main Page featured article to drop a note here explaining why and how long they think protection should last for. Its hoped that this will stop (Semi)-protection lasting any longer than it needs to. --Robdurbar 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sure this must have been suggested before, but would there be any objection to having the featured article of the day move protected while it's on the main page? There's really no valid basis on which a user would move that day's FA (or probably any FA) to another article name, so any such moves are highly likely to be vandalism, and inability to move the page doesn't interfere with ability to edit which is the rationale for rarely protecting that day's FA. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is standard operating procedure already. Actually, I was surprised to find that today's article hadn't been move-protected yet. Did whoever usually does that forget? Melchoir 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy does discuss it - move protection is fine though I'm not sure it should be used pre-emptively, only if move vandalism occurs. --Robdurbar 09:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the argument against using it preemptively. Are there any circumstances in which there could be a non-vandalistic move of that day's featured article? Or are there circumstances in which trying out the move-page feature would be a newbie's introduction to Wikipedia? If we agree the answers are "no" and "no" then I think suppressing the move tab on the day's FA should be routine practice, especially after this morning's experience. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially given that newbies can't move pages. Ral315 (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

At the suggestion of User:Robocracy the Aaron Klein page was semi-protected because of a series of POV-pushing anons. Now a logged-in editor, User:MikeJason has begun re-making some of the same changes. He also removed the {cleanup-rewrite} banner and the {sprotect} banner without discussion on the Talk page. I have consulted User:Athaenara and User:Tariqabjotu for their assistance. Their contributions are in the edit history. There was a pause, but after 17 days MikeJason is back doing his thing again. Since he is making changes against consensus after clear warnings, I'm asking for administrative help. EdJohnston 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just me, but perhaps a Check User request is in line, to back up a block. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MikeJason has only edited this one page. Blocking him would not hurt the future improvement of Wikipedia. And the page remains under semi-protection. An alternative would be full protection for the page, but I don't know how reluctant people are to do that. EdJohnston 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to enjoy my right to vanish, but

23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He even deletes his own talk page where I informed him about the need being civil, to stop edit warring, and that I would ask another sysop to stop his actions. --

23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on Mike's talk page. It seems that Zacheus has published personal details of other users on his blog. Hence, he has taken the right to vanish from fellow users but wants to take advantage of it for himself. As Mike has said, this does not make for a strong case. Zacheus has also filed a request to have another user's name changed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is untrue. Could you please provide any details? I would like to inform you that the right to vanish does not mean "right to vanish from fellow users", but rather from the Wikipedia.

"Zacheus has also filed a request to have another user's name changed." ??? --

03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I haven't seen the actual evidence for what Samsara mentions, an editor who would post personal info about wikipedians on a blog should be "vanished" with a perma-block. That's just so uncool : ( Doc Tropics 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read all the dicussion about off-wiki

03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser case issue is dealt with. I say let the guy change his name if he wants to. Just because he was a jerk on cs: (according to their arbcom) doesn't mean we should be jerks on en. Besides, its a very limited form of Right to Vanish; it keeps his name off of google but a look in the page history will recover the info should it ever become important.

Thatcher131

04:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Czech ArbCom I would like to add that I was banned for one year after one-year long successful work as a bureaucrat of cs: by two my enemies only:

09:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The page Christine Maggiore was blanked by User:DavidRCrowe (who is connected to the subject of the page), replaced with a legal threat ("potentially libelous"). The prior version was heavily sourced, and he did not specify what parts he felt were libelous. I would just revert it, but with the threat of libel etc. wanted some outside review/help with how to proceed. Thanks. MastCell 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The page he blanked looked well sourced to me. Shouldn't it just be put back up per

WP:LEGAL? JohnnyBGood t c

VIVA! 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it has been. I have put a request on the user's talk page asking them to substantiate their claim. The article is sourced well so I cannot see what the problem might be.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. The question now is whether this act of vandalism and violation of

WP:BITE, but it's a close call, and I can understand if people have different opinions.--Stephan Schulz

00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see if he's going to learn from this or if he's going to respond with a reblank. If he reblanks I'd suggest a short block. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just stating that the page is potentially libelous is not really a legal threat. However, the rest of the text the user replaced the page with is sufficient grounds to be interpreted as a legal threat. --Yamla 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, the claim "Maggiore had not taken medication to prevent transmission of HIV to her daughter" does not appear to be backed up by the source cited for it (the LA Times story), as the guy says on the talk page. I.e. the article doesn't actually say that if she'd taken medication, it would have prevented transmission of HIV. --W.marsh 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is how it works: the LA article says she wasn't taking medication, and the technical paper cited probably says that not taking medication means putting your child at greater risk. I'll have to read the paper for that. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You should remove stuff like this on sight. I think I caught all mentions of it in the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From the "technical report": administration of zidovudine (ZDV) to the HIV-infected woman during pregnancy and labor and to the newborn was shown to decrease the risk of perinatal HIV transmission. I'll rephrase the article to make clear how the referencing works. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence of the L.A Times article source reads, "The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even while pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had never tested her children for the virus." This was the source for the Wikipedia article's statement that "Maggiore had not taken medication to prevent transmission of HIV to her daughter." MastCell 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This should probably be continued at the talk page of the article as to not clutter

Cowman109^Talk

00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks everyone for your speedy responses. MastCell 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know that there are about 1,000 administrators. I am interested in starting a small "long article" breakup committee so to provide assistance to those who need "super" long pages broken up. Many pages are fortified with seasoned editors who do not wish to see their beautiful articles broken up, and as such impose great resistance to even small changes. Especially with featured articles. Hence such a committee would need at least three administrators to control revert wars during the process of a page break up. Personally, I like to break up long science-related articles, so that new contributions can be made.

Can someone guide me to administrators who would be interested in this. Over the last month, I have been proposing an outline on the Wikipedia talk:Article size page. Long article issue problems are presently a major weakness in Wikipedia. We are almost into the top 10 most visited websites, according to Top 500 websites - Alexa. If we are to remain a major website we need to address this issue. Please leave comment. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 00:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, in theory. But I don't really like the fact that you seem to think that instead of establishing a consensus that a page should be broken up, it is better to recruit some admins to prevent people from reverting such a thing. If this idea is implemented well, there should be absolutely no need of admins. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my plan is that:

First, an editor tries to establish consensus: the issue is brought up on the talk page, and it is suggested that the regulars break up the article into subtopics, with short summary paragraphs (w/ main article attachments), see thermodynamics as an example, so that the main page gets below a certain limit.

Second, if plan #1 stifles out in argument and indecision to act, for a number of consecutive weeks, than an breakup arbitration committee notice is placed on the talk page, putting an ultimatum deadline, such that either the regulars break up the page to below a certain limit by that date or an external breakup committee, enforced by a team of administrators, will do so.

Without a group project such as this, then Wikipedia talkpages and articles will become like Congress: lots of arguing but little action. This will need to be a team action if it is to be successful. Here is a recent example in which I placed a "long article" tag on a page but it was quickly reverted; for this situation I would have needed administrative assistance. --Sadi Carnot 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Modular Articles here. I've been meaning to do this for weeks. Will you help? Many thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we seem to be on the same page; I would be glad to help with this, especially with the science-related articles, time permitting. We just need a bigger team. If we can get at least three core administrators, to help with the potential revert wars erupting between seasoned page editors connected to those pages, then I can scavenger up more regular editors to join the team who also like to see smaller articles. For now, I added your name here. I'll wait till the group gets up to about 10 people. --Sadi Carnot 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd hope we wouldn't need to push decisions down anyone's throat, and that administrators will support what is reasonable without being associated with the project. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be a worst case scenario. Ideally, if an article “breakup team” existed, then the mere placement of a "talk page notice" would be enough to compel the regulars to break up the page on their own. When one works on a page for more than a month, then article beer goggles tend to develop, wherein the page seems perfectly fine no matter how long it gets. Presently, the “32 kb warning” tag that pops up on long pages is completely useless, because editors will unconsciously justify their “unique” long pages for so and so reason, and argumentitively attack anyone who questions them about page length. ---Sadi Carnot 02:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem still exists. A breakup committee should not have the power to decree that a page will be broken up by the involved editors, or someone else will come and do it for them, with admins preventing any reversion of changes. With the exception of the fact that they are openly acknowledging that they have that power, that is called a cabal, and it is bad. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well what alternatives do you recommend? Should we let bloated 100 kb page articles linger around for months or years on end because of a few hard-minded editors; while, in the mean time, hundreds of thousands of readers get turned off and give up reading or better yet can’t load the page in the first place because they have dialup or are using a Blackberry, etc.? I don’t see what harm can come from this. We open up some new pages, cut and paste, everyone does some cleanup work, and than instead of having one 100 kb page, we now have, for example, three 33 kb pages. The process takes a day or two. It’s not that complicated. But a project team is needed for a “pressure-effect” and administrators may be needed to give user warnings to seasoned editors. In the end, everyone is happy. I am certainly open for other ideas? --Sadi Carnot 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... The current method of establishing consensus before changing anything seems to work just fine. Obviously, the "few die-hard editors" think there is a good reason why their page should be 100 kb long. Why is this committee assumed to know better than the editors who have actually worked on the article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On another note, this discussion should be somewhere else, but I don't know where would make sense. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied to Wikipedia talk:Article size. Let's not clog up ANI.-Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• One should take care how a page is broken up. I've seen material nominated for deletion when material on its own wasn't considered suitable for its own article or even worse, a POV fork when it wasn't. - 131.211.210.12 08:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is April 1st, right?
  Giano
  08:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  I suggest to ignore this thread, like everyone else does. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears Nintendude is evading his indef block with User:Livonia Mall and User:Clarenceville Trojan. He created a bunch of spurious categories and other typical Nintendude edits with these users over the past day [12] & [13]. Evidence this is actually Nintendude is here.--Isotope23 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If not Nintendude then some other unwelcome idiot. Blocked these two. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just received an email from Wikipedia, saying 85.210.3.87 requested a password change. Are you able to see if this user/IP has had a username in the past? I guess it's someone I've pissed off before, persistant vandal/spammer maybe? Also, there's no way anyone can access my account without either guessing the password or using the temp password from the email, is there? Thanks —B33R ^{Talk • Contribs} 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{Insert standard message-2} Ignore it. You've got the gist of it. If you ignore the message your password will stay the same, and only you are receiving the message. It doesn't help anyone hack into your account, just a minor form of nuisance harassment.

Thatcher131

04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Some edit-warring is taking place on Mena, Arkansas, regarding the attempts by some local person(s) to add massive quantities of material, with repetitive external links, regarding a local Yu-Gi-Oh! tournament. Some involved users (perhaps sock/meatpuppets of one another) are aiming personal attacks at those who revert their changes, calling them "gay" or "retards". *Dan T.* 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to massive sockpuppetry and rude comments by sockpuppets, I wouldn't be against semi-protection (I'm not sure if it follows guidelines). Try, maybe,

WP:RPP. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been involved in that little fracas since yesterday. Some small part of the editor's contribution can actually be included, and most of us have tried to save that bit when we revert, but his Edit Summaries have ranged from mildly amusing to moderately offensive. I've been reluctant to engage on his talkpage; it would probably be counter-productive unless he's handled with "kid gloves" (mine are at the dry cleaners today). Now that it's been brought up here, I can take it off my watchlist : ) Doc Tropics 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JoshuaZ for the Sprotect, that should help. Doc Tropics 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

06:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As his name indicates,

23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking over his contributions, I'm hard pressed to find more than a couple that aren't dubious. He does appear to impervious to reason and policy, so an attention-getting block seems justified to me. FeloniousMonk 23:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty justifiable to me. Hopefully now PR can understand how Wikipedia policy works, and he/she will be able to follow them. Khoikhoi 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a one month time out. I was leaning toward 2-3 weeks, but the

WP:CIVIL violations pushed him over the top. FeloniousMonk

23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I also support this. I've seen some bizarre edits that are pure OR, yet he doesn't seem to get it no matter how often it's explained. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's weird: I've seen some completely POV and OR comments from PR, but then I've seen some that are ridiculously the opposite and pro israel. I do agree, however, with Felonious Monk and SV that the majority of the edits are bizarre.

16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familliar with PR, but on a related note, am considering changing my username to Israel intro chnages remembered, alebit briefly. El_C 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few more problematic editors haunting Middle-East-related pages at the moment, such as User:Amoruso and User:Shamir1. PalestineRemembered has some good contributions, unlike them, so I would suggest dealing with the irremediable first and then coming back to the cases of doubt. Though I should add that most of my experience of them have been in the opposite situation to that cited here, i.e. Amoruso et al making ludicrously POV changes and PR disputing them. Palmiro | Talk 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This section is about PalestineRemembered, not about other editors with whom you have content disagreements. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you offer examples of PR's good contributions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

When a quick action was taken against PalestineRemembered, the slowness of action against Amoruso and Shamir who have same (or worse) behaviour is highly questionable. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This section is about PalestineRemembered, not about other editors with whom you have content disagreements. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I have previously edited this page (as has Pschemp) I ask that the following blocks be reviewed:

• 22:38, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "207.70.152.4 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism) [18]

This comes a full 7 hours after the last edit. After the anonymous user received a warning on their talk page, they have not continued the disruptive behavior. So what purpose does the block serve other than to be punitive, as the editor has brought there actions inline with our traditions.

Also this block fails to assume good faith:

• 22:37, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "68.100.239.10 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism) [19]

The editor has two edits:

• 22:31, 27 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Temple garment (→Construction and symbolism of the garment - deleted offensive picture) [20]
• 05:17, 6 September 2006 (hist) (diff) The Greatest American Hero

The only justification for such a long block after 1 edit is if that IP is a sockpuppet of an existing user. But we have no proof of that and as I tried to explain on the Pschemp's talk page, this kind of vandalism is not unexpected given that the picture is very disrespectful to many people's belief systems. What we need to do is educate and welcome - not smack them for trying to make a contribution they feel is their duty. The first user shows, once educated, these users will stop being disruptive. --Trödel 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding:

• 23:14, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "71.195.224.15 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism)

Again two edits only:

• 22:55, 27 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Temple garment (→Construction and symbolism of the garment)
• 04:33, 26 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Parasympathetic nervous system (→Relationship to sympathetic nervous system)

Again overly harsh and failure to assume good faith. --Trödel 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My experiance with this adminstrator is limited to receiving a week long block for "trolling" after my uncontroversial participation in discussion on this page. The gory details are here. - 152.91.9.144 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I will admit that this seems to be wrong. A user should not be blocked quite so immediately, and blocking someone for mentioning this problem is wholly and completely out of line. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you discuss this with the blocking admin before bringing this here? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes here --Trödel 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Did any of you notice that I changed the block to 48 hours? Obviously not. Get your facts straight before you complain. Additionally, the edit pattern shows this is a user who is hopping from IP to IP and making the same edit repeatedly in a short amount of time. It isn't a new innocent IP every time, its the same guy who was already reverted 3 times. The only way to deal with people using proxies is to block immediately. However, the entire issue has been resolved since the page is now semi-protected so the IP vandals can talk about their feelings on the talk page first. (which Trodel agreed was a good solution) We had a discussion and came to conclusions. Trodel's posting here is superfluous. pschemp | talk 17:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is superfllous then there was no reason to keep the block in place, yet you did. --Trödel 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Trodel, the posting here was superfluous because we were happily discussing it on my talk page. That's what I was referring to. The block was not. pschemp | talk 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy if pschemp could acknowledge that there might be any problem with her blocking strategy. Looking back over the last month or so, the vast majority of her blocks are no-nonsense username and vandalism-only accounts. However her use of "trolling" as a block reason appears somewhat hit-or-miss. Leaving aside her blocking me, a quick glance back shows

• 04:34, 25 November 2006 Pschemp blocked "
  talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (trolling and disruption on user talk pages.) [21]

where a serious contributor was blocked for a straightforward (if strident) dialog on a user talk page. Again, without warning or clear justification. The weakness of the {{unblock}} procedure is also made clear by this exchange, by the way. If these more controversial blocks could be brought here for review and Pschemp was a bit more open to dialog regarding the blocks, there would be no problem here. Incivility in the manner of "Get your facts straight" does nothing to further the collegial environment we would all like to edit in.
152.91.9.144 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's your issue. I think if you remember correctly another administrator reviewed that block and found it appropriate. As did the person whose page you were disrupting. If you'd like to complain about that block, go start another section. Continuing to whine here about an action already deemed appropriate by four admins is childish. (and "does nothing to further the collegial environment we would all like to edit in.") pschemp | talk 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Notice I said start a "new" section on your personal issue, not "move this section down". pschemp | talk 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The (first) response is not only
  rude in "continuing to whine" but doesn't *ahem* get it's facts straight. (It conflates several different incidents.) Blocks, like all applications of adminstrator privledge (and in fact all Wikipedia edits) are subject to review and discussion. The ability to take part in discussions about one's actions in a civil and rational manner is in fact a pre-requisite to participation here. I'd ask if the level of venom could be turned down just a tad. I'm also asking (as Trödel is) for some adminstrator input into pschemp's blocking, so a "another section" is not called for. - 152.91.9.144
  22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not move this section out of time order again. pschemp | talk 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This diff says all I have to say. Another uninvolved admin felt the block was justified. The person's whose page it was on did not disagree either. If you want to complain, you'd better complain about all three of us. And yes, you are whining. And no its not uncivil to point out what you are doing. pschemp | talk 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I shall desist from pointing out your incivility, and instead leave it to other reasonable people to determine it. With regards to your block of

talk • contribs), here is the edit that you blocked him without warning for, and that the reviewing admin called "flaming." There is not a rude word in it. I might also add that the "few hours to calm down" comments are due to what, the words "REQUEST FOR UNBLOCK" in capital letters? This block was out of line, the review was half-arsed, and your hostility is deeply unbecoming. If you are unable to handle civil, reasonable requests for examination of your blocks, don't make them. When we're finished with talking about your NYScholar "trolling" block we can look at your one-week block of this IP. - 152.91.9.144

23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not reformat my comments. Also, the week blocked was immediately reduced to 48 hours after a discussion with Trodel. I'm sorry you don't like the action with NYScholar but 4 admins agreed with it. I have nothing more to say to you. pschemp | talk 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first the background. In the past week there have been dozens of edits to

page. Some of the text there looked fishy, so I did a brief Google search and found the ballistics testing paragraphs were ripped straight off another page. It's possible the entire page is a rip as well, but only slightly paraphrased. A lot of it looks similar.

Anyway, I removed, tagged copyvio, posted on the copyright violations page etc. Great, grand. The talk page has suddenly exploded in its absence with anons and new contributers suddenly claiming I work for Remington (I don't, I'm a student), that I have a history of malicious edits (I've never received a warning), etc. Also no less than 4 people and probably more now have now claimed to be the copyright owner and release their work: but some of them are releasing it into public domain (which I don't think is GFDL compatible) and some only to specific users.

Examples:

*"The malicious charge that SwatJester has made that images and comments regarding terminal ballistics gel testing cross-posted at TheHighRoad by John Hanka, aka Grendelizer at 65Grendel.com, are the property of that site when John is not only the moderator on the 65Grendel.com site, but is in fact paying for its existence, are absurd. " (note: this refers to my tagging as copyvio.)

• "Beyond this, SwatJester has a history of destroying the work of well-intentioned contributors on many sites by constantly reverting them to versions he finds more palatable. Such behavior, if allowed to continue by the Wiki staff, will destroy the desire and ability of knowledgeable and well-intentioned individuals to contribute to the Wiki effort."

• "Is it possible that someone here at Wikipedia is on the payroll or has vested stock interest in Remington?" (not so subtly hinting at me).

The talk page had not received any notice in almost 30 days. Suddenly all these posts, with competing and overlapping incompatible copyright releases, most from anon IPs and none of which can be confirmed yet....and then this abuse spewed at me: sounds like someone is organizing off-wiki to orchestrate something on wiki.

And to be honest: I'm F*ing sick of it. I like to think I do a good job on wikipedia. I've been editing here almost a year, something around 8000 good edits on over 4000 pages. It's one thing for a random IP to flame me, or vandalize my user page, that's happened before and it's entertaining. But this is ridiculous.

Will another couple of eyes take a look at this and maybe hearing from an admin that I was justified in removing the copyrighted material will get it through their thick skulls?

03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I should mention one of those editors, User:Solidpoint who was responsible for some of those claims including an edit summary accusing me of vandalism for removing the copyrighted material had this to say on a similar article: emphasis my own.

*"Thinly veiled listing of Pinnacle's bitch list RE: DOD testing

This Wiki page is a disgrace. There is nothing objective or unbiased about anything written here and I say this as a huge DragonSkin fan. If Wiki cannot police itself better than this it is not a credible source of information about anything. This page is not about DragonSkin at all. It is about the unfair way Pinnacle Armor's product was tested and the author is just grinding an axe. It is pathetic beyond description to find this sort of thing in what purports to be an Encyclopedia. I think if Pinnacle were aware of this page THEY would ask for its destruction. No good can come from airing a list of bitches from one side only. This page has zero credibility and will likely injure Pinnacle.

Solidpoint'

I've asked for an apology on his talk page.

03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone want to take a look at this?
  _Fire!
  16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I did... it's absolutely sickening. If they don't get real permissions, this article should be deleted, ASAP. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in any way defending either what other editors may have said to Swatjester, or any copyright violations, but there are a number of external links in the article to sources that very clearly meet

WP:RS. I have edited the external links section to (hopefully) make this clearly. I also believe the article's subject meets wikipedia's requirements for notability, for what that's worth. John Broughton | Talk

20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I popped across to the forum they are all linking to - I take it SOLIDPOINT is the same Solidpoint, who makes the disgusting comment of

I will say this. When that asshole SwatJester crawls out of his mom's basement he better not cross my path or he'll be posting from the ER ward for awhile. That graphic represents more than 100 hours of work just on my end and a lot more from Stan and Mike and others. For destroying that kind of effort I'm perfectly happy to rearrange his dental work and significant parts of his skeleton. --

Charlesknight

20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute. Indef block Solidpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for threat of bodily harm to an editor in an external forum, anyone? Georgewilliamherbert 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree,

personal attacks should be treated harshly.--Isotope23

21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a provisional 48 hour block on User:Solidpoint. I have asked him to make a full and meaningful retraction of his threat and an unconditional apology to User:Swatjester. If these are not forthcoming during the duration of the block I will extend it to indef. Threats of violence in real life will absolutely not be tolerated. Gwernol 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Gwernol's position. Threats of violence made on or off-wiki are completely unacceptable.

Talk

) 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this block. We cannot regulate what fellow editors do on other websites, but in keeping with the findings of several sections of my own arbitration case (namely, principles 1, 2 and 4), Wikipedia does not tolerate harassment, works to effectively eliminate harassment be it through appropriate administrator actions as necessary, and we unite together in our efforts to defeat harassment making sure no one need be isolated by such incidents (in a nutshell). If no evidence of sincere apology is forthcoming...extend block to indef.--MONGO 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I find it a bit hypocritical that people are unwilling to say that a user with the same apparent screen name is the same person when it comes to a copyright release, but are quite content to make that leap when blocking someone for purposeful attacks. Certainly, Solidpoint has been incivil, and should probably apologize to keep things functioning smoothly. But I have found, through my own experience, that sometimes forcing an apology does more harm than good. My impression is that Solidpoint isn't very familiar with the way we do things here, and rather than focusing on retribution, we should try and turn someone who clearly has knowledge and interest in a particular field into a valuable Wikipedian. Permanent banning isn't going to do that. Especially when there's such a clear insider/outsider dynamic as there is here, such measures are just more likely to cause anger. --Eyrian 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Solidpoint has given an apology here. My inclination is to unblock and keep an eye on the situation. Gwernol 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is whether it has been established that these identitys are the same. Has the user admitted they were? has some independent verification been carried out? Are there consanguinuities in the manner of speaking or references to information that at least give some indication of sameness? If that's the case I am tripping over myself to endorse. If not, some qualms remain. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that after the apology was posted, the original comment was removed from the above mentioned forum? --

Charlesknight

22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Given an apology, an unblock and monitor may be appropriate. Stipulating that identity has now been established? ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The apology itself and the removal of the forum post demonstrate that the Wikipedia user and the forum poster are the same person, at least to my satisfaction. I think there is reason to

assume good faith, just, here and remove the block. Any further repetition of these threats or similar behavior should be ttreated swiftly, IMHO. Gwernol

00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow I mised all of this? Yeesh. I think this very much exemplifies the dangers inherent in offwiki groups banding together to push a POV onto their specific articles. I briefly looked through their claims on their forum about me and found so many things, for instance that I had made a diff that I didn't make, that I have never created an article of my own (

_Fire!

23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say that I found that passage of concern. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears the copyright situation has finally worked itself out, however, I'd appreciate it if a few eyes were kept on the situation regarding the personal attacks.

19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user makes an edit I consider valid, am I or am I not permitted to reinstate it after it has been reverted under the unproven pretext that it is a banned user editing? User:Khoikhoi threatened to block me for doing so despite the fact that the blocking policy does not provide for that...--Euthymios 16:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have no idea if User:Khoikhoi is on solid ground with regards to blocking you (I'm not an admin), but it appears the version you are reverting to does not have broad consensus per the compromise agreement in Archive 8 Section 2 of the Talk:Transnistria page. There is a lengthy discussion there where a consensus was reached so you probably should not be reverting this anyway, regardless of where the original edit came from.--Isotope23 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is MY OPINION. You are permitted to reintroduce edits from a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. However, you should not do so using 'revert', you should introduce it as new text. Note that you will be taking full responsibility for the content, so any NPOV or uncited claims, for example, will be your responsibility to fix prior to inserting. The content will be considered to be contributed by you and you may be warned or blocked if it is inappropriate or if it is introduced in opposition to established consensus. It is important to note that you may not reinstate text that a banned user contributed if the banned user has asked you to do so. This would be a violation of

WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, this is just my reading of the policy and my opinion on how things should work. --Yamla

17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with your opinion. It is permissible if someone else puts the information in and is credited with it. But just reverting is not. pschemp | talk 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yamla's opinion has some good precedents. David Gerard once explained on WikiEN-L that he had done the exact same thing, & the general response there was one of approval. I don't know if Yamla is aware of this prior case, but if he isn't then that would only confirm that it is a reasonable solution. -- llywrch 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's essentially what Euthymios did - he reverted to Bonaparte's version. Khoikhoi 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, this leaves me puzzled. What is the difference between "putting information back in" and "reverting"? How do you tell the one from the other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference is who is credited in the edit history. pschemp | talk 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no real difference, of course. But a reversion using the admin roll-back tool is pushing for a wheel war. Reintroducing the change and using an edit summary like "rvv" or the like would similarly be what I mean by a revert. The trick is that an editor must treat it as original content that they are introducing and the edit summary would reflect that. For example, when reintroducing a spelling change, the edit summary should probably read along the lines of "(m) spelling - 'happyness' to 'happiness'". The key point is that the change is treated as new rather than as a roll back to a version introduced by the banned user. --Yamla 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The other key point is that from a GFDL standpoint, it does matter who made it. pschemp | talk 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yamla's advice is ood sense. I'd also make a comment on Talk to confirm that this is what has been done. As long as the edit is good (which seems not to be in dispute) there should be no problem, and if there is I'm sure it can be fixed by rational discussion well before the publication deadline. There being none. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That edit was 1) not vandalism, 2) accurate and NPOV, and 3) there is no proof that it was made by Bonaparte or any banned user. If a banned user corrects a typo and he is reverted in mass rollback, am I not allowed to revert back? Frankly, I see no difference. I would agree if it were a talkpage post or vandalism, however we're talking about an article edit which would be totally legitimate had it been made by a regular user (which there is no proof that that anon was not). Finally, is this blockable and if so how? Don't just say "disruption" - explain how it is "disruption". Many admins block by citing "disruption" but forget that the blocking policy specifies that such blocks are nearly always controversial.--Euthymios 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't reverting a typo though, this is reverting to a version of the articlecreated by an Anon (with a suspiciously good understanding of Wikipedia policy) that is against the Wikipedia:Consensus on the talk page. I would say this would not be a legitimate edit no matter who made it.--Isotope23 17:34, 28 November 2006 (
• In general, when re-adding content of a banned user care must be taken to follow copyright law. FloNight 20:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why the emphasis on copyright law in this context? Surely, edits by even a banned user are GFDL licensed? After all, we may not catch them all. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys might want to take a look at this one. It's already up for deletion. Any advice? MetsFan76 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ANI's not the place for this but I must say that the above template is the most qualified speedy deletion candidate per

T1 that I've ever seen. (→Netscott

) 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What might need looking into is the spamming going on surrounding this template. (→Netscott) 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...I know exactly who you are talking about before I clicked on the link. MetsFan76 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While I personally understand the sentiment behind it, and believe that

WP:NPOV with his/her edits to the messianic sequence of articles, the template was not the proper way to approach the issue, and so I speedied it. -- Avi

06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ולמלשינים אל-תהי תקוה --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from provocations, in prayer form or otherwise. El_C 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Posting in non-English in the English Wikipedia's public forums is rude. If you want to do it on your or other Hebrew speakers' Talk pages, be my guest, but don't do it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And it was recreated, by

type

10:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User has recreated it, DBd it and warned user. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedied by myself. Duja► 11:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User claims on his talk page to have left 13 November. Block to prevent further disruption imo. – Chacor 11:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Use
  Deletion review. El_C
  12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This user really needs to learn about NPOV - look at this for example. Morwen - Talk 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems I'm an "anti-semitic British non-Jew". Yay for me. Oh, template has been protected from recreation, and Daniel has been warned about civility. He is back, in his words, to turn his user page into a "virtual memorial of the personal attacks leveled against me".

type

13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just read that on his page. He should be banned for the anti-semitic British non-Jew comment. MetsFan76 14:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs)/136.183.146.158 (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week on Sunday (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2#Blocked_for_a_week). Tonight the same editor was editing again from 136.183.154.18 (talk · contribs). I have blocked him for the duration of the week block, but have not reset the week block on all accounts. I am not exactly uninvolved, but I believe that blocking for block evasion is uncontroversial enough. I welcome input (feel free to tell me if I am wrong). Guettarda 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as a very involved other use this seems to have exhausted community patience. Over 20 users endorsed the basic RfC complaint and his editing behavior changed not at all. Indeed, his main response on the RfC page was to make accusations at other editors and to assert that "JoshuaZ, the creator of this RFC/complaint page, is a evolutionists zealot and who is on a current crusade against me". At minimum the user should be put on community probation from editing all evolution related articles(as proposed by Pschemp in the RfC) and a general community ban may be more in order. JoshuaZ 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I reset the blocks for the original two, and extended the block to nine days. Feel free to alter that if that is insufficient. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully support the blocks issued to date, as well as gathering consenus for a community ban. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my patience is certainly exhausted. After being engaged in discussion by 136.183.146.158 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) at talk:Dinosaur tonight, I checked his contrib history and found a near-identical series of disruptive edits to other science articles. Ken was blocked for disruption and trolling, and now evades the block in order to continue disruption and trolling. His history makes it clear that he has little interest in building an encyclopedia; POV attacks on articles that disturb his personal beliefs are his mainstay. Repeated discussions, warnings, and blocks have had no effect; stronger action appears to be necessary. Doc Tropics 06:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As his IP continually changes, I respectfully suggest all users involved to please keep an eye out for any similar IPs editing similar articles. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He was also editing from 136.183.154.15 (talk · contribs) yesterday. He seems to have little respect for our rules and policies, and I am not optimistic that Tariq's block will do much to slow him down. I'd going to hope for the best, but if he continues to evade the block I would recommend a community block. Guettarda 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find most editors who have had the experience of dealing with Ken would support such action.

*Spark*

14:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...the multiple sock puppets already is not a good sign for the future. Wait and see I guess. pschemp | talk 19:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose semi-protecting his habitual targets; this has been effective in the past. He isn't trying to vandalize all Wikipedia; he's just trying to evangelize certain articles. By semi-protecting you could halt the disruption without blocking his entire university from anon editing.

Unfortunately this would be a large swath of articles and most of his disruption has been on the talk pages. Semi-protecting talk pages is a no-no. JoshuaZ 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User Demiurge has deleted all my edits and is claiming I am "banned" under a different username. Is this some kind of inter-Wikipedia squabbling or something?

I have no idea to what he or she is referring and as this is my first day on Wikipedia, I did not respond to his initial message to me saying I "might" be someone else. I just forgot about it.

Please help.

Andrew Mikijaniec.

Mikijaniec 17:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• This user's first edit was to copy the contents of the userpage of
  List of notable breast cancer patients according to survival status, and Ovarian cancer, which are interests of Rms, and using other distinctive editing quirks like putting external links inside parentheses [22]. For more, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of [email protected] and User:[email protected]. Demiurge
  17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I did copy the userboxes b/c I don't know how to make them myself, I'm kind of a Luddite, but I only used those that apply to me. If that was wrong, I apologize and I am willing to apologize to the person whose boxes I copied if you direct me to do so.

As far as an interest in cancer, my family has suffered enormously from that disease, and breast and ovarian cancers interest me particularly, so what? I guess it's possible that with millions of users on this dictionary, a couple may actually share the same interests.

Thank you for your time and attention. Mikijaniec 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Luddite": User_talk:Demiurge/Archive2#Like_I_said User_talk:Jack_O'Lantern/Archive1#Ryan_Phillippe.
  

"Canard": Talk:List_of_Catholic_American_Actors#Continuation_6

In other words, this user uses the same unusual words as previous Rms125a sockpuppets. Demiurge 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, but I find it a bit unusual that 2 different people would have a tendency to use such obscure words.--Isotope23

18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a clear open and shut case. Morwen - Talk 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Luddite" is hardly an obscure word... This user certainly seems suspicious, though. --Tango 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To the next available administrator:

I would like to request a "checkuser" as per the advice of Isotope23 so that I can resume my editing and have my edits (which have been deleted by Demiurge) restored.

Demiurge believes I am someone else, but Isotope23 has indicated that good faith should be assumed but as he is not an administrator his words are not binding, and Demiurge refuses to respond to my inquiries on his talkpage.

I really can't believe that because I happen to have a good vocabulary and grammar and sometimes use words that others don't understand or that someone else may have used ages ago that I can be prohibited from using Wikipedia.

Please help!!

Thank you for your time and attention.

Mikijaniec 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is

Thatcher131

19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this in full. Clearly Mikkalai has not bothered to read the DRV or we would not be having this discussion in the first place. -- Tawker 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is going to happen, please let's not wheel war over deletion/undeletion of the article. It has too many edits in its history, you'll bring the servers to their knees. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He re-opened the discussion because he felt it shouldn't have finished, but protected the page making it impossible for anyone to discuss anything there? I can't think of anything to say that wouldn't violate

WP:NPA, so I'm saying nothing. --Tango

21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed as well. Protection is a clear abuse of admin powers.

_Fire!

21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to look at the history for more than 3 seconds. He downgraded the page from full to semi-protection. Note: I agree with the closure and am not defending his actions, rather clarifying what's going on. --

Steel

21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Actually, to clarify. Someone else, who endorsed the deletion, fully protected the page since there was no reason for anyone to edit the page, and it would have likely been a troll magnet. What Mikkalai did was change it from full protection to semi-protection so (most) people could continue to participate in the AfD. -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting and trying to re-open the discussion is inappropriate, but wheel warring to undelete the article is worse. —Centrx→talk • 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I protected it because it was being vandalized. It simply doesn't make sense to have both the AfD and the DRV open at the same time, so I endorse Zoe's and Tawker's actions and not Mikkalai's for process reasons, completely separate from my support for Tawker's original deletion.

22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If Mikkalai has a problem with the close (and it's pretty clear that he does), he's quite free to register his objection at Deletion Review...Mackensen (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming silly - the page has already been protected, blocks made on particularly aggressive users acting inappropriately. Now the edit war has returned over an undeleted image, partly due to the perceived lack of discussion over the original deletion and subsequent rapid DRV. Please could a neutral administrator take a look in and try and do something about this? QmunkE 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think this needs to be re-protected. If the three-revert rule is violated but a couple of the editors, they ought to get the standard twenty-four-hour block. Only if this becomes a melee should this be re-protected, in my opinion. -- tariqabjotu 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User Greier was banned for violating WP:3RR, however, as soon as he disappeared, anonymous users came in and repeated his pattern of reverting the article, even going as far as to mock my wording of the revert, and spuriously requesting discussion(as he didn't even start a topic on the article's talk page). Please respond with all possible haste.--Vercalos 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This belongs at

Chick Bowen

22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

romaniroma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--213.42.21.80 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I find that extremely hard to believe.

Chick Bowen

22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Afrika paprika, with whom I have never dealt before, is back vandalizing a variety of articles. See 89.172.195.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), for example. I have sprotected all of the pages in question, but now he's started vandalizing my Talk page, which I don't want to sprotect ... User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had to sprotect my page because of this idiot's vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This user continues to insert

00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[23] [24] [25] User page vandalism and threats.

22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I indefblocked. Anyone want to pursue the threats issue? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is a sock for blocked user

22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And

22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This guy's using Bell Canada, which is dynamic. We can't block the underlying IPs. --Rory096 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See

01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest is

01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday, new user Piratesofsml (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) began replacing most instances of the word 'deist' in Thomas Jefferson with 'christian'. I indef blocked after a few warnings because the editor was using fraudulent edit summaries that suggested trolling to me, [27] [28] [29], but later reduced to 24 hours because comments on his talk page suggested a willingness to discuss and attempt to support his changes. The user, having bragged about about his leet IP changing skillz and asking why he would stop if he could evade his block, proceeded to continue to replace his preferred version using various IPs, as well as blanking and otherwise vandalizing the article, leading me to semiprotect and extend the main account's block to one week. Bringing here for review. -- Vary | Talk 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorse. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More generally, I have all US Presidents on my watchlist and Jefferson is by far the most persistently vandalized. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone ban this user sharpish.--Zleitzen 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur, this is a vandal only account. Doc Tropics 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Has now been blocked indef. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. See also the above section about this user. Two edit conflicts to post this.... --Rory096 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone put in for an IP check at RFCU? Newyorkbrad 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See No 69 above

01:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BricksFromEurope/Corny Medieval Costume. Probably an attack page against a teen identified by real name and photograph, though possibly just an in-joke among friends, but the page creator is blocked for vandalism so we can't ask him, nor would I trust his answer. Prod has been removed twice, but if this is what I fear it might be, it shouldn't stick around for 5 days. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

speedy speedy speedy -- I somehow didn't see this on my talk page when I agreed to userfy [30]. (image is gone, see image name) *sigh* Dina 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much time to look into this user right now, but could another admin take a look at Lyfe Tyme (talk · contribs)? The user's contributions seem to be a tangled web of self-promotional articles for rap labels and rap artists that don't appear to be notable. I would investigate this myself but I'm tied up with a few other things in real life tonight. Thanks, Metros 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Talk page of

02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Report to

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

04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway only three reverts, not four Alex Bakharev 04:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to get some feedback on the possibility of User:PumpkinPie being a sockpuppet of User:Cute 1 4 u. As you can see by PP's talk page, the user has been welcomed by the other sockpuppet User:Pumpkin Pie (note the space and lack of space in the two usernames)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't think it matters, the editor only had one edit and that was during July. semper fi — Moe 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But it might be helpful if we block every opportunity for Cute 1 4 u to evade her block.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you who thinks that

21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected this morning. In future, you can get a faster response posting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, Kla'quot 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I went to

teb728

04:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point now. BTW for everyone else reading this: I requested semi-protection yesterday morning before I saw TEB728's comment here on AN/I. Both of us had seen the same flare-up of vandalism on Albert Einstein. Admins, what does it take to get indefinite semi-protection on an article? Kla'quot 09:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This was moved from

: Droliver has been vandalizing the breast implant article for months. He is a plastic surgeon who keeps adding links to promotional websites (that plastic surgeons pay to be listed on) -- thus turning this article into free ads for plastic surgeons (presumably including himself, but since I don't know his real name, I can't say for sure). What I can say with certainty is that there are numerous factual errors in his version of the article, in addition to bias. He removed research articles, FDA regulatory statements, and other information about the risks of silicone implants. The FDA now has a 40+ page "informed consent" document to warn patients about the risks, but you'd never know if from Droliver's version on Wikpedia. After reverting to his version of the article several times today, he persuaded Samir to block the article from any subsequent changes. This is all new to me, I am seeking help. Drzuckerman 06:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Viridae^Talk 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say that I took a quick look at the contributions of Droliver (talk · contribs) and there's a definite concern about POV pushing. Pascal.Tesson 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't think the edits to Breast implant qualify as vandalism by any stretch. I wasn't persuaded by anyone to protect Breast implant but did so because of the edit warring. The issues are being discussed at Talk:Breast implant -- Samir धर्म 07:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's always the wrong version. -- Samir धर्म 07:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Always! I LOL'd as soon as I noticed this section header on my watchlist. It's always the wrong version : )Doc Tropics 09:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. The people in edit wars always think there's a game afoot. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the version locked was not the most recent, nor the most accurate. Equally interesting how vehemently the one doing the blocking defends himself. I hope that he can be as diligent in helping resolve the issues and arriving at an article that is accurate - that states the recent approval of the breast implants, along with the conditions and why they were imposed. Ditto with the recommendations. Also reading the sources would be useful, in seeing how they have been shaded or actually misstated. Rather than defending himself so, perhaps Samir can put his energies to constructive use. I not that the comment by Pascal was simply ignored by Samir and his choir. WHen an objective third party sees a problem, it would behoove the admin to pay attention.Jance 07:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting rather fed up with your attacks -- Samir धर्म 07:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Us admins always protect

masterka

07:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't think I was attacking anyone by moving this here - thust thought it was a bit more appropriate (and amusing) Viridae^Talk 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely amusing. Seriously, someone want to do something about this? [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. Personal attacks are getting out of hand and I'm involved. Previously User:Jgwlaw, you can see the block log. It's making it impossible to make any progress on fixing the Breast implant situation -- Samir धर्म 08:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

i would like to report a case of constant and disruptive spamming by

). sometimes the IP's have been used to evade blocks or are used so that he isn't perceived as excessively reverting/spamming with his usual account.

• DAde (talk · contribs) (sample diffs of identical disruptive spamming: [44], [45], [46], there are perhaps literally over a 100 edits identical to these)

behaviour mirrored by various disruptive IPs (likely using dialup):

• 84.146.227.164 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.227.244 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.246.131 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.222.48 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.254.84 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.216.205 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.219.94 (talk · contribs)

i would request administrator intervention here and believe that this editor is starting to test the community's patience, as he has been inserting exactly the same spam for quite a while now.

18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:POINT-making.--Isotope23
  19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And 84.146.219.94 (talk · contribs). It looks like he has a list of Qur'an verses that he wants to publicize, and he repeatedly adds them to any page he thinks they'll go on, ignoring concensus. I support blocking. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

most recently (literally 30 mins ago):

ITAQALLAH

17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Community patience" ban on User:DAde

This user always utilizing the same German dialup company has also been chronically vandalizing the former

The IPs are as follows:

• 84.146.219.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.146.219.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.146.238.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.146.241.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.146.241.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.146.233.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

And now that the Muslim Guild has been merged in the

he's started this same pattern there:

• 84.146.227.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [48]

If ever there was a pattern of behavior that merited a community banning this editor has demonstrated it.

• Fully support 100% community banishment of User:DAde from the project. (→Netscott) 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• WP:POINT making, outright vandalism, and general tendentious editing.--Isotope23
  18:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted his user page as being utterly inappropriate, I endorse a ban. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• I support a ban. I have told this user 2 or 3 times to edit more constructively and consider the opinions of other users, and yet his behavior has not changed at all. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Also endorse, the editor has made no constructive edits whatsoever. JoshuaZ 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• getting to be? How about there. WP:Point and I endorse a ban as well.
  _Fire!
  21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• i too endorse a ban.
  ITAQALLAH
  22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. I nominated his userpage for deletion. --Strothra 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I blocked the account. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• I fully support JzG's action. Sorry for my late involvment in this board. DAde was a pain in the ass. Netscott, Tom Harrison and myself did all what they could but our actions were in vain. I am not sure what to do about the IPs he's been using! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm tired so can't run and check this right now, but can non-admins vote here?
  Danny Lilithborne
  11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

This is a flow-on from an above section. In the section above, Trödel (talk • contribs) expressed concern over two blocks by pschemp while I expressed concern over an additional two blocks without warnings:

• 207.70.152.4 for 48 hours and 68.100.239.10 for 1 week
• NYScholar for 24 hours and this IP for 1 week.

I've found her responses to requests for review of these blocks less than edifying. For example, after telling me to "get [my] facts straight" when I later explained that she was mistaken, she simply removed my message without comment. As is her right of course, but for the fact that making mistakes when blocking for "trolling" has fairly serious consequences, and learning from mistakes is generally a good thing.

While the vast majority of her blocks appear to be perfectly sound username/vandalism blocks, I'd like to see pschemp use more caution with regards to blocking for "trolling" and in particular to both use warnings before applying them and bring the block here for review. I'd also like to see a higher level of civility from her when queried.
152.91.9.144 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User 152.91.9.144, I'm not sure that I understand why you have created two sections here, or why you reordered the comments, repeatedly, in the previous section, or why you're taking quite such a strident tone. It may be best to present the facts dispassionately and succinctly and let the facts speak for themselves. Since those facts ARE presented, the best thing to do now is stop completely,. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

All admin actions can be reverted, if she makes the majority of blocks without error, then theres nothing to be reviewed. semper fi — Moe 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do think pschemp is rather slap happy with blocks!--Light current 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cant agree! Any erroneous block action should be investigated with vigour! And punished harshly if if proven--Light current 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous blocks were reverted and apologised for. Nothing to discuss. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Samsara. Nothing on Wikipedia is used for punishment and that only make looks you look like a troll by suggesting that kind of thing. semper fi — Moe 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not imply (or even hint/suggest) that I'm a troll. I find that GROSSLY OFFENSIVE In fact its more offensive than you could possibly imagine! Thanks! 8-)--Light current 02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. semper fi — Moe 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Light, you are sometimes productive. However, right now obsessing over a block from 3 months ago is unproductive and comes across as trollish. JoshuaZ 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Im always productive! Its just that it may not appear that way to everyone at all times 8-)--Light current 03:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh good god. The NYscholar block was reveiwed here and agreed with by 2 additional admins. The week was shortened to 48 hours. The anons got 48 hours because it was one guy hopping IPs to make the same vanadalism edit. pschemp | talk 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins, as the enforcers of good behaviour, should themsevles be seen to be whiter than white. Thats why I could never pretend to be one!--Light current 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked you three months ago for incivilty and I see you still can't let it go. pschemp | talk 01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt particularly referring to you. But if the cap fits....--Light current 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just let it go LC. semper fi — Moe 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No! I think excessive admin actions should be scrutinised unless apologies are forthcoming for mistakes--Light current 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocking you wasn't a mistake. That also was reviewed by at least 4 other admins who agreed with it. pschemp | talk 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah whatever your friends say must be OK! 8-) --Light current 01:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Internet is serious business. </sarcasm>

Danny Lilithborne

11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I encounter serial vandalism from ip hoppers, the pattern is fairly easy to spot, I block on sight after the first few ips have done the circuit and then add a block summary Serial vandalism to a small group of articles, no warning required so other admins get the picture of what's going on, unless others suggest this is wrong, I'm continuing to do so and I'd suggest pschemp does likewise. --Alf ^melmac 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the suggestion Alf. pschemp | talk 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, adding a comment to the block log entry such "see my blocking log" or "see today's history of (name of article)" might also allow a concerned editor or a sysop doing an unblock review to see how the block falls into the bigger picture in these IP-hopping type situations. Newyorkbrad 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sadly in this case the "concerned editor" was well aware of the bigger picture, but he just didn't agree with me. Though we had a nice civilised discussion on my talk page about it, and worked things out eventually. pschemp | talk 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

its protected so could someone clean up the mess please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonW11 (talk • contribs)

Re Robert Browning - which mess ? I see no obvious problem --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:BITE DACIER doesn't seem to be a vandal, so I've explained to him that the block he'll receive isn't due to his actions, and that he can, and should, create a new account. Could someone block him please? Thanks. yandman 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See this. Imagine you are the boy he is talking about. WAS 4.250 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people are sick. Blocked as well. Moriori 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Starblindy's indef block seems completly uncalled for as a result of his good contributions and nice personal comments and attitudes. Since his formation he has been a useful contributor and created 2 useful and well sourced articles. His block seems to be a rush reaction from him posting a message questioning the blocking of one user. Since that he has been considered immediatly to be a sockpuppet with no real evidence. Starblindy indef block should be reconsidered as to loose such a user would be a great upset to the wikipedia community. --87.74.17.152 09:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize I mis-read an article I think this is the wrong place to discuss matters remove it at will, if fact.
• His name is too similar to User:Starblind. He should at least considering his username. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• May I suggest: User:Starblinder,User:Starblindee, or my favorite; User:AAAAAAAAAAAAH!-That Damn Star Blinded Me! 69.222.174.9 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we've got a group of teenage girls using their talk pages as a chat site, including at least Baby-girl015 (talk · contribs), Beccaboo 06 (talk · contribs), Natigurl 06 (talk · contribs), Cutie Pie06 (talk · contribs). They have been leaving invitations to chat on various User Pages, User Talk pages, and Article Talk pages, frequently blanking the previous content in the process. I've had no luck in trying to communicate with any of them, except to get responses asking if I want to chat. Fan-1967 18:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, do you want to chat? Well, an indefinite block of a user with no useful contributions is unlikely to be controversial. Not that I'm suggesting this as a first response, but if they're unresponsive... Friday (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like trolls than teenage girls to me.--

Crossmr

18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolls, almost certainly. I wonder if this isn't just a bunch of sockpuppets run by a schizophrenic puppetmaster? Not sure how to check. Doc Tropics 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am tracking their moves to see if administrator intervention needs to be enforced. I would suggest reporting them to

WP:AIV if they get out of control, or contact Jimbo and have them ALL banned at once. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams

18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Beccaboo 06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to have created all the following:

1. Babyphat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Big daddy thick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Sexy 06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Big gay bubba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. ! JAY ! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Pretty Ricky1820 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Sexy Virgo Baby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Sexy Jamacian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. BabyBlueStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Sexy Chocolate 09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. Sexy Scorpio10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be more. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was just reporting another quadruple on village pump / policy:

1. Make mi fall 4 u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
2. Wfg100 (talk · contribs),
3. Twdtriplethreat (talk · contribs),
4. Ghsovertime22 (talk · contribs)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This type of activity is a blatant abuse of project pages; it practically borders on stealing bandwidth. I would strongly suggest that steps be taken to shut them down immediately. Doc Tropics 19:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is one case where I think a permant block is warrented on the first offense. Users who have made no actual article space edits and merely are engaging in social networking don't need to continue editing here.--Isotope23 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Meh. They're just kids. Find the IP, notify the school. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the latest response [49]. Not promising. Fan-1967 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• They are just kids... which means they will keep this up unless they are blocked. Heck, at that age I would have probably done the same thing. JzG is right though, Finding the IP and notifying the school is probably the best bet as indef blocks will just mean they create new users and continue it... at least that is what I would have done at that age.--Isotope23 15:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow...I mean, look at girls socializing on

MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal and whatnot. I WAS going to put a final warning message, but it looks like you've K.O.'ed them before I did. I hope they've learned their lesson...--D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams

15:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We had this problem a while back with some users connected to Cute 1 4 u (no surprise that the names are all similar and sound like they belong to African-American teenage girls). If anything, we should delete their userspaces other than the user talk that they have been warned at, and blocked for not contributing to the encyclopedia at all.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I just reverted Cutie Pie06's malarkey back to Fan-1967's edit ("rv chat"). Just this week I saw that someone produced vandalism to Apex, North Carolina and sounded like someone that was black, just to give you the heads-up. I had thought that one of my old friends from elementary school (1994-95; my last years in Cary), Shayna Whelan, was trying to be funny by introducing vandalism to the page which got the Wake County IP blocked by Alphachimp. I was wrong. It's best to find the IP that's doing this, and I hope it's not female students from Wake County trying to get revenge on us at the behest of Shayna Whelan (as to what I think is going on). --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I just warned Beccaboo 06 about also vandalizing a user's page as well. I have warned both girls that the joking can be considered vandalism. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see

05:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support block. Ral315 (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He has clearly exhausted the community's patience as indicated by this. Endorse the block. --Srikeit 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- Samir धर्म 05:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support as well. It makes perfect sense to ban someone who clearly can't work within our framework and refuses to respect Wikipedia policy. Khoikhoi 05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support, inflammatory editor editing from a single-purpose account at a controversial article who has been given every chance to abide by policy and yet refuses. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Both tragic and amusing at the same time! Support.

masterka

05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse is this a record number of 3RR blocks for the same article? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

With 9 blocks on

Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, depending on how you count. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

12:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

bye bye, come back later when you can edit constructively (note: that is slang for "endorse").

_Fire!

07:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. He has said many times that he has no intention other than to edit the J4J article. Alphachimp 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse obviously. This kind of crap we do not need. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Anyone so incorrigible that admins stop even bothering to explain what he's being blocked for (see William's most recent blocks) isn't worth our time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that Calculus Student (

) 13:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef, and user/user talk pages deleted. I've watchlisted them; I decided to forgo the protection for now, in case he/she wants to return and make constructive edits. Looks like the students involved are from Gulf Coast High School. --Slowking Man 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's that time of the year again... there are some accounts that remain unused for months, but when a certain specific issue comes up they suddenly return, make a dozen arbitrary edits and start advocating this issue. Of course we routinely discount new accounts on grounds of sockpuppetry, but these tend to slip between the bars since the account is up to several years old, it just so happens that it only edits when the issue comes up (see DRV for examples). What would be a reasonable reaction to such an account? (Radiant) 14:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User Duja is putting up the article List of Serb war criminals for deletion. I wrote the article and it simply lists notorious people, members of serb army, who commited horrible attrocities during the wars on the Balkans. I feel like that user Duja want's, in some way, to hide these crimes and even perhaps deny them by constantly putting up, a totally fundamental and true article, for deletion. Please intervene with this problem, this sort of things make wikipedia a sorrowful place which really hurts to see. Greetings Ancient Land of Bosoni 14:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been tagging a lot of the articles intended to be listed on that page as non-notable Bios, and several have been deleted already. So it would seeem there is justification for having it's deletion open for discussion. And removing the AfD tag is vandalism on your part. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 14:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with sending the list to AfD. The list does not have even a single reference. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the AfD debate if anyone wants to see what other editors are saying regarding the deletion. →Bobby← 15:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the purpose of AFD - to discuss whether the article should be here or not - simply posting it for deletion is not acting out of line, it is within the rules of the site. Looking at his nomination rationale and the article itself, it does indeed warrant such a discussion. It has pointed me at a series of very badly written and POV articles, many in violation of

WP:BLP.-Localzuk^(talk)

16:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT and is making somewhat uncivil and accusatory posts. (added - and is also canvassing for votes) --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge

17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of the State of Indiana page

The abstract for the State of Indiana calls the state "Manifestation of Hicks" and lists several insults to the state. I couldn't figure out how to edit/revert this part of the page, and do not have the time to learn from work.

If someone with knowledge of how to edit the site/block the vandal can fix this, it would be much appreciated.

A thankfull Hoosier

207.250.133.149 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That appears to have been reverted quite some time before your report here (quick service!); in future, for vandal reports, please go to

WP:AIV. Tony Fox (arf!)

16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For repeated vandalism of

18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is just a case of an anon not understanding
  WP:NOT a crystalball rather than outright malicious vandalism. I've tried explaining on the talk page for the IP.--Isotope23
  18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look severe enough to warrant a block, a note about making sure they cite sources is enough. Shadow1 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Would he be blocked if he continued to do it after your notice? --Jamdav86 20:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The following person RadioKirk has:

• 1) blocked me without any warning.
• 2) claimed "If you're not a sockpuppet, you're a meatpuppet," (his evidence was that a user from a similar IP address was vandalizing both my page and other's and I am well aware of the meaning of both terms). I believe this violates Wiki standards for obvious reasons.
• 3) Completly vandalized my page...the only justification given was "(per user request; history, however, will remain)"

[please note: I am requesting that my page me deleted...not vandalized without justification]. I apologize for poor formating.

I am rememberkigali 131.94.167.215 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You posted an article red link - you are probably Rememberkigali (talk · contribs) --ArmadilloFromHell 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are Rememberkigali, then why did you ask for your account to be deleted in

WP:AN --ArmadilloFromHell

01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I actually moved this from AIV, where it was originally posted by rememberkigali. I've notified him of the move (I first put it on the discussion page of the wrong link, lol, but added it in the right place). Anchoress 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is self-basting—and the response was an unabashed attempt to hide evidence. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the user in question, Rememberkigali. Please help me. I am being harassed unfairly by an admin who has blocked me without warning and is completly abusing my account.

• I would like RadioKirk banned from editing my user-talk page because of the THREE clear violations listed above.

On a seperate issue, I would like either my account deleted or user talk page because of the negative attention, vandalism, and other issues.

• The legal implications of RadioKirk's continued potentially libelous accusations, name calling, and public harrassment merrits your full attention.
• Please take concrete steps to settle this dispute.

Thank you. 131.94.16.243 13:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Making legal threats isn't going to help you very much... yandman 13:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yadman response...please don't misunderstand...I have no time for legal bickering in courts. I think that is stupid.
• BUT Wikipedia states that one must report ANY potentially
  libelous actions to wiki administrators because of their legal implications. While it may not be a biography of living person
  on which the harms occured, it still is wikipedia policy.

• Do you disagree that libel must be reported for legal reasons? I think it should be. That is has to do with rememberkigali makes it more important to me.

• "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." That is wiki standard. In quotes.

• I am asking for fair review because of very unfair actions by others. Thank you.131.94.16.243 13:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Additional events: I was wrongfully accused of trolling, which I am deeply offended. Here is a threat that was made and a quote from the page. I am discussing a dispute...with facts.

Do not report "vandals" who clearly are not or you will be

) 01:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Administrators are not empowered to block usernames for "trolling", although some accounts used for little other purpose have been blocked for this reason and have remained blocked." Source:

trolling

This is in addition to the following:

• 1) Blocked me without any warning.
• 2) Claimed "If you're not a sockpuppet, you're a meatpuppet," and a "troll." (his evidence was that a user from a similar IP address was vandalizing both my page and other's and I am well aware of the meaning of both terms). I believe this violates Wiki standards for obvious reasons.
• 3) Completly vandalized my user talk page without any written justification. He has sent threatening messages after the fact as well. This follows another vandal attempt by another user.

4) There has been little to no attempt at discussion.

I hope these facts are sufficent.

• I am using a different IP address in good faith to address this single issue, which has not been resolved yet (this is to make a clear distinction from an unfair accusation of "troll" "sockpuppet" or "meat puppet". Please note: I am rememberkigali

I can act in good faith as an editor...but please do not let this unfair treatment continue.131.94.216.45 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the only reply I need make. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"You're lucky he didn't call the fbi after what you did.--D-Boy 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)" [50]. Please warn him not to repeat such things. Thanking you in anticipation. --- ALM 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your concern is understandable, but this edit is 5 days old. A caution was not inappropriate under these circumstances, which have been discussed extensively on this noticeboard and are also being discussed in an arbitration case. BhaiSaab has left the project. He seems to have changed his mind, although he may soon be subject to a one-year ArbCom ban. Unless there has been some further incident, no action would seem to be required at this stage. Newyorkbrad 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It also should be mentioned that some context would be helpful when reporting something like this. It's unclear from just that passage if this is a

incivility or just banter between two people who know each other. Adding a bit more information relating to what this message was in response to would help an admin determine if any action is merited.--Isotope23

18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter in which context he has given that remarks. Such remarks are not acceptable even if Bahi Saab is banned for-life from wikipedia. I feel it bad if no admin find such remarks offensive enough to stop the User:Dangerous-Boy repeating them again on some other user page and at some other time. --- ALM 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A similar comment has been repeated by the same user on Hkelkar's talk page, but I don't take such frivolous remarks seriously. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Whedonette started her account in September and has 109 edits, three of which are in the main namespace. However, she has a knowledge of Wikipedian policies that I have never seen in such a new user, particularly one which only made its first edit on November 9. Given that the account has been solely used to aggressively nominate items at MfD, I suspect there may be block-evading going on. Has anyone been blocked in the past few months with such deletionist tendencies? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User is also making some fairly erratic edits. She initially accused me of personally attacking her for questioning her editing history, but now an admin has backed me up and has pointed out that this is indeed suspect, she has become oddly conciliatry. There's something strange going on here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit that my intuition is often wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that Whedonette is the incarnation of banned User: Cheese Dreams, aka User:-Ril-. Whedonette demonstrates an aggressive & disruptive wikilawyering similar to this banned user, as well as other marked yet inconclusive similarities. Does anyone else share this intuition? Or am I simply being paranoid? -- llywrch 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. CheeseDreams/Ril struck me as far less assertive, far more focused on religous articles, and less intelligent. Most of all, the Ril sarcasm struck me as primarily juvenile in nature, while Whedonette's is ... sharper, more angry, more didactic. Do I find the pattern of contribution's suspicious? Yes. But until and unless I see something that falls afoul of a policy, I -- and everyone else -- should assume good faith. My take. My opinion. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I see this because I had far more interaction with CD: in her earliest incarnation, she was always eager to file a complaint with the ArbCom whenever someone crossed her. And CD had a knack for convincing a number of editors, who were normally at odds with one another, to join together & complain about her -- much as Whedonette is beginning to do now.

I'll admit that "assume good faith" should be how we treat every new contributor -- yet there are times that we need to also watch them carefully. Frankly, if Whedonette is Cheese Dreams, but she becomes less confrontational in her future actions here, I won't mind her staying. (And if she isn't, my hope is that Whedonette simply changes her style so people like me don't associate her with a notorious, banned user.) People change, & sometimes it's for the better. But sometimes it is only to change their online behavior enough to obscure their identity. -- llywrch 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Miracleimpulse has once again claimed that I and other editors are "Industry Spin Doctors" or in some way being compensated to edit the Sweetest Day article, including a claim that my extensive edit history and involvement in other edits is some sort of smoke screen to hide my true purpose. He's already been blocked by Durova for the same sort of personal attack against me. This comes on the heels of a

15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I too have been accused of being a spin doctor[51], engaging in vandalism [52], and that I "edit Wikipedia rather relentlessly, almost as if to hide their true purpose in editing Wikipedia." [53]. Funny, becuase I only edited on Sweetest Day yesterday for the first time, and that was to revert the "point" edit noted above. For the record, I have no connection to this Day or the candy industry. Not a dog 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've copied this over to

WP:PAIN is the right place for this discussion; I don't have any experience with that page (or indeed if anyone wants to continue the discussion pertaining to that.--Isotope23

18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, just a heads up that an indefinitely banned user

17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI note also Eowbotm1 (talk · contribs) and Eowbotm4 (talk · contribs) which appear to be related to each other but may or may not be the same person as above --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is continued below under the heading "Ban evasion and vandalism by Eowbotm". --Kyoko 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This user got a mission statement on their userpage. It reads the following:

Hi, I'm Sword of Christ and i live in the North of Italy. I am commited to spreading the truth about the Muslim/Jewish/Protestant conspirisy to destroy the Catholic holy places. I am 100% loyal to the Pope. We should launch a new crusade to recapture these places, espeshally the holy city of Jeruselam!!! Those who defy the Pope, and hense God must be punished unless they repent, for there crimes!!!''

They have been editing dispruptibly articles talk pages such as Protestantism, Islam, Jerusalem, WikiProject Judaism, etc.

It is clear that 48h block would not make their attitude or mission statement change. So i suggest we go for an indef one! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Szvest, I understand your inclination to seek a community patience ban on Sword of Christ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but they've only been blocked twice. While never excusing this user's disruptive behavior is it not a bit early to be calling for a patience ban? (→Netscott) 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 48 hours, I've decline his request for unblocking. However, since this is his very first block I would hope that there is some possiblity (however small) of his becoming a productive editor. I recommend we wait 48 hours and if when he returns he is again disruptive we then block him indefinitely. JoshuaZ 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest a speedy deletion of this

not oriented user page. There should be "NOT" speedy candidates (I don't think there are any). (→Netscott

) 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance Scott and Joshua. I've just been more impatient re their userpage and the tendious reverting of the warning on their talk page. That's fine w/ me. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I left a note, which hopefully will help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents here judging from his/her comments on the talk page I'm not sure this user is going to become a productive editor. Whispering 20:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this user is not being serious. Rather, as people have brought up on the user's talk page, it seems more likely that it is an elaborate "Cute 1 4 u" style prank designed to disrupt wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is time for TheInsider2 to receive an indefinite block due to repeated juvenile vandalism of the article on the

17:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that it appears TheInsider2 is a vandal only account.--Isotope23 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him indef, next time list it in

^{wat's sup}

22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought about taking this to

). All of these accounts have committed vandalism:

Vandalism, POV, and other reverted shenanigans (a lot of which is very subtle)

• Eowbotm1 [55][56][57]
• Eowbotm2 [58][59]
• Eowbotm3 [60][61]
• Eowbotm4 [62](I just now re-added this, is properly cited and should not have been removed) [63][64][65][66]

Evidence incidcating that they're the same accounts (besides the names)

• And an edit indicating that Eowbotm3 is Eowbotm2. [67]
• And edits by Eowbotm3 and Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm, suggesting a link. [68] [69]
• An edit by Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm4, in case more evidence is needed. [70]

I've also found that this user cleared vandalism warnings off his talk pages for Eowbotm1 and Eowbotm4. And just did so again with Eowbotm1 (a day later).

Can we get these sockpuppets of a blocked user who has consistently vandalized on his socks blocked as well? And perhaps an IP ban or something to keep him from doing this again? Thanks in advance. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded by me, as one of his victims

Mgoodyear

19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

69.169.151.61 (talk · contribs) has vandalised at least 21 22 times (numerous times past test4) and is still not blocked. Then my report on AIV was deleted for some strange reason (and not because it has been dealt with - the logs confirm the person is still unblocked). Where are the admins? Quite a backlog @ AIV. Mikker ^(...) 21:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed it by mistake. I was removing a blocked IP when I realized I had removed the wrong one. I then made the bad mistake of reverting rather than simply retyping the right unblocked one back in and removing the wrong blocked one. My apologies. -WarthogDemon 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked.

Cowman109^Talk

21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts later) That's ok, WarthogDemon.

User:Cowman109 has now blocked the ip so the issue has been dealt with. Mikker ^(...)

21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD help

Ok, I don't know what I did, but my browser is attacking my AFD submission. I've tried to submit

_Fire!

21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I fixed it on another computer.

_Fire!

21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

On this note, I had the same problem with 3 nominations today, using (I guess) the same tool. Coincidence? I will investigate further.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Initially there had been a long list of external links for modding the motorola razr V3, they were removed citing spam. Upon removal the vandalism started (inserting the links more than once in the page). The page was semiprotected and the vandalism stopped until Pacificamark started readding the list despite constant spam warnings and discussion on the talk page. Upon doing research for my girlfriend I went back to the first edit that he made and discovered that he added his own motorola modding link (www.hackthev3.com) When doing a google search for just "Pacificamark" the first link to pop up is hackthev3.com and when doing a little more investigating he says he's the owner of the site itself [71] (click on "display images" if the signature doesn't appear initially). I beleive there is a conflict of interests here, he is promoting his own site which is against

22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. This account seems to be used for nothing other than spamming. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has been problematic for a while, but for lack of a solution anywhere else, I'm bringing this here since I'm involved in the problem. This user has a history of getting into disputes with other editors over petty things, and making

.

More recently, he decapitalized "Southern Hemisphere" in that article, and was reverted since it is capitalized in

07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the "history of getting into disputes with other editors over petty things"? And where is the history of being "problematic for a while"? There is no evidence to support either claim. I have had disagreements with User: Chacor twice, and Cordesat has sided with him both times, best evidenced by adding unreasonable warnings to my talk page about the three revert rule. The warnings are unreasonable because my 2000+ edits history proves that I am well aware of and have never violated that rule. Cordesat, however, keeps warning me about the rule whenever Chacor and I disagree about something. Cordesat is willing to stick a warning on my talk page after one revert but declines to stick the same warning on Chacor's talk page after he has had made two reverts. Why is that? I am truly puzzled. By the way, I changed the heading for the warning on my talk page because the warning was clearly unreasonable in my opinion. I did not edit, delete, or archive the warning itself in any way - it's still there for anyone to see.

When have I ever made a

WP:AGF in making these edits? And even if both "Southern Hemisphere" and "southern hemisphere" were stylistically acceptable, which they are not, note the obligation of editors to ensure that articles are internally consistent about style issues

.

The problem I encountered about the standards of the

2006-07_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season is that no one would tell me what the standards were. They just kept saying that I violated them. I repeatedly asked to be told the standards and was ignored for 3 days. Look at the discussion page that Cordesat cites

to see how perplexed I was.

As for the "rapid deepening" issue, I reverted a change twice, discussed my logic for doing so each time, and tried (but failed) to understand the logic of Chacor for opposing the change. Cordesat's characterization of my actions as "repeatedly" is at least a slight exaggeration, as is his claim that I got into an "unprovoked and heated exchange" with "editors." The disagreement was not "unprovoked," was not uncivil, and was with only two editors: Chacor and Cordesat himself.

I would ordinarily assume good faith about Cordesat's complaints, but I think the evidence supports the conclusion that this whole thing is nothing more than harrassment of me for trying to improve an article that Chacor and Cordesat have long been associated with. For example, look at my talk page and you will see a comment from Cordesat about how the author of an article is entitled to decide whether certain edits are acceptable. In this context, i.e., more than a mere disagreement about two acceptable styles, that's an incorrect reflection of Wikipedia policy about authors and editors not "owning" articles. Tennis expert 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, this user would meet the definition we have in

WP:WPTC article) and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory [...] messages. That's all I have to say, I am sick of having to deal with this user repeatedly breaking the set wikiproject conventions only to say later that "if they aren't this way, they should be changed to be so". – Chacor

10:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is an uncivil comment if there ever were one. Honestly, I am not trying to cause disruption anywhere on Wikipedia, and I think an objective look at my edit history would prove it. I am simply trying to improve articles and fix problems where I see them. What I've encountered on

WP:OWN), unwarranted and biased postings of 3RR warnings by an administrator who knows or should know better, and then an unjustified public complaint against me here by that same administrator. And please tell me why "set wikiproject conventions" should be set in stone and not subject to improvement. Where is the Wikipedia policy to support that? Tennis expert

21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when are "the standards of the tropical cyclone WikiProject" policy? I keep seeing all of these discussions about how WikiProjects have the right to set rules for how certain articles can be named and edited, but I have yet to see any Wikipedia-wide policy which supports this assertion. On the other hand, I do see

WP:OWN. User:Zoe|(talk)

17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the comment by Cordesat that Tennis expert mentions in the context of

WP:OWN

: In the case of the changes you made, the person who starts the article gets to choose whether to capitalize "Southern Hemisphere" or not. Don't change it without discussing it first. --Coredesat 07:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may give my opinion, from what I read it appears that Tennis expert engaged in edits that did not meet the agreed upon standard of inclusion of various sources and he was wrong in being persistent with his edits. Also the

- Tutmosis

17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just getting really concerned that the denizens of WikiProjects have decided on rules that they expect every other editor to abide by, in violation of Wikipedia editing policy. Just because a Project claims ownership of an article, doesn't mean that they actually do. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Zoe on the above. This is becoming a real concern. Kukini 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not about us "owning" the article, but when there are conventions set, one expects someone new not to just butt in, but rather to discuss possible changes. The conventions are accepted and followed by every member of the wikiproject; why should we let someone who isn't part and just has a trivial interest in that article break it as he wishes, then when confronted about it say something to the lines of "I don't like it, it's not good, change it"? It is equivalent of someone new joining wikipedia, making personal attacks, and when warned saying "therefore, your policy is wrong, change it" - this policy has been agreed on by consensus. The wikiproject covers all TC articles, it is ridiculous to say that we can't set minimum acceptable standards for articles we cover. I would say we have one of the highest turnover rates for high-quality new articles, and that's thanks a lot to our expectations. – Chacor 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know I have just a "trivial" interest in the topic? When have you asked me about my level of interest? Unlike you, I don't profess to know your state of mind, so perhaps you truly don't believe you "own" the article. But when a new-to-the-article editor makes a change and in response you curtly tell the editor to "learn the standards" and then refuse to divulge those standards while continuing to publicly berate the editor about not knowing the standards, you are de facto exercising "ownership" of the article. When you refuse to discuss improving the standards of an article with an editor despite being asked to engage in a discussion of them, you are de facto exercising "ownership" of both the article and the standards. When you refuse to discuss the logical basis of the existing standards of an article with an editor while publicly berating the editor for wanting to improve them, you are de facto exercising "ownership" of both the article and the standards. And equating anything I've done with making personal attacks, as your last post appears to be doing, violates innumerable Wikipedia policies, foremost among them are civility and assuming good faith. Tennis expert 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, and I must say a typical response from someone who might meet the definition I laid out above. NPA was used only as an example. If you wish to make use of that and read deeper into nothing and come up with some ridiculous attack, go ahead. – Chacor 02:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, he has been enforcing wikiproject standards on tennis articles, such as in this warning to an anonymous editor who changed the scoring format on a few tennis player articles. I find it strange that he does this there, but just makes changes on the tropical cyclone-related articles without discussing them with the members of that wikiproject first. --

17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do federal clowns delete calls for evidence. This thread should be left alone. If there are blatant personal attacks then they're probably just against Federal Clowns. Clowns aren't persons. You know what, you can block my account too. From now on I'm only going to post anonymously. Mark the calendar. Today marks the end of Wikipedia's faux openness. --68.30.217.2 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked

09:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need tendentious editors who act this way. I support your action, MONGO. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"My guess is it's a bug in the Wikmedia software attributing it to me. I would leave it alone. It could be an important administrative or technical flag"

Talk about an imaginative excuse this takes the cake, still trying to figure out what USEBACA is supposed to represent, must be that wikimedia bug... nevertheless I agree with Ghirla ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good block Alex Bakharev 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Righteous block. A pound says that this does not fix the issue, see you in a week or so for the indef :-) Guy (Help!) 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A week? I'll put $1.95 (to match your pound) that he'll be back as an anon or sock within a couple of days. Still, with the block, it might be time to request removal of edit protection from

September 11, 2001 attacks. --StuffOfInterest

12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While now blocked...Cplot has readded the nonexistant template in an edit he made on his talkpage.[76]...I see little evidence this editor will reform.--MONGO 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean a category (not a template). That's not a template there, unless I'm mssing what you're referring too? Either way, what could be the disruption of a user adding a template or category to their own talk page? I'm not clear what allegations are being made here? --67.37.179.61 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to note that an anon popped up and made claims about federal authorities (that's you, MONGO - say, could you tell us who really killed Kennedy?) blocking the IPs and accounts of dissenters, posting all over the Village Pump and Help Desk before being summarily execut... er, blocked. The message mentions Cplot. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

These IPs are all the same ISP

Same ISP as what. As me. I posted those. Not CPlot. We have differentt ISPs and now you're tyring to insuate these are the same as his ISP. You clowns will be exposed. Make no mistake about it. --68.30.225.68 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• 70.8.171.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [77]
• 70.8.159.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.151.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.139.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.132.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.91.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.56.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.87.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [78]
• 68.30.26.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.46.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.31.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.170.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

--Aude (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Verily uncandy Block occassioned by what I believe is revenge. A nomination that appears to be based on pure prejucial facts, such as cplot's previous track 3RR record of being blocked. I hope Mongo will have the decency to realize that he is only making the situation worse and is not only avoiding the main issue but violating

)

I have extended Cplots block to indefinite due to him using IP's to evade the block. Ip's and Cplot make the same spelling errors, and there is of course a list Cplot socks--MONGO 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I also have to say that looking at the list of suspected CPlot sockpuppets, you're not getting Cplot or me. You're just casting a wide net that will hurt other Wikipedia contributors. It would be better for the Wikipedia community to just come to an amicable solution to this dispute. There's a lot of IPs out there. I don't know exactly how many, but it's a lot. And I don't care which one I use. On the other hand, you have not identified any that CPlot uses. How about next time I use Mongo's IP address. Which one are you using Mongo. I'll use that to post next time. --68.30.199.11 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing that's funny. CPlot posting on the chicago bears and football (from one of the socalled sockpuppets). You don't know CPlot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.199.11 (talk • contribs)

Possible admin abuse which needs to be investigated

For months MONGO has been involved in a prolonged edit war with 9/11 pages, including the

, which was initiated by MONGO.

Since 21 November 2006 [79], on the

MONGO just erased this comment from an anon, which defended Cplot. [80] I partially restored the edit.[81], but there's more information incrimjinating toward MONGO still elft in the history log.

For a small taste of MONGO's administrative behavoir, please see the above, where MONGO threated to ban Salvnut and several editors and admins condemed this action: Is_mentioning_Occam.27s_Razor_a_threat.3F

Suggestions

1. A couple of admins need to look over the edit war between Cplot and MONGO.
2. Based on #Is_mentioning_Occam.27s_Razor_a_threat.3F and the actions with Cplot, MONGO should ask a third party neutral admin to look at punishing editors he is in arguments with. MONGO should not do this himself.

Signed: Travb (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I second travb suggestion. I believe there is grounds for an RFC based on the lack of wikipedia civility. (see comments at

WP:Block.) I can definatelly sympathise if cplot is suckpepetteering. However, there may be grounds to extend the current block if he is. Nevertheless the alleged sockpuppets is all a secondary matter... and again prejucidial information that should not be considered for the original block. I have investigated the communications between cplot and MONGO and I believe MONGO has abused his administrive powers because of his lack of civility towards cplot and then his biased controversial block, which violates WP:Block rule. Currently I have tried negotions with MONGO as a neutral party and this doesn't appear to be working. As part of my AMA affiliation and ethics to WP:DR and wikirules, I will need to follow through with all the necessary steps.--74.101.14.217

16:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Um, stirring up old shit matters wouldn't get us anywhere. Its the talk of the now. Majority of the users above seem to endorse this block. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Those admins support this block because they got one side of the story. This is not "old" matters. There is a consistent pattern of possible Admin abuse. See #Is_mentioning_Occam.27s_Razor_a_threat.3F where the person wrote the following:

This has been a problem once before when MONGO wanted to have an article call some people "conspiracy theorists", another user reverted that as not being neutral, and MONGO blocked them and threatened to reblock for a week if the user reverted him again. In that case there was not even a thin justification like this 'threat of violence with Occam's razor'... rather a direct statement that he would use his admin position to 'win' the content dispute. While the community largely gave him a pass (incorrectly IMO as that block threat was beyond the pale) there was a general agreement that he should refrain from admin actions/threats for disputes he is involved in. This current incident seems to be very much along the same lines. --CBD 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This has happened many times before, where MONGO gets in a edit war and bans a user. Travb (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Travb, my, my, defending the actions of an obvious disrupter again? Didn't we already see you do this immediately after the egregious harassment I dealt with from

User:Rootology? You remeber, he was indefinitely blocked and immediately upon seeing that, you made some really bad accusations against Fred Bauder and myself...defending the actions of those here to disrupt or harass certainly is something to question.--MONGO

20:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a disrupter most definitely does not make them so. Especially when the only evidence for disruption seems to be removing your edits, and you threaten to block more if they are removed again. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what else we can call them...the evidence for disruption was more than apparent to anyone who bothered to examine the case.--MONGO 05:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess CBDunkerson, CBD (who brought up the threat you made to Pokipsy76 above), Pokipsy76 (who you blocked above in an edit war), Salvnut (who you threatened to blok indefinetly for a comment about Ocumms Razor), Seabhan (who you edit warred with for 6 months and then called an Arbcom), and those six or 7 editors who said you were out of line are disrupters too? I will address the entire case against Rootology and my role in it in detail here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. Including the names that you called me and all the threats you made to me, stating that my comments were trolling and harrassment.[82][83] [84]Travb (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, see you there.--MONGO 05:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone block user User:Preform - a confirmed sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user. I already added the tag on the page. --Zleitzen 03:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Preform came onto the unblock-en mailing list to admit that he's MagicKirin. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A group of Russian users is systematically removing Category:Genocide from the article about Holodomor, a famine engineered by Soviets as a tool of genocide against Ukrainians that took millions of lives and crippled the eastern regions of Ukraine. An organized group ignores official recognition of the events both in Ukraine and internationally and instead engages in playing semantical games, pretends Ukrainians are "politicizing the famine", and backs their believes by a handful of quotes from some scholars who dispute the applicability of the term. --193.219.28.146 19:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Highly offensive and trollish "complaint". Issue is discussed in the article and talk ad naseum. Sources provided, different views presented. User refuses to discuss, runs sterile revert wars, refuses to log in, offends other editors with ethnic characterizations (besides false). The owner of this single use account needs reprimanded and/or warned. --Irpen 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in replying to this personal attack, however I find it very illustrating of the problem

Point of information from an uninvolved party: The second paragraph of the article clearly states that while most contemporary scholars agree that the famine was caused by Soviet policy, it remains disputed whether this constitutes genocide. Therefore it appears that this is simply a content dispute and not a matter for administrator intervention. —Psychonaut 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not simply a content dispute, there is an organized and apparently well entrenched in Wikipedia group that's trying to remove a fact they consider unpleasant for their nation and I gave been banging my head against a wall for the last day to include a crucial, completely obvious and widely recgonized fact in the article so that people reading about genocide can find this articles. Of course people with a political agenda can find publications supporting their point of view, just as the Turks blindly relie on Justin McCarthy (American historian) and they can take other publications and twist to their ends, however the general opinion of the scientific community and international recognition is far more important. --193.219.28.146 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to refute the filers point, I'm an American and I've been reverting the POV edits. And one of the others reverting the filer's POV edits is French. This isn't an organized group, we all just agree that Wikipedia must remain NPOV, as required by NPOV. TheQuandry 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say every one who does this is Russian, just that there is an organized Russian group. It's quite likely that You just got taken for a ride. --193.219.28.146 19:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There's always a

cabal, isn't there? And calling this "not a content dispute" doesn't mean it isn't one. -Amarkov ^blah_edits

19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you wrote in response to my post backs up your argument that this is not a content dispute. A content dispute is a content dispute; it makes no difference whether one side of the argument has one proponent or twenty. You should take this to

WP:RfAr, not here. —Psychonaut

19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense. So far, any independent international body such as UN failed to recognize the Holodomor as genocide (despite being asked to several times). Until then... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anyone who commented to this thread is Russian. I don't see why so many people need to discuss such preposterous accusations at length. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Russian, no matter what my username would lead people to think, by the way. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying anything like "all Russian are evil", quite to the contrary the vast majority of Russians are really decent people, just like the vast majority of people of any nationality. The problem is that a small but aggressive minority of Russians refuses to accept the crimes committed by their country. Right now, right here a group of Russians is trying to remove the category tag from Holodomor so that people won't find information about the event when they browse the category, this however is only a small organized group and on the Russian Wikipedia which contains a much more representative cross section of the Russian society the article is present in ru:Категория:Геноцид (a permalink to the article before this happens [85]). I'm sure that now that I wrote this here the Russians editing this article here will try to remove it, but I am also confident the administrators there who are more familiar with the subject then people in English speaking countries won't allow this. --193.219.28.146 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're not quite understanding what you're being told. You are in a content dispute. Admins aren't here so they can block people whose edits you dispute. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker of English so perhaps I failed to explain this: this isn't a content dispute, the fact that Holodomor was a genocide directed against the Ukrainian nation is widely and unequivocally recognized, the fact that a small group of Russian editors can pull a stunt like presenting it as an open dispute here is caused by the lack of familiarity with the topic in the anglosphere.

It is not "unequivocally recognized". No international body has ever characterized it as genocide. And however much you may prefer your sources, they have their sources, which you can not just dismiss. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

btw browsing through this page I noticed that the people most activly engaging in removing the tag are apparently well known trobule makers.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, and it definitely doesn't mean an admin should use their powers to make a content dispute be resolved on your side. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear anon (193.219.28.146 - please consider registering), I have to agree with Amarkov that this is the wrong place to bring the issue up. The first place is the article's talk page; if you feel that more neutral editors are needed, there are

22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

sure and then you can put every single one in there. --193.219.28.146 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I see the Russian comrades resorted to their favorite trick find a really screwed up nut [86], so they can present themselves as the "liberal Russian" to the West. That's why they keep Ziuganov and Zhyrynovsky in the Duma.

This is a content dispute bordering on personal attacks by the complainant. If you disagree with an editor(s)' edits, use

dispute resolution. --²¹⁰physicq (c

) 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:69.141.208.92 (Talk, Contribs) keeps removing the real name of Delirious (wrestler). He has done this now ten times, always without an edit summary or explanation for his actions. I have added warnings into his talk page to no effect. ↪Lakes (Talk) 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as he only does it once a day, just revert him, but only if you can't get him to come to discussion or explain his reasoning (otherwise it's edit warring). But I would say, if he continues to not provide explanation, just put it back up. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just discovered that Bosna 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded dozens of images with missing or false source and copyright licensing information (see upload log). He has been repeatedly warned about this behaviour (see User talk:Bosna 101), and the vast majority of his images have been deleted or are to be deleted for copyright violation. I recommend that this user be blocked indefinitely until he confirms on his talk page that he has read and understood the copyvio warnings posted there, and has agreed not to upload further images with false or missing source/copyright information. A short-term block is inappropriate because this user seems to contribute to Wikipedia only occasionally. —Psychonaut 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick review shows that this users edits divide into: uploading of unsourced images; linking unsourced images; changing internal to external links; not much else. I have blocked them. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Significantly, the user continued to upload problematic images long after he started receiving warnings. I think a block is appropriate until the user can demonstrate that they understand the requirements with respect to images. --

talk

) 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

71.219.142.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disrupting several articles due to a dislike of Chaos magic, apparently. Multiple placements and re-placement of {prod} tag, followed by incomplete nominations for deletion. He requests citations, then reverts the article when citations are provided. Has been listed on the vandalism page already by 999 but no action has been taken. Has also repeatedly removed content from articles. —Hanuman Das 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has also shown up under the IP addresses of 71.219.150.102 and 71.219.142.137. --Tsuzuki26 04:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For repeated vandalsim of Dylan and Cole Sprouse. I have warned him and he still presists on vandalising the page. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reported to

WP:AIV. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Request roll-back - Anon spamming multiple links for same pharmacutical company

User:203.36.224.162 has added to multiple articles on drugs external links to GlaxoSmithKlein Australia webpages for the drug. Yet all the articles already contain one link to GSK's description of their product, namely their American website fork. We surely do not need to link to every webfork page GSK maintains for each country across the world? (No I'm not being pro-US here, as a British citizen I feel no desire nor need to add additional links to GSK's UK fork too) Adding such multiple links seems inappropriate and spamming (unless of course the regulatiom or licensing in one country for a particular drug is notably different).

Can an admin consider rolling back these additions as wikipedia is not a directories listings ? David Ruben ^Talk 05:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a blatant example of spamming. I've reverted the anon & blocked him/her for 48 hours. Khoikhoi 05:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow that was quick - thank you :-) David Ruben ^Talk 05:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem! You might want to double-check to see if I missed any. Khoikhoi 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WTGDMan1986 (talk · contribs) has been warned numerous times about ridiculous edit summaries, including several times by myself. This edit is pretty much the bottom straw for me. He added several userboxes to his user page with the edit summary: Added even more userboxes I forgot a month back. Shane McMahon can leave that N.C. state trooper alone when it comes to girls or Jun Kazama will BREAK HIS ARMS. So THERE. Many of his edit summaries include personal attacks on vandals and just belligerance unrelated to the actual edits. Here are some other examples [87], [88], [89] (which was a totally inappropriate revert as it is, but thats another story). These are the ones that I found most inappropriate [90] [91] [92], [93]. More recently there have been edits like [94] [95] [96] and [97].

In addition, the user is saying things like "you have been reported" in the edit summaries, then reporting users to

22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, there's the user page which is being used to write a sort of odd novel on Wikipedia's dime. Metros 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He's just under twelve years old. Problem? Anyway, I think the excessive irrelevant content ought to be deleted. This isn't his personal website. -- tariqabjotu 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait never mind; that was one of the fictional characters that was under twelve. I'm deleting the irrelevant content. -- tariqabjotu 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the user is still going at it, now he's calling any vandal edits "Shayna Whelan". Apparently per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chatting_uncontrolled this thread, Shayna is a girl that WTGD knew in school in 1994. now he is accusing her of any act of vandal edits or trolling that is occuring on Wikipedia. Can I get another set of eyes on this? This is getting increasingly ridiculous. Metros 16:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Simonapro (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

F0xfree (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Editing same articles. --

15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See also:

16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppetry with additional involved IP's confirmed by checkuser [98] --

06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Request indef block of accounts and IPs that are used by indefintely blocked user to evade block. --

17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the talk page of

22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Procedure-wise things seem to have been done properly, as the terms of your probation does indeed state that you are placed on Probation and that you may be banned from any article or sets of articles for disruptive edits. A discussion here would be good concerning the article ban, though, as, while it is only for a week, at a glance I cannot find extensive editing or disruption on

Cowman109^Talk

22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't looked into the actual situation at

dense to me. Friday (talk)

22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just putting [101] a POV tag to an article is disruptive, when you explain your point on an article's talk page [102][103] using reputable sources? I had a similar discussion at the

Intangible

22:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

An article ban under a probation must be for good cause.

Intangible has edited the article a couple of times and gone to the talk page to explain his edits; it does seem a bit much to describe it as disruptive. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym

&#148;. 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This POV list was absent from the article for almost five months [106], and at present doesn't even provide for any context.

Intangible

23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just an arbitrary, capricious, and unilateral ban, because I was bored and looking for trouble. I saw Intangible quietly walking along, minding his own business; chuckling evily to myself, without warning I sprang from my lair and knocked him on the head, for no reason. See the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Need review of endless ongoing situation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So because

Intangible

00:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not because he claimed it, but because after checking I found it to be true, and after inviting comment I didn't hear any persuasive counter-arguments. If you won't read what I wrote on the noticeboard, I see reason to repeat it here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I read your response before commenting on your user page. The only other admin comment was from

Intangible

01:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also referred readers to my extensive comments at

WP:AE. For example, I said In other words, describe the fact that some pundits characterize a party as "Far-right"{fact} while other pundits or the party dispute it{fact}; don't pretend the characterization doesn't exist. [108] I noted that the original list of "parties considered Far Right" looked like some editor's opinion, because it had no sources and many of the parties were not called Far Right in their own main articles. I suggested rebuilding the list using sources who characterize the party as Far Right, or by making sure that the party is labeled Far Right (with sources) in its main article.[109] I then said If Intangible disputes editors' characterizations of far right groups, make sure you are quoting reliable sources rather than your own opinions. If he removes them then, it may constitute disruption. [110] Remember that NPOV does not mean articles should be neutered of all points of view, merely that all significant points of view should be included, and the reader should not feel that the article is taking sides. [111]

It is clear that you won't let the issue go even though the list is almost entirely sourced, and the article ban is appropriate.

I have other issues with Cberlet's conduct, but this is not the place for it, and I do not agree with every complaint he has made about you. In this case, if reliable and notable sources (media, politicians, political scientists) decide to call a party "Far Right," "Far Left," or even "Stinky cheese", then we can report that as long as it is clear we are reporting the views of others with sources. If you do not accept this and continue to fight the issue after the 5 day ban expires, it will probably be extended.

Thatcher131

01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Two points. There is no context in the

Intangible

14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently I should have just used the hoax tag instead. No more for me.

Intangible

15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

title changed by request

I received this threat message from user:Steel [112] if I was to remove violence statistics. Arrest statistics were removed from another article [113] so I don't see why I should be blocked for doing the same. --Mihai cartoaje 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside your mind-boggling comparison of

African American to Schizophrenia, that edit was not a "threat", but a strongly worded reminder that we edit collaboratively here. Try making whatever point you have to make through dialogue with other editors, instead of writing complaints with inflammatory section headings here. Jkelly

23:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

whatever point you have to make? What are you referring to?

I have had dialogue with other editors. I think that I am the one who has written the most comments on the talk page.

I don't understand: I am the one who has discussed the most. Why should I not be allowed to edit the article? --Mihai cartoaje 00:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a "loudest mouth" contest. The person with the most edits does not "win". You were given a reminder to edit nicely. Deal with it.

00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, can I be blocked for removing violence statistics or not? --Mihai cartoaje 00:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can if it's against an overwhelming consensus, as is the case here. --

Steel

00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Users can vote multiple times by creating multiple accounts. --Mihai cartoaje 02:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They can, but there is no reason to believe that they are. Writing lots of comments does not make you right, and people who disagree sockpuppets. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, user:Nehwyn was created on 14 September and placed a level-4 warning on another talk page less than 2 weeks later. How can a 2-week old account know whether another account shall be blocked? There can be others, too.--Mihai cartoaje 08:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Stretchier than Laffy Taffy, but irrelevant regardless. Don't be disruptive just to make a
  Danny Lilithborne
  08:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not been disruptive. What is written about me on the talk page is not true. --Mihai cartoaje 09:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just indef blocked Sword of Christ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is clear he intends to be disruptive on religion related articles (see his blocklog) and his username is a clear violation of username policy, especially in light of his edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support that block. Very POV pushing if you ask me. Viridae^Talk 10:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am confused. Mgm, you've just unblocked the account to change duration to indef but i still don't see any indef block! - Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this before, on the block log for Mil Falcon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (where nufy8 unblocked to reblock, and even though they reblocked and I reblocked nothing further has shown up). Sometimes when you unblock and reblock quickly the block log gets bunged up and never shows any further blocks. Its possible too that MGM forgot to reblock, but that account hasn't posted to anything but their talk page after the block. Syrthiss 12:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

indeed Syrthiss 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Thanks Syrthiss. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 13:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an ongoing and very unpleasant discussion by several editors (normally using IP addresses not name). Poor attitude a lack of

12:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

SETI "Consipracy" section was taken out without any notice!

Someone removed the

14:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was removed by a registered user, so that wouldn't help - note that it was also restored by someone else a few minutes later. More importantly, it's not vandalism, it's a content dispute - some people think a YouTube video is a sufficient source for an assertion that SETI is hiding extraterrestrial signals, some don't. Talk it out on

Talk:SETI, content discussions are what it's for. It's not an admin issue yet. If it gets more serious, see Wikipedia: Dispute resolution, but it's not that serious yet, talk it out, please. AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

14:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the user who removed it. It fails to meet any possible interpretation of

SETI and the user talk page of the two other users involved, I will be removing it shortly if the quality of the reference is not improved. The attempt to use page protection to resolve a content dispute is absolutely inappropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎

) 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Nima Baghaei (talk • contribs) is asserting that a 'moderator' has told him the section can stay despite the lack of sources. We're discussing this further on his user talk. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The article on Patrick Stewart is being vandalised with nonsense, the cause of this are rumours of his death. I have semi-protected the article but is that the best option. Gnangarra 14:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It should only need to stay on for a day or two, though, until the rumours die down; take it off after that (if they carry on, put it back on for another day or two, and repeat).

type

15:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a mild debate going on over an AfD proposal on a clearly bogus article. There's all sorts of issues going on now with sockpuppets, personal attacks, and reverts. The PA was against me, and incredibly mild (pimp slap to the face) so I don't really think it needs PAIN. The sockpuppets (meatpuppets?) are obvious and harmless and the reversions don't really need protection since the article will certainly be deleted after process. If an admin would like to go over there however, it would save me the headache of dealing with the schoolchildren. The article could certainly be speedied as patent nonsense, but I'm sure the author would protest and then we'd have to go through this again after DRV. It's really up to whoever gets here first. Thanks! →Bobby← 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I speedied it as vandalism (

WP:CSD#G3). No sense in wasting anyone's time over this kind of crap. If another admin disagrees, feel free to overturn. -- Merope

16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Article was already recreated. I put a speedy tag on it, but you may want to salt it instead. →Bobby← 16:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A user is constantly removing a WikiProject tag that is added to Muslim and non-Muslim scholars of Islam. He is disputing that the subject was Muslim, and is thus removing the tag, ignoring that it is irrelevant if he was a Muslim or not, even though i have desperatly told him so. This is vandalizm marked as minor edit. Here is a few of the many times he has removed the project tag: [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] --Striver 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've intervened with the involved parties and left my meager two-classes-in-Islam-in-undergrad opinion on the talk page. However, keep in mind that

WP:3RR applies to talk pages, too. I'll monitor the situation. -- Merope

17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Human rights article has been modfied with obviously "stupid" text

This is the text that appears in Human rights article in the first paragraph

Even Michael Schumacher and his father Niki Lauda were victims of Axel Schulz and acted without ears in Westsidestory. Herr Sch nautz won quite a few money chez Günter Jauch and won 32 dollaris. now he goes to restorate mr holtmanns teeth. Nobody loves andi heiming

I do not know how to bring back older version.

Fixed. You can read

WP:REVERT to learn how to restore vandalized articles to their former version. -- Merope

16:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See related AN/I issue.

02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

<disclaimer>I'm involved in the discussion, arguing generally the same point of view as Whedonette.</disclaimer>
Not to take sides with either Whedonette or Yuser31415, I'll just say that a) sarcasm is hardly the type of thing that needs to be resolved here, or at all; and b) that if anything, Whedonette is the one who could be making a complaint here regarding borderline incivility. However, I really don't see any situation at all that needs intervention, but you're free to look and make your own decision. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Yuser31415.--

SUIT

04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

<Same disclaimer as Doug> Getting annoyed by one's sarcasm is not really an issue that requires admin intervention, is it? And the point of an MfD is to generate debate.

dzasta

04:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree.

@?

04:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that my frustrations were listed due to Whedonette asking for my opinion. I'm a sarcastic person myself, so the posting (which is back and forth on both of our talk pages) should be taken in toto and not out of context.--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that being intensely sarcastic and aggressive is not something for Admins to concern themselves over. But as my previous section says, there is something deeply suspicious about someone who knows so much about Wikipedia and its policies that from Day 1 they MfDed everything they didn't like. I was here three months before I knew enough to AfD something, let alone how to dispute the nuances of policy. This person should not know so much so soon. Also, her responses to allegations to sockpuppetry are all "This is the only account I edit under" - that would make sense if she has been blocked in a previous one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to close this AIV. Thank you.

@?clean

23:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack (?) not for PAIN?

Yes, I am well aware we have a big note that '

18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion of the latest stage in Proconsul's two-year-old anti-Ghirlandajo crusade moved to User_talk:Piotrus#Under-the-carpet maneuvers. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion WAS NOT MOVED, but it appears to me Ghirla is trying to avoid public scrutiny by posting further personal attacks on my talk$ page (where in the space of few hours he accused me of attempts to 'block [my] opponent behind his back','arrogant, uncooperative attitude and proclivity for incivil threats', 'frantically champion[ing] revisionist views of European history' and others - and this posting on ANI is reffered to as 'post[ing] yet another slur'. I hope the community will not ignore such actions, determine who in fact is doing the 'slurring' here and take appopriate actions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith and accusing me of unspeakable offenses on all public boards of the project. This has all been tried by you during the last couple of years. Within last hour or so, your behaviour was reprimanded by several wikipedians on your talk page. I don't see why you attempt to flee that discussion. No responses from you have followed there as yet. If you are unhappy with the way

WP:ANI is not for posting lengthy jeremiads, resolving content disputes, or examining your behavioural problems. Your talk page is the place. --Ghirla ^-трёп-

19:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, what 'unspeakable offences'? I just quoted your posts from my talk page. As for 'my behaviour being rerpimanded by several wikipedians', several = you and User:M.K, a relativly new editor with whom I was involved with several content and civility disputes in the past - hardly a neutral reprimand. I don't see why I should reply to your series of personal attacks lacking a single diff on my talk page, especially as you habitually remove my comments from your talk page. I asked the community for input - please don't attempt to 'sweep the issue under the carpet', to use your phrase, by telling readers of ANI this issue is discussed elsewhere or that the community has already passed a verdict.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

P.P (aka Piotrus Prokonsul) do not forget to mention your own deeds, which contributed to situation also [122], [123], [124] who do not know Polish could find some answers here M.K. 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The full discussion is available here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#Disruption_during_polls_and_xenophobic_remarks. Unfortunatly no consensus was reached, although most editors seemed to agree there were no xenophobic remarks nor poll disruption, and I most certainly appreciate comments by George, Alex and others who did their best to diffuse the situation. Nonetheless please note we are not discussing edits from late October, or even recent ones, but the issue of why my thread was removed from PAIN.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User Piotrus has this habit of seeking the upper hand in content disputes through achieving the blocks of his opponets, particularly by inciting others to do the dirty work (so the request above with his own name signed is rather atypical). Further, user likes to portray the content disputes as civility issues while he supported me when I condemned such approach when a similar attack was mounted on his friend user:Halibbut (Multiple editors annoyed by Halibutt's POVness mounted a civility attack at that time and I called to go back to the core of the issues, tha call Piotrus supported expressing double standards). The endless crusade this user carries is moved by him between multiple pages, article's space discussions, edit summary fields, user talk space, Wikipedia space and even the DYK page. User needs to be told to take a Wikibreak/cool it and return to creating encyclopedia rather than running extermination campaigns and attempts to involve others in them. --Irpen 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, your accusations from above, not backed by any diffs, are rather offensive in themselves - but serve well to illustrate how you attempt to deflect any criticism of Ghirlandajo (diffs: another accusation of me of acting in bad faith by seeking input on Ghirla's activity, removal of criticism of Ghirlandajo's personal attacks from discussion page). You are of course entitled to an opinion, but I hope more neutral members of community (i.e. ones not involved with near constnat content disputes with me like you) offer their opinions on your actions, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I am tired of following your incivil remarks from one board to another for the whole day. This continues for years. For instance, when a week ago I was called a hating racist, you instantly popped up on WP:PAIN to dismiss this comment as quite neutral. The case was dropped and I did not cry about it for days on all public boards in Wikipedia. Once you leave me alone, you immediately start harrassing Irpen, or M.K., or Renata, or some other "incivil" wikipedian who dared contradict your views. You are continually in conflict with scores of wikipedians from Ukraine, Russia, Lithuania, Germany -- all neighbours of Poland, actually. Your strategy has been exposed repeatedly and doesn't cut ice anymore. Don't you think that the problem is with you rather than with others? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, your misinterpration of diffs is not constructive. What you call '[Piotrus] instantly popped up on WP:PAIN to dismiss this comment as quite neutral' is in fact nothing like that, as any editor who follows the diffs can see; I in no place absolved Jakko or defended him, but simply pointed out that you are also behaving incivil in discussions with him. Your accusations (again, lacking diffs) that I harass other editors are further violations of WP:NPA; I also don't see myself at conflict with scores of Wikipedians from 'neighbouring countries' (please provide some scores of diffs to back up your claim). Finally, claiming that you 'exposed my strategy' - whatever it might be ('to bring up a new anti-Ghirlandajo troll' perhaps?) - is an amusing, if not a very logical argument.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I have no idea why Piotr spoke in favor of Ghirlandajo at Ghirla's RFAr. Clearly it wasn't for the gratitude. --Ideogram 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I have long ago learned that offering criticism is not a way to earn gratitude and make many friends. On a minor note: there was no Ghirla's RfArb, although there has been a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo which we begun with 'User:Ghirlandajo is a great guy' - is this the case you are reffering to? I have never denied that Ghirladnajo is a very active and prolific contributor, and I have pointed that out in several controversial cases, but unfortunatly, I think it is obvious Ghirlandajo is also an editor with little regard for civlity (as noted in RfC and many other cases, his block lock including) - and no matter how active an editor one is, that person must be held to the same standards as the rest of us.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. Oh, I think you refer to my statements during the declined RfArb request against Ghirlandajo from September ([125], [126], [127]) when I pointed out that at that time Ghirlandajo was behaving reasonably civil as far as I knew and that I can offer no support in that RfArb. Indeed, that surely is more fuel for Ghirla's accusations that I am organizing an 'anti-Ghirla crusade'...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I regret to say that I, too, have had a less than ideal experience interacting with Ghirlandajo. I believe my first direct interaction with him was when we disagreed on how to title the page currently located at Polish Expedition to Kiev. I was unable to engage him in discussion on the talk page and was instead faced with impolite edit summaries (1 2). Ghirlandajo then accused me on my talk page of "disruptive activities", "move warring", and "unsubstantiated disruption", and threatened me with blocks, but deleted my reply from his talk page, accusing me of being a "tendentious editor". I sought the advice of sysop William M. Connolley, who gave Ghirlandajo a warning. Ghirlandajo responded with some odd accusations, but ignored my rebuttal. Since then, my interactions with Ghirlandajo on various talk pages have been tense at best. I always strive for constructive collaboration, but in the case of Ghirlandajo this has been very hard. Appleseed (Talk) 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for comments, but please note that I did not start this thread here as an RfC for Ghirla (this is not a place for RfC on users), but rather to ask if the reasons this thread was removed from PAIN are valid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC) PS: For reasons I cannot fathom this thread was recently deleted.

Asking as a relatively new admin, I made my first block today and want to know if I crossed all the i's correctly (i). It's of

14:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks reasonable to me - a textbook case of a somewhat puerile vandal who thinks he's being funny. (Radiant) 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong here. Keep up the good work! Alphachimp 14:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's a school, I think 48 hours is excessive. You're punishing a lot of people who did not vandalize

crztalk

15:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An anon-only softblock should not be a major problem, though. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrr. Two weeks as an admin without a block, now two blocks in two hours. 62.2.188.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)} May also be a school, but ip info (I checked this time) isn't obvious. Multiple relatively high speeed vandalisms in a few minutes to multiple articles despite warnings. From content does seem to be two kids arguing and using our pages to do it. This one is for the standard 24. One previous 24 hour block, and no useful edits ever. Posting here for continued review since two yeses and a no for the last was more contentious than I'd like. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(section was removed by Shqiponjë I've restored it. JoshuaZ 16:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

(twice, going to block user now with extreme prejudice Syrthiss 16:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Shqiponjë (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sockpuppet of User:ZoguShqiptar700 who had made the same edits to the same articles, but is the latter is currently blocked for 3RR. — CharlotteWebb 16:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And another Shqiponja e Shqipërisë (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — CharlotteWebb 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Update - Shqiponjë was blocked by Aldux already for 48 hours, so I decided to leave it alone...tho personally I'd have indefblocked them for disruption. I also rolled back their two edits that hadn't been rolled back. Shqiponja e Shqipërisë is not currently blocked, and until they edit I don't personally feel comfortable blocking them without further proof of a connection. Syrthiss 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An error on my part - changed to indef.--Aldux 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I figured there was always time to indefblock them later when they ended up incorrigible. ;) Syrthiss 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We can add AlbanianForever (talk · contribs) to the list. Jkelly 17:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked too; and also AlbaniaIsTheBest (talk · contribs) and Historic Ethnic Albania (talk · contribs)--Aldux 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

ZoguShqiptar700 has turned to sockpuppetry? I totally knew that was going to happen. :-) Khoikhoi 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And the best had yet too arrive; after I lengthened User:ZoguShqiptar700's block, and told him that new socks would generate new blocks, he awnsered menacing legal actions against Wikipedia (see his talk), and immediately created a new sock, Një mik i Alduxit (talk · contribs). What are we going to do now? A longer block? A coomunity ban? Smething else? Proposals?--Aldux 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef block now, per Wikipedia:No legal threats. What he said was totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Khoikhoi 18:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not as if he has a case. Internet harassment is only if we constantly e-mail him with rude and/or threatening letters.. as it is, people are just enforcing the rules, and he's subjecting himself to this voluntarily.. I'm thinking indef/extended block, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference in his behavior.--Vercalos 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just blocked AlbanianPride (talk · contribs). Khoikhoi 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

...and AlbaniansUnited (talk · contribs). Khoikhoi 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And he goes on and on, with new socks, new vandalism, new legal threats. If there isn't any opposition, I will lengthen to indef. the block of User:ZoguShqiptar700.--Aldux 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that the original account wasn't already indef blocked. I've done it. Jkelly 22:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a vandal who left some personal information on that page and needs to be cleared from page history.[128] and [129] SYSS Mouse 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article: List of Nova Scotia schools has been valdalised http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nova_Scotia_schools&diff=80658671&oldid=79124736 Compare these two Revision as of 17:48, 2006 October 2 (edit) 142.177.228.70 Revision as of 14:26, 2006 October 10 (edit) Middleton, Nova Scotia Dickweed`s Bevis and Butthead High School Pine Ridge Dildo Middle School Cape Breton - Victoria Regional School Board Cape Breton - Vagina Regional School Board Glace Bay Adult Sex Education Centre Greenfield Elementary School of Sex (pr to 6) Smith9847 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Melchoir 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I created the article

22:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)