Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive230

Admitting to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Daniel575 in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (5th), User:Bear and Dragon has been making edits to this article and its talk page, which has been causing User:Historian2 difficulties. --Shirahadasha 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it.--Isotope23 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked

WP:DENY. If just indef blocked, then we can discuss what needs to be done here more long term.--Isotope23

16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look good, does it. If the user had been editing inoffensively, I'd be more inclined to lenience. I would suggest that this is taken to the Sanctions noticeboard, where Shirahadasha's post above should be looked at, before a decision by consensus is taken. --Dweller 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me find out if he is actually banned and then if he is not this can go to WP:CN for some informal input. If he is already banned then it is sort of a moot point!--Isotope23 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the tag he was banned by

Grandmasterka --Historian2

17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Grandmasterka can't "ban" anybody... any more so than I can. A ban is a social construct that is imposed by ARBCOM, by the community at

WP:DENY. An indef blocked editor just can't edit with that account.--Isotope23

17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See

WT:BAN#Deletion of text from WP:BAN#Community ban, and note the deleter's claim that "Any uninvolved intelligent good-faith person can enact a community ban".... -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST

18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[1]... Apparently he wasn't technically banned and I jumped the gun a little soon 5 1/2 months ago. He should be given a very short leash at best however, after making what I consider to be a death threat against a group of people.

masterka

22:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive151#Daniel575_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29 -- Y not? 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ResolvedI think. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys! Just wanted to check in regarding an unblock I did.

First off, you said it was a valid block[2]. Secondly, I asked you to bring this up here before unblocking[3]. Rather than wheel war with you, I am just going to let it play out here. A lack of consensus at RFCN does not make a name "unblockable". RFCN is a request for comments, it is not the end of decision making. I ask you to reinstate the block, as you have already agreed it was a valid block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused as to why you would revert my administrative act and then go get community input? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the user on my own judgment after speaking with you, then posted to AN/I as you requested. I'm not certain where wheeling comes in, is there something else? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, a clarification, I'm not judging your block as 'invalid' or 'abusive' or anything else pejorative, I'd just like the RFCN conversation to last a bit longer as it had just gotten started. The user can always be reblocked, I'm thinking a little

WP:AGF is in order in the meantime, especially considering that the user's edits have been pretty good. This is all fodder for a healthy RFCN discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎

) 17:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN does not do block reviews, that decision has been made on the talk page and has been enforced for a few weeks now. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally one would seek some sort of agreement with the blocking admin before unblocking or go to a wider audience. I did not mean to imply that you were wheel warring, more that if I reverted you that I would be wheel warring. This puts me in a rather bothersome position, as you said the block was not invalid, but reverted it anyways, so really only you can revert yourself without a big long consensus here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I would have expected the discussions here to occur prior to any unblock. As to the username, definitely borderline. HighInBC exercised his judgment. His block isn't insane and is grounded in policy so I don't see why it shouldn't stand. WjBscribe 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would personally have preferred

WP:RFCN but he was perfectly entitled to block as and when he did using his judgement of the policy involved. Will (aka Wimt

) 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally one might even seek to persuade a non-vandalistic editor to change his name voluntarily before imposing a block. Notice that the user has not in fact edited anything

WP:RFCN say, "Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username." The user hasn't refused, agreed, or said "boo" as far as I know. The user may not yet have seen the request; or the user may even now be editing under another name, in compliance to what he thought was required of him; I don't know, do you? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST

18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The user can still change their name, the template kindly explains how. I agree though, that for RFCN there is a consensus that people should be notified before a discussion starts. However, I did not block under a consensus at RFCN, but under my own judgment. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I must confess that I had not realised that the user hadn't been asked to change their username before the debate was instigated at RFCN. Nevertheless, as HighInBC states, he is still entitled to block the user using his own judgement of policy. Will (aka Wimt) 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: the user had been asked to change their username, about 11 hours before the debate was instigated at RFCN. However, the user has made no edits since shortly before that request, so we don't know whether the user saw that request. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, a confusing situation. I think the unblock was not the best idea here, and the name should probably just be reblocked. First of all, the argument as to why

WP:U is being violated is pretty clear, and I do think "spammyou" implies an intent to cause trouble. HighinBC made the call, and it wasn't way off base or anything, although I can understand that not everyone would have responded the same way. However, once the block was laid, I think things become different. If the user were requesting unblocking, that would be one thing, but the user has not done so. To me, now, not only is the question of whether the user should be blocked still up in the air, but it also looks like Wikipedia admins can't enforce their own decisions, which is sort of bad. Once a user is blocked, whether they become unblocked is a decision that should really involve that user unless the block was a mistake or clearly inappropriate. And the second factor here was the RFCN discussion, which was frankly pretty irrelevant all along because block decisions aren't up to a community consensus (except for community bans, I suppose). Mangojuice^talk

20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'm a bit concerned about in the above is that it seems to suggest that our blocks are sacrosanct and set in stone, and some of HighInBC's comments in the discussion on his talk page about this have given me the same impression while also suggesting that a disagreement with him is the same as an attack on his character. When we put 'be a united front of admins' ahead of doing the right thing and exercising our judgment in a way that hopefully demonstrates the ideals of the project, then we're in trouble. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not set in stone, but you should get some sort of consensus or the agreement of the blocking admin before unblocking. And once again, I must point out you said it was not an invalid block, so what are you fishing for? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishing? I'm not sure I understand. You made a judgment call to block, and I consulted with you before making a judgment call to unblock. As you mentioned, group consensus is not required for blocking, why would it be required for unblocking? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because a) you are reverting an admin action, which needs some sort of justification, and b) you have said yourself the block is not invalid! So why are you unblocking? For kicks? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the name should be re-blocked. I don't want to do it myself, to avoid appearance of wheel warring. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to just let this go, the username is against policy and should be blocked, but it is not the end of the world if it is not. I do wish you had some sort of reason why the block was invalid before you unblocked, and I certainly wished you got consensus first, but it appears you are not progressing in this conversation and I am confused at your goals and a little sick of the whole issue. So, just try to do things differently next time. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If by "progressing in this conversation" you mean validating your use of inflammatory language like "For kicks?" and "what are you fishing for?", then I absolutely will not "progress". Please keep some perspective on this, as admins we're held to a high standard of civility, and this isn't an attack on you. We've both been entrusted to do janitorial work to help keep the project running smoothly. You felt a username was bad and blocked it (even though a discussion was in progress about it), I consulted with you about it, then unblocked the user because it appeared you were OK with it (only asking that I create a thread here too so we could get external review) because the assumption of good faith suggests that a good user (who has made good edits and hasn't responded yet to a request that he/she change their name) need not be 'punished' with a block while the issue is still alive. Your reaction to this has been pretty aggressive. Some of your comments here and in other threads related to this conversation seem to suggest that you're arguing that administrator actions are immune to review or disagreement. We're not a

Cabal, we're janitors with mops. If Janitor B thinks that Janitor A threw out a work rag too early, Janitor B can grab it out of the dumpster if he wants without Janitor A tearing into him for having the audacity to disagree. - CHAIRBOY (☎

) 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Chairboy and I have gotten past our communication problems and settled this matter. Much of this seems based off of a misunderstanding. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, when reading a response from HIBC, I saw what I expected to see instead of what he actually wrote, and it just spiraled from there. I think we've worked out the crazy missteps that followed, and neither of us is the evil monster the other person may have thought at one point. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[4] Can this be considered a personal attack?

This was made by my former AMA Advocate (he was my AMA Advocate from January 21, 2007 to January 23, 2007) regarding me:

"My own feelings are that she uses advocates much as she used her sockpuppets in order to gather support for herself. I feel she is manipulative and exploitive and is quite volatile and hurtful. I am personally hurt that she has been leaving negative comments about me on Wikipedia when I tried to assist her in a patient and supportive manner. I bitterly regret that I tried to help. She appears to be rather self-obsessed and detached from an awareness of how her behaviour and words can be hurtful to others. She is possibly in need of professional counseling."

I wish that someone would evaluate for me whether this sort of statement is a personal attack or merely a "blunt" statement. Help would be appreciated on understanding the difference. I know this is an unusual request but I would like to understand. (In the interest of full disclosure, there were sockpuppets on my computer for a short time last summer/fall. The sockpuppets were stopped. I was punished. There have been no sockpuppets since.) Sincerely, Mattisse 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be considered a personal attack. Regardless, IMO without a consistent check of what actually led to that statement, it's not punishable. --

Sn0wflake

18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what "a consistent check of what actually let to that statement" means.? Like diffs and emails? Or general description of situation? Sincerely, Mattisse 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[5] Here is one diff from the former AMA Advocate's archive on me. Replier User:999 was banned indefinitely shortly after. Replier Neigel von Teighen is another AMA Advocate Sincerely, Mattisse 18:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[6] - diff from my archive - about half way down under and signed by User:SilkTork - this is only posting I received from him. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That link is wrong, maybe you meant this one?

Thatcher131

19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent to interject) Thatcher, could you tell me how you got that diff as I could not figure out how to do any better than I did. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Matisse, that comment is part of a discussion in which other AMA members express frustration with you. As far as I'm concerned, the last sentence should not have been said and the second-to-last could have been phrased less personally. However, unless this is part of a pattern by the editor in question of making questionable personal remarks against other editors, the only remedy would be to politely ask him/her to avoid making such remarks in the future. Meanwhile, some introspection on your part as to why several AMA members seem to be frustrated with you might be in order.

Thatcher131

18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, starting with my first AMA application and to each AMA Advocate subsequently I have repeatedly asked for feedback on my personal behavior and how I could improve it but have received none on my talk pages or via email. I have an advocate now and have asked him also. My first Advocate was probably frustrated but did not say so, dropped out because of computer proplems he said, and complimented me later on my behavior in an Arbitration and events surrounding it. My third AMA Advocate "took over my case" and put it under investigation. Then told me not to contact him. Two months later, after he made "blunt" remarks about me because I posted some general criticisms of AMA on the MFD page he accused me of harassing him and other negative behavior. But he never emailed me feedback or posted feedback on my page. Do you have some suggestions how I could better go about this? As I said, I have an AMA Advocate now and have asked him for feedback also, as I did the others. Perhaps this time I will get some. But I have been asking since November and have gotten somewhat frustrated over this, so I apologise for that truly. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[7] Is this a personal attack? How do I respond to an AMA Advocate who says this to me publically, provides no proof of lies etc.? Please inform me how to handle this? He did not give me this feedback when he was my AMA Advocate.

"Not quite sure what point you are trying to make, or even if your comment is in reference to my comment or Steve Caruso's, however I have said the above simply as a matter of record of my feelings about working with Mattisse. In case it is not clear to anyone reading this, let me explain that I don't like her. I don't like her dishonesty. I don't like the way that she lies about what happened. I don't like the way that she complained about me here while at the same time sending me messages pleading with me to help her. I withdrew from the case because I felt I couldn't trust her. I withdrew because I felt she was unstable. I withdrew because I found her tiresome. I was, however, polite with her, and I communicated with her, and I explained what I was doing. She claims that my emails went missing, so I sent her more message to another email address which also went missing. Apparently somebody gained access to her email account and diverted my messages or deleted them or some other strange happening. Anyway - I withdrew politely. She told lies about what happened. And continues to do so. I am here simply giving my side of events. I am here giving an account of how annoyed and hurt I am. Exactly what part of my experience do you feel I should withhold from any other advocate considering getting involved? Bear in mind I am only writing here because Mattissee feels it is OK for her to complain openly that I behaved badly. I have asked her to amend her statements, to apologise to me, and to refrain from spreading any more lies about me. She hasn't done so yet. And I suspect she won't, because in my opinion she enjoys the attention. SilkTork 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"

• How do I answer a personal attack like this when I do not know what he is talking about, what lies I have told, etc. as he provides no diffs. "I withdrew because I felt she was unstable. I withdrew because I found her tiresome." What lies did I tell? Ask User:WeniWidiWiki if you wish to know about the email. Please provide me with the lies. I have not gotten feedback about "lies" except from the sock puppets and User:Rosencomet supported by the sock puppets that Blnguyen (bananabucket) shut down. Have you checked Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ekajati. A Sincerely, Mattisse 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Walton

I am Mattisse's current AMA advocate and am in the middle of attempting to resolve this dispute. Although I advised her strongly not to take this to ANI, she has done so (understandably, as she was very hurt by some of SilkTork's comments about her), so I think it's best if I attempt to provide some background to this dispute, without taking sides.

• SilkTork previously served as Mattisse's AMA advocate, working on the dispute relating to Rosencomet and the Starwood Festival. The original dispute has now been settled by an arbitration case.
• At the time of this case (January of this year), Mattisse was having problems with her email (through no fault of her own), and was not receiving the email correspondence sent to her by SilkTork. As a result, she thought that SilkTork was ignoring her, and complained about his lack of attention to the case. Clearly this was neither Mattisse's fault nor SilkTork's, it was just a misunderstanding.
• SilkTork collected evidence from other users involved in the dispute. The archive of evidence collected can be found here. SilkTork was following proper AMA procedure in collecting such evidence; however, because of the problems with Mattisse's email, Mattisse felt that he was ignoring her and listening only to her opponents. Again, neither SilkTork nor Mattisse did anything wrong in that instance.
• SilkTork also withdrew from Mattisse's case. Although he presumably did notify Mattisse that he had withdrawn, she did not receive this notification, probably due to the aforementioned problems with her email.
• Mattisse lodged a complaint on the AMA talk page
  here about the lack of assistance she'd received from her Advocate. SilkTork's later reply [8]
  described Mattisse as "dissembling and deceitful". This is the part I don't understand, and I have emailed SilkTork and asked him to retract the statements.
• On the same day, SilkTork posted the negative comments about Mattisse which are the subject of this dispute. They can be found here. They described Mattisse as "manipulative" and "in need of counselling", comments which appear to violate
  WP:NPA
  .
• Mattisse found these comments highly upsetting, and announced her intention to go to ANI. I advised her not to, but she did so anyway. Personally I do not think this is the right forum in which to address this issue.
• Yesterday SilkTork posted these comments on Mattisse's request file. Like the earlier comments, these appear to be personal attacks against Mattisse.

My intent here is not to take either Mattisse's side or SilkTork's. I just want to provide a narrative background to this dispute, so that the remarks are in context, and other users understand what this is about.

Update - Mattisse has told me that she will not pursue further action here at ANI.

^{Vivat Regina!}

17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on the recent virginia tech shooting was moved to

NVM, somebody else moved it. Bolder than I am. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection of the talkpage

There's currently discussion on the

I've unprotected it. John Reaves (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The talkpage was originally protected by Mackensen (prior to the article move) and then by myself. Numerous revisions were contaminiated with vast levels of personal information about an alleged perpetrator of the attack. These revisions required oversight so are no longer viewable in the article's deleted history. I am surprised neither Mackensen or I were consulted prior to the unprotection. Although we were both offline, our talkpages (his in particular) contain discussion of the need to semi-protect that page. WjBscribe 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the subject under discussion here [9], where the possibility of banned editor has bad mouthed the project in a major British newspaper needs addressing.

What are you going to do? Ban the user further? ~ UBeR 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• No that would be rather futile - wouldn't it? We need to have an official policy of countering, answering and refuting such public attacks on the project - from someone authorised to do so - rather than just keep sitting back and seeing the project dragged repeatedly through the shit.
  Giano
  21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a UK citizen, I can tell you that Wikipedia's reputation is certainly not going to be harmed by one letter in the Times. A couple of weeks ago, I was at a meeting with one of David Cameron's most senior Front-Bench colleagues (i.e. Conservative; the Education Secretary is Labour) who publically spoke of it in the most glowing terms. [P.S. Help me get my identity back, please: User:Jeffrey Newman - see below!] 172.212.75.134 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your username, why not just do what Giano did? Check out his sig. Or mine. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

“Four editors with strong personal or religious prejudice control this Topic. Please drop by periodically and revert back your preferred writing ... send other editors ... break this cabel!!!” TipPt 01:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how to quantify this, but it appears to lack the spirit of any number of our policies/guidelines. -- Avi 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please, let me explain. Two established editors comment on how crazy the Circumcision topic has become, and I suggest that they check in periodically and see how it might be better. Please see the Topic history some of Avraham's recent edits! He seems to deny the reader important facts for personal reasons.

• I am simply encouraging participation, because most editors give up faced with these cabels.TipPt 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TipPt, you joined Wikipedia for the express purpose of "saving" the world from circumcision, and since then you've done little but edit-war on circumcision-related articles, attempting to insert your POV into them. To make things worse, you have compounded that by frequent violations of

WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting a user post on blogs instead of editing Wikipedia is uncivil, especially when considering the rest of your comment. KazakhPol 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A better suggestion might be that the user reads, understands, and conforms to policies such as

WP:V. Unfortunately such suggestions have been made numerous times already, and are often interpreted, perplexingly, as personal or religious bias. Perhaps it is time for an RFC? Jakew

12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DR are the most appropriate places to sort that mess out. The edit warring has existed since we had the article about Ali Sina. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®}

14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Supergear has gone through a whole lot of vandalism by anon IP's (after being blocked), and has now been re-directed to User talk:Natalie Erin - It's a bit beyond me to work out what should be there, and I've got to log off now, just to let someone do this & revert it for Natalie! Thx Lou 06:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Restored the last edit by Supergear (nothing of value since then, I think), and gave it semi-protection for a few days. Hopefully whoever it is gets bored, by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even notice. Thanks folks! Natalie 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He has set up another sockpuppet account: User:The Verdict1, his only two edits so far is admitting that he is Verdict (inlcuding telling an admin, User:Yamla, that he can't do anything about it). Even if he isn't a sockpuppet, he threatened to "kick Yamla'a ass", which is block-worthy by itself. TJ Spyke 07:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Something this obvious could probably go to

masterka

07:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this was that editor posting to Jimbo's user page as an anon, kvetching about Yamla as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I came across this web-site when I looked at this users contributions and uploads. See this. Most of the images he has uploaded are taken from cais-soas.com with a note "Permission granted by CAIS". I don't see any ticket from OTRS. But this goes beyond just this. I have a feeling that this user is associated with the website. Please read

) 08:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At least some of the pages of that website are explicity licensed with the GFDL posted at the bottom of the page. The question then would be, were the photos taken by the web site's contributors or were they scanned from somewhere else and not really released under the GFDL.

Thatcher131

11:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

Resolved

Larry Sanger is being spammed with vandalism from one guy. --Dookama 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked by CambridgeBayWeather. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated removal of table of locations from Manchester Ship Canal citing a variety of bogus reasons. User had previously been asked to desist on his talk page, by more than one editor. Andy Mabbett 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Now also from Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal and Digbeth Branch Canal. Three reverts in each case. Andy Mabbett 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have participated in this poll. Right Andy? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Did you have a point to make? Andy Mabbett 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you accept to participate in a poll if you know that its outcome would be irrelevant? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How is a poll about whether to include coordinates on a page about "a 2/3 mile bridge" relevant to the Manchester Ship Canal? Or a narrow-boat canal that spans two Black County boroughs? Andy Mabbett 14:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That was not the point. The raison d'être of that poll was simple: Do we need to keep the table of coordinates in as is. Please also give a valid reason. For your opinion, and only write once in the voting section, so we can keep track of numbers, and sign your posts with (~~~~).

Now, you voted as others did. The result was 1-7 in their favor. I know that

polling is not a substitute for discussion but it is clear that a major consensus has been reached. What do you need from admins to do in this case? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®}

14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledge that consensus by a majority of 6, out of just 8 participants, in one, extreme, example (where at least three nay-sayers referred to the short length of the viaduct) does not form a Wikipedia-wide policy (including 36-mile shipping canals). Andy Mabbett 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

...as others do. Andy Mabbett 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, i totally agree w/ Martin Cordon on that. The point is that AN/I is not the appropriate place to deal w/ that as i explained below. -- FayssalF

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe me Andy. Whatever the outcome of the poll is, admins can do nothing (except cases of

WP:DR as a last resort. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®}

15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

then I think the introduction of this page should be re-written to make more clear what it is for. Andy Mabbett 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe though i doubt there's a contradiction between what i've just explained and the AN/I intro. There are plenty of admins and their opinion is welcomed. Probably i was the only one to respond to your request because they thought it is not part of the duty of admins to resolve disputes here at this page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The references to the poll and "consensus" may be bogus, but this is nothing more than a simple content dispute. It sounds like it really needs a discussion somewhere about the general use of these tables. JPD (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

He created an account just to vandalise pages on this site. He has said, seeing me typing this, that he is going to create another account if his current one is banned. Firedraikke 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Korndog is obviously a vandalism only account. I've been reverting vandalism by him here, and he is also encouraging vandlism of someone elses user page through his own. DarkSaber2k 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Thanks for the report. alphachimp 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, User:Korngod is my hero has started vandalising my userpage per this diff: [10] DarkSaber2k 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked by

Cryptic. Thanks again. Michaelas¹⁰

14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The above user has continued to disrupt WP in a number of ways. A sample of the issues is through vandalism[11], uploading multiple images with faulty fair use criteria (CSD I7) Image:Joondalup Giants.jpg Image:North Beach Sea Eagles.jpg Image:Freemantle Roosters.jpg Image:KFC North Perth.jpg Image:Rockingham warl.jpg (Which was also uploaded as Image:Rockingham costal sharks.jpg, adding patent nonsense to articles[12], copyright violations and removing speedy delete tags and failing to follow proper instructions to hang-on to the articles[13][14]. His edit summaries have indicated hostilities to other WP users [15][16]. Additionally, a number of these edits have occurred within minutes of a warning being issued via his talk page. This user may be worthy of evaluation, with consideration to a 24hr block for disruptive editing activities. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Additional The user in question has also just violated
  WP:NPA with these edits. Thewinchester ^(talk)
  14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was
  bold and blocked him indefinitely. User is clearly not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, despite many warnings requesting him to discontinue his behavior. I shall put this block up to the review of other admins in case anyone would like to object it. Michaelas¹⁰
  14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• My sincere thanks for the quick action, and I wasn't expecting a permanent block allthough in the circumstances I could see it was reasonably justified. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there is a guy creating lots of socks today. He started having all his anmes with oompapa in it. He apparently has many disposable IP's at his leasure. Just keep a look out for vandalisim with oompapa in it and block on site. The category for the socks is Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mr oompapa -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to GT for the heads up, by the way. I've undone some of his more dubious edits but someone with deletion tools might like to look at his autobio. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a slow-motion edit war going on at

I'll keep an eye on that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For about a month the articles on

Hmm, quite honestly he seems incapable of editing alongside others. I blocked him for a month for POV pushing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see reason still prevails on the Wikipedia... cheers! --

Sn0wflake

14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I blocked that account for one week, not two. Durova^Charge! 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have changed the block to one week. This partly in view of the error about Durova's original block, which wasn't for the two weeks stated, but one week, thus not a really good basis for a hike to one month. While I have to agree about the POV-pushing (I've written a long warning to the user on his page about what is going to happen if he doesn't change his ways[17]), I also want to stress that this is no vandal. In fact the majority of his edits are constructive and helpful. They're aimed at resisting the ever ongoing onslaught on the encyclopedia of spam, nonsense, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience... Rather than a phasing-out of this useful contributor by means of longer and longer blocks, I would suggest an RFAR and perhaps a mentor. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure that

Santa Monica

article all performed the same action, with similar uncivil edit summaries:

• DreamGuy, March 18, 2007, "this says NOTABLE people, not Wikipedia editors with articles and massive egos"
• DreamGuy, March 30, 2007: "...most certainly not notable by Wikipedia standards for purposes of a listing here"
• 216.165.158.7, April 14, 2007: "people adding themselves (or getting people to add them) out of vanity... removing them... this is only for famous people"

A quick look at contribs will also show that both DreamGuy and the anon have been posting at

List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects. And other activity similar to the Santa Monica edits appear at University High School: 216.165.158.7[18], DreamGuy[19]

.

DreamGuy has been accused of sockpuppetry before, and a checkuser came back "Likely,"[20], though to my knowledge he has not yet been blocked for this type of activity. --Elonka 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sockpuppetry" in itself is not a reason for a block: sometimes users get logged out through no fault of their own, for example. Does this probable sockpuppetry have any effect on the allegations of disruption? Physchim62 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, if an anon sockpuppet is blocked for POV-pushing, then the sockmaster should also be blocked. In the case of this particular anon, his block was reduced under some sort of "AGF, he just needs counseling" reasoning. But in actuality the sockmaster has been using this and other accounts (such as

Santa Monica and List of people from Los Angeles were reverted by Admin AnonEMouse, so DreamGuy just came back with an anon to make the exact same edits. Granted, as I am the harassee, I have a bias here, but in my opinion there is clear evidence that if the anon has been blocked for POV-pushing, that DreamGuy, as the controller of that anon, should be blocked as well. --Elonka

18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

El has asked me to take a look at the edits of DreamGuy and Special:Contributions/216.165.158.7. In my opinion their edit descriptions are identical in style and tone to Wik aka Gzornenplatz aka Nopuzzlestranger - however given the aggressive, abusive, tendentiousness they exhibit, they certainly warrant blocking irrespective of whether this is actually the case or not. --Gene_poole 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the solution simply be presenting evidence and requesting a checkuser? --

Sn0wflake

21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I at one point had a good relationship with User:TxMCJ (under her previous username Mandaclair). However, our relationship has deteriorated and she is now engaging in uncivil and disruptive behavior toward me.

Hi -- that's me. This mediation could be helpful, but I'll say upfront that I'm not wiki-savvy enough to provide all the imbedded links to support my own case, like Gnixon has below. There's a lot of commentary to be sorted through for sure, and I hope you will read all the interactions from both sides, even if I am not really knowledgeable about how to provide imbedded links to specific exchanges, here on this page. Thanks, TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*First positive interaction: TxMCJ's first edit to

This is all true except for the final accusation. The only time I have ever erased posts on my user talk page was during my first 2 or 3 days as an editor on Evolution, and it was only done as housecleaning and not an attempt to hide anything. I was advised that it's preferable to archive instead of erase, and I have not erased any user talk since then. I will also note that under the Wikipedia "rules" as I understand them, it is not unethical or disallowed to erase one's own talk page, although -- as I have stated -- I do not make regular or "often" practice about this, as accused. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

She's correct. She last blanked the page on 3/30, three days after she began editing (excepting a handful of edits months ago). Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*Next positive interaction: Since TxMCJ described herself as a professional biologist teaching at a university, I made a substantial effort to encourage her to contribute to Evolution. She made a number of helpful suggestions and edits, but spent about an equal amount of space complaining about how anyone, even non-experts, could edit at Wikipedia.

I improved the article significantly during this time, based on my professional background, as any other editor there would likely attest. Also, I will note that voicing a complaint about the Wikipedia process is not unethical nor inappropriate content, and I will also note that some very common complaints of Wikipedia include "TOO open access" and anti-elitism -- both of which I view as counterproductive to producing quality scientific articles, especially about something as volatile as Evolution. It is not inappropriate to voice complaints or concerns about those topics if they are relevant to obstacles encountered while editing. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*Strife: After being away for awhile, TxMCJ returned to Talk:Evolution and expressed shock at aruments on Talk:Evolution related to disagreements I had with another user. We engaged in what began as a friendly conversation about editing at Wikipedia, but it quickly degenerated after I left a comment at her user talk page. I assumed there was enough good faith and friendliness between us that she wouldn't take offense when I wrote I'm not sure what your specific complaint is. Surely non-experts can contribute to articles in some ways and experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped at every turn? I was wrong. She also took issue with the fact that I had come across some of her personal interests when Googling to find out about her research, and would not believe me when I insisted I had only mentioned them to be friendly. Conversations at Talk:Evolution#More comments from TxMCJ, her talk page, and mine quickly deteriorated.

I will be the first to agree that I was highly offended -- not as an individual, but as an intellectual -- at hearing any editor on a science article voice the opinion that "experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped". I did not take this as a personal insult, I viewed it as an astoundingly counterproductive attitude coming from someone who actively edits (and arguably monopolizes) a very high-profile science article on Wikipedia. Furthermore, Gnixon did not merely Google and post my personal interests without asking, he also apparently tried to Google my professional background, and publicly posted an inaccurate "expose" on my years of experience (also without asking) in a failed attempt to discredit me to other editors. In my opinion, THAT is true stalking -- not me investigating his prior edits on other science articles.TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since TxMCJ had repeatedly made reference to her professional experience in order to support her opinions, and since she had made no secret of her identity at that point, it seemed entirely appropriate to review her experience, which in my mind she had inflated. Happy to discuss the details. My first post about her experience was based on memory, and referred to her "one or two years" as a postdoc. She corrected me, pointing out she has been a postdoc for 5 years. I thanked her for clarifying. Regarding personal details, I learned about them while researching her stated credentials since she advertises several unusual personal interests on her (professional) university webpage. I had no idea she was sensitive about interests she advertises so openly (in fact having even alluded to them in an edit of hers many months ago), I used them only in good humor and friendliness when we were still on good terms, and I have not mentioned anything personal since then despite my temptation to raise issues of personality. Again---TxMCJ provided me with her full name, invited me to email her, and has made constant reference to her professional experience---that's why I committed the sin of typing her name into Google. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon specifically posted an inaccurate count of "a few years in grad school and a 1 or 2 as a postdoc" as a specific attempt to discredit my experience. That this was a (failed and inaccurate) attempt to discredit should be clear upon examination of the context in which he posted this comment (not that it matters, but I was 6 years in grad school and have been a postdoc for 5. When I corrected him, he countered by telling me to "come back when I'm a tenured professor". Thus when he found his discrediting attempt failed, he attempted to raise the stakes by implying that only tenured professors in their fields should be regarded as experts. All of this just seems a bit unreasonable (and hilarious) to me...TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*Aftermath: Since then we've had a number of arguments at Talk:Evolution about who should contribute there, the value of our respective contributions, and the value of the credentials TxMCJ uses to justify her special ability to edit Evolution. This has been an unfortunate but mutual argument in which I've admittedly participated too much.

None of the abovementioned interactions constitute abuse, stalking, unidirectional personal attacks, or misuse. They were all arguments of principle, all related solely to my interest as a professional and educator to see a quality article at the Evolution page. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::The principle she was arguing here was that I had made "stupid" comments, that I was incapable of disagreeing with her on editorial issues, and that it was appropriate to address me as "my dear" and (!) "sweetcheeks." In any case, although tempers flared on both sides at this point, her behavior detailed below is simply unacceptable. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't help smiling at this complaint... I will honor the request not to "address in diminutives" in the future on the article talk page, but I sort of feel that all bets are off on user talk pages, particularly in cases like this... please correct me if I'm wrong about that. TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unacceptable behavior: Since then, she has harassed me on
  WP:CIVIL tone with me, and in particular has addressed me with diminutives even after I asked her to stop
  .

Although I am not technically savvy enough to provide the imbedded links, even a cursory examination of the above interactions will show that Gnixon has participated equally and fueled the fire through his own unwillingness to "back down". I am sorry if Gnixon is offended at what he views as attempts to "discredit him", but every counteropinion I have voiced to his (highly limited) contributions on the scientific content, have been solely scientific counteropinions, as a close examination will show. Close examination will also show that a number of "uncivil" statements and personal attacks have come from the other direction as well. Also, please DO look at the exchange we had under "Genome projects". I am bewildered that Gnixon would have any objection to my contributions or tone during that conversation. He was simply wrong about the subject, and I explained why, in civil and specific terms. That is not "discrediting", by any definition. He suggested a bad example to use in the article, I countered about why (scientifically) it was an incorrect example. End of story. How is that "discrediting"? Gnixon's mere *attitude* that is threatened by expert knowledge and that views such intellectually valid exchanges as "discrediting" him is, I believe, a central problem in this whole issue. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Close examination will certainly show that her arguments have not been scientific and impersonal. Please do look at the tone TxMCJ adopted in that discussion and consider whether it was civil. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do look at the "Genome projects" discussion. Perfect example. While Gnixon loads his rhetoric with comments such as "Sweet Baby Jesus" and "I set off your 'don't let this jerk have a say ' button", every single one of my comments in that discussion was scientific, civil, reasonable, and factually correct. Gnixon is the only one in that exchange being combatitive and defensive. I agree wholeheartedly that this type of discussion is a good example of (one of the many aspects of) the problem. That aspect being: Gnixon has a very hard time accepting when he is factually and conceptually wrong about something he is not an expert in, and even goes the extra mile of accusing people of "discrediting" him when they are only explaining in perfectly sound, sensible, and civil language why he is wrong. TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The opinion (shared by longtime Evolution editor Orangemarlin) that Gnixon operates under a POV-tainted agenda, is in my view a very sound one, based on what Orangemarlin and I both view as a very biased strategy on Gnixon's part of archiving/refactoring the discussion page in a way that is most consistent with his POV (i.e., emphasizes objections to evolution and archives scientific information). Perhaps as bad is the fact that despite his lack of sound understanding on the subject, Gnixon seems to insist on spearheading the editing of the Evolution article ("subtle ownership" as Orangemarlin put it, as I will agree). All together: monopolizing the article talk page, contributing inaccurate content, demonstrating clear lack of understanding of core concepts in Evolution, along with what seems to be a fairly apparent agenda (subject to opinion, of course, but Gnixon is also very active in the Intelligent Design article) -- these things together all contribute to what I view as an extremely counterproductive and maddening editing environment over at Evolution. Not that any of *THAT* constitutes abuse or violation of Wikipedia policy, but I feel that it is important that any administrator or mediator recognize what the real issues here are. Gnixon has been accused by Orangemarlin, and I will concur, of "owning the article" and "POV-pushing", and I will add to that, that his understanding of Evolutionary science is abysmally poor. Doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to participate, but THOSE are the issues that have fueled the frustration, debate, and dispute at the Evolution article. And I would argue that the situation is SO counterproductive to the Wikipedia process (and to any intelligent mind) that it was worthy of posting my objections (initially voiced by Orangemarlin) to the article talk board. I agree that it is ugly and unfortunate, but for the sake of fair process and progress, I felt it was necessary. Again, although I do not know how to provide the imbedded link, I encourage you to read over recent interactions between Gnixon and Orangemarlin as well, particularly on Orangemarlin's talk page.

It is telling that she would bring up User:Orangemarlin, who was warned by administrators from this page to stop his rude speculation and commentary about my supposed personal beliefs, which speculation I reluctantly indicated was wrong. Labeling me a secret creationist on an article talk page where creationists are widely reviled is akin to insisting in a 7th grade locker room that a boy is a secret homosexual---I found it highly offensive when Orangemarlin did it to me, and I now find it highly offensive that TxMCJ has joined him. It is impossible that a review of my edits to Evolution would suggest I'm "subtly owning" the article. My edits to the talk page have consisted largely of archiving old conversations on that high-volume page as well as attempting to limit recurrent flamewars with creationists that distract from editing the article. I've been complimented for both of those efforts. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Although it will be time-consuming (since I've corrected the situation), it is pretty apparent that Gnixon has in the past made a habit of swiftly archiving/refactoring the scientific content of article talk, while leaving wide-open (for all to view) any user POV comments that express doubt or attacks against Evolution. Orangemarlin observed this as well, and while I am not necessarily demanding Gnixon admit it's intentional, the pattern is a real one and in the sake of neutrality it must be stopped. I have begun addressing this a bit on my own (see edits to article talk involving archiving/refactoring changes I made, and why I made them.) TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And although I can (and will not) speak for other editors, I would like to note a comment made very recently by another editor, Silence, directed specifically toward Gnixon (on the Evolution talk page). That comment reads: "The thing I understand least about this entire exchange is how you can so consistently and unwaveringly misrepresent what everyone else wants." Only that editor (Silence) can elaborate or justify that statement, but I will concur that this is precisely the sentiment that has driven Orangemarlin away from the Evolution page, and is behind most of the conflict with Gnixon that I've been involved with. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

She refers to a simple misunderstanding that was resolved amicably. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that there is a pattern in Gnixon's behavior and frustration of others. TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the accusation of "stalking" is thoroughly absurd and hypocritical, as on several occasions Gnixon has taken it upon himself to investigate who I am and what I do (I am not an anonymous user), and he has on multiple occasions posted personal information about me, both correct and incorrect, in attempts to discredit my experience and expertise. Because these attempts have failed and I view them as basically silly, I have not complained about "stalking", but if either of us is guilty of "stalking" it is Gnixon who began such actions long before I ever did. All I ever did was investigate other articles he has edited to see if he is as much of a menace (in my opinion) on other pages as he is at Evolution. I cannot comprehend how that constitutes stalking more than his previous investigation of my non-anonymous identity, and his unsolicited broadcasting of his findings to Wikipedia and the world. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed the issue of TxMCJ's professional and personal information above, and frankly, given how often she boasts of her professional experience, I'm proud to have gotten out the facts about her slow career progress. Another user has commented below about the inappropriateness of her stalking me to other, unrelated articles and attempting to discredit me there. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't a personal attack, I don't know what is. Firstly, I have never "boasted" of my experience as much as I've sadly found that I am desperately required to cite it in order to defend myself whenever less-knowledgeable and less-experienced editors insist on debating endlessly about issues that are elementary, trivial, rhetorical, or off-topic -- or when editors are simply wrong about a topic, yet continue to waste time and space debating about it. Second, I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly view my career progress to be "slow" (Harvard Ph.D., Co-PI on an NSF research grant I authored, invited NSF speaker on seminars and colloquia on education in Evolution, several years experience teaching Evolution at top universities... this is not BOASTING, it is a counterargument to an absurd opinion that is clearly based on Gnixon's feeling of being threatened). Third, it is completely inappropriate that even if a person had that opinion of my "slow career progress", what the purpose of publicly posting that opinion could possibly be other than to gain leverage and discredit others. Gnixon consistently refuses to provide his own experience, career specifics, or credentials: thus, this constitutes a personal attack (imagine that! right on the administrators/mediation page!) -- as well as a flawed, failed attempt at discrediting my background. TxMCJ 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I've repeatedly made efforts to bury the hatchet, she refuses to reciprocate. It's reached the point where her behavior is violating policies on civil interaction and disrupting my ability to contribute here. I request intervention. Thanks, Gnixon 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to burying the hatchet on matters of personal differences or civility, but the true root of the problem is that Gnixon has frustrated me and other editors by overbearing/overmanaging/micromanaging and monopolizing the editing of an article on a subject he has demonstrated poor knowledge of, and worse, seems to be motivated to edit, confuse, and complicate the process via what Orangemarlin and I view to be a creationist POV-driven agenda. Thank you for your time and understanding, and I am willing to participate in any sort of mediation process if (and only if) it results in a healthier and more neutral editing environment over at Evolution. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the edit histories will show no record of me "monopolizing the editing" of Evolution, nor will they show any more than the usual frustrations of editing here, with the notable exceptions of Orangemarlin and TxMCJ. As I've stated before, the baseless and maliciously-motivated labeling of me as a creationist with a hidden agenda is both highly offensive and entirely inappropriate, and I urge the administrators to warn this user to stop these attacks and stalkings, or to block her if necessary. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is certainly not justified -- and if "stalking" is the offense, I'd have to maintain that Gnixon's stalking (Googling my personal info and posting the results on more than one occasion) has been far worse and more invasive than my own (in which I merely researched his prior edits). TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of what TxMCJ has written is at best a misrepresentation of the facts, but uninvolved parties will have to judge for themselves. I'll make no further responses here to TxMCJ or Orangemarlin. Gnixon 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is a perfect example of Gnixon's approach, demeanor, and I daresay strategy on the Evolution page as well. He presents points, erects arguments, and gives complaints, taking up an enormous amount of space and time with them. Others respond to these points, arguments, and complaints. When he finally finds he is at a loss for words, he dismisses the entire situation while still clinging tightly to his dissatisfaction with it, thus providing no chance at resolution or consensus. This is neither a rational nor a productive approach to editing. TxMCJ 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment by User:Christopher Thomas

As I noted in a dispute between these two users at User Talk:Enormousdude, TxMCJ (talk • contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to editing Evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), active since 27 March 2007 only (barring the first 7 edits out of 417 as of 16 April 2007). This user seems to have followed Gnixon (talk • contribs)'s editing of other topics (Special relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) enough to be making posts disparaging Gnixon's edits to this article [21] [22]. These comments do not appear to reflect anything resembling the actual situation, at least in regards to SR [23] WPP thread; scroll down for other editors' views. The small fraction of the interaction between these users that I have been exposed to is consistent with malicious wikistalking on the part of TxMCJ. --Christopher Thomas 20:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In the interests of expediting any useful purpose this incident report may serve, I invite all of the participants to consider the following:

• AN/I is for reporting incidents that require administrator attention. In your own sections, please state briefly what you want any administrators reading this to do, and why. They'll either do so, or not, and give you some indication as to why.
• For discussion and comment, rather than reporting, please consider either hashing things out on your own talk pages, or pursuing the steps of
  mediation
  .
• AN/I is not a court. The closest thing Wikipedia has to that is
  WP:DR
  process, from the beginning, to show due diligence.

--Christopher Thomas 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment by User:Orangemarlin

I am going to comment in opposition to User:Gnixon’s complaint.

• Pattern of activity: As another editor attacked with an ANI by Gnixon ANI Complaint, I feel compelled to defend someone else, because I failed to defend myself. This user accused me of stalking User talk:Gnixon#Some thoughts, even though he eventually apologized for the accusation. It appears that he thinks that only he can watch all of the Evolution/Creation articles and not others. These accusations of stalking are just not appropriate.

My accusation of stalking by Orangemarlin was based on a misunderstanding, and I rightly apologized. (There were much more offensive behaviors by him.) The user above has commented on TxMCJ's stalking, which is certainly not a misunderstanding. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Single purpose account: I don’t know why it matters that User:TxMCJ should be criticized for being a single-purpose account dedicated to editing Evolution. This editor has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, and, as we know, that doesn’t really matter on Wikipedia because we should ignore credentials, but as a scientist (and I won’t ignore my own credentials), she appears to be one. She is an expert on Evolution, and has contributed significantly to the article. In fact, Gnixon’s first point about the revert of the very first edit TxMCJ did on Evolution was totally unfair, because it was her first time, and we all have an opinion that for controversial articles like Evolution, one should discuss major edits. It was a newcomer mistake only.

I'm not sure what unfair point I made about that edit, since I supported it at great length. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perceived slights: This is a perfect example where Gnixon gets upset over any edit of his
  WP:OWN writing, and makes accusations. User:FeloniousMonk, an administrator and someone who has been editing these articles for years, gets hit with an accusation. Another unfounded complaint

For the record, the user he refers to immediately reverted an edit of mine on a physical science article which was totally unrelated to another article where we were having a disagreement at the exact same time. My edit to the physical science article was made in good faith on expert knowledge, and was perhaps the 20th of similar edits I had made to the article within a couple weeks. He reverted it with no comment explaining what was wrong with it, and that revert constituted his first edit to the article within the last many months or couple years. I accused him of following me from the other article, he denied it, and I apologized. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this user continues to be uncivil and complains about anyone editing ‘’his’’ articles. Can TxMCJ be a little nicer with Gnixon. Maybe, but from my own experience, Gnixon is difficult as an editor, and someone with whom simple conversations are manipulated to the point where it is difficult to have a civil discourse. If anything, what should be done with this ANI is a small recommendation to TxMCJ to calm down, but a stern warning to Gnixon that he cannot continue his behavior of making accusations against everyone who may not agree with his article. Orangemarlin 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never once expressed any claim whatsoever of ownership of an article. Orangemarlin is obviously not a neutral party in this dispute, as a brief review of his talk page will show. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Expressing" claim of ownership is not required in order to behave and operate as if you think you own the article. You've got two editors now with biological backgrounds who feel that you behave and edit as if you "own the article", while it doesn't seem that any other editor over at Evolution has been accused of such. TxMCJ 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested action

• Warn TxMCJ that wikistalking, as in the diff provided above, is absolutely unacceptable, and block her if it continues. Gnixon 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Consider the circumstances of the "secret creationist" accusations and consider them to constitute a personal attack and a form of harassment. Warn her, and block her if necessary. Gnixon 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Christopher, for good advice, and I apologize for misuse of this page. Gnixon 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of either harassment or wikistalking here, and the suggested actions seem way out of porportion for the situation. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FM is not a neutral party here. Gnixon 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested action -- Response

Please note that I did not bring this issue to this page -- however, in response to the above:

• I request administrative acknowledgement that researching an anonymous editor's prior editing history on other articles and posting valid concerns about them (valid concerns being good faith and neutrality, no POV-pushing), is not wikistalking. This will vindicate both me and Orangemarlin, who has also been accused by Gnixon as "stalking" him.... WHEREAS, Googling a non-anonymous user's personal information and posting the results publicly without permission, in clear attempts to discredit that editor (as Gnixon has done to me on several occasions now -- amazingly, including on this particular page and administrative request) is *undeniably* stalking. I request no action on this, other than agreement with these principles, and a warning if deemed necessary. TxMCJ 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Before passing judgement on the appropriateness or non-appropriateness of "secret creationist accusations", I request that you make an effort to fully comprehend the arguments Orangemarlin and myself have made regarding the POV-pushing that to us seems evident in Gnixon's archiving and page refactoring choices, as well as a fair acknowledgement that this is a reasonable (although possibly wrong) hypothesis, given Gnixon's involvement on other articles such as Intelligent Design. I request that you think carefully about accusing me of "personal attacks and harassment" while Gnixon has clearly been responsible for at least as much, if not more (given his actual-stalking, rather than wiki-stalking). I request no action on this, other than agreement with these principles, and a warning if deemed necessary. TxMCJ 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Finally, I request no blocking of anyone (please note: I am not the one requesting a block or administrative action here! Gnixon is!) However, I might suggest 1.) a stern warning to Gnixon that *his* stalking (as described above) is truly unacceptable while my own actions do not constitute stalking; 2.) that his reputation as a difficult, POV-pushing editor is growing fast and becoming apparent on a number of different articles (apparently even including the Intelligent Design article now); and 3.) without actually accusing Gnixon of creationist agendas, provide via this page and anywhere else appropriate, a public, *general warning* that if *anyone* (including Gnixon, or not) has any creationist POV leanings, that being heavily involved with the Evolution article (a science article) while simultaneously making the editing work of professional scientists difficult, constitutes *vandalism* and a lack of *good faith*. I request no action on this, other than agreement with these principles, and a warning if deemed necessary. Thanks for your help, and I'm sorry that Gnixon dragged you into this. TxMCJ 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of either harassment or wikistalking here. What I do see is one user, Gnixon, who's been an aggressive and overly assertive editor on a number of topics and all too quick to accuse others and be incivil himself, making allegations that appear to be exaggerated against an editor he appears to be in a simple content dispute with. If Gnixon is genuinely so unaware that he considers the behavior he's described to be harassment and wikistalking, then my advice to him is to become more familiar with the terms and grow a thicker skin (being unwilling to get as good as he gives). But if he thinks he can use this venue find clueless admins to waylay opponents in simple content disputes, then he may find himself hoisted by his own petard and the community's goodwill rapidly diminishing for any future claims he may bring here. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Apologies for the hassle. TxMCJ 07:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, FM is hardly a neutral party here. Gnixon 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And as I have noted, your spectacular refusal to EVER accept or consider any opinion that is not *exactly* what you want to hear and what you personally believe, is precisely what this whole business is all about. TxMCJ 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

I've removed mention by me of issues that have been made moot or are inappropriate for this forum. The issue of stalking remains unresolved and I would appreciate action from a neutral administrator. Gnixon 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As would I, although it's not clear why Gnixon is rejecting the opinion of FeloniousMonk. But if any other administrator gets involved, please review the record above for Gnixon's precedence in user stalking that far exceeds my simple review of his edits elsewhere. TxMCJ 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Editing similar articles should not be considered wikistalking. It is also natural that an editor who finds significant POV from one editor would look at other articles edited by that editor. In fact we should be encouraging people to track down POV edits, if not, why do we have a 'user contributions' option in the tool bar?

Accusations of wikistalking should only be considered when the 'stalker' is not commenting on the other users edits, rather is harrassing the other user. Critical comments on content is not harrassment. In short I do not see any evidence that Gnixon is being stalked outside normal editing.

As an aside, why is it inappropriate for someone trained in evolutionary biology to ONLY be editing articles in that field?

Hi David, thanks for your comment. However, could you review this, this, and this? Those discussions about

Special Relativity were in no way related to TxMCJ's and my disagreements related to Evolution. Of course I have no problem if she as a biologist only edits there, but I object strongly to her following me to unrelated pages and attempting to discredit me there. Thanks again, Gnixon

17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi David... Gnixon simply refuses to drop this issue. If you really want to delve into the history of this mess, it will take you some time to comb through the exchanges (and I don't know how to imbed immediate links like Gnixon has above)... but I think you will discover, quite clearly, that unlike Gnixon's failed attempts to specifically discredit *me* by publicly touting inaccurate estimates of my academic experience within clear contexts of trying to maintain some sort of power and control over the article (a thing I've never done) , I have not tried to "discredit" Gnixon -- I have merely tried to justify my own presence at Evolution to Gnixon, based on my background, and have tried to shed light on Gnixon's attitude and a pattern of counterproductive editing behavior that he has brought to other articles, as agreed by myself, Orangemarlin, and FeloniousMonk (all of which in Gnixon's argument are not reliable sources on this subject, because we are "impartial" and not "neutral"... I strongly urge you to consider the... ahem... possibility that Gnixon simply *rejects* any opinion that is not in line with his own, and that this maddening behavior within an editing environment is *precisely* what this whole business is about. TxMCJ 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit i did miss those edits. I don't think it is good etiquette to disparage an editor rather than their edits. I think you'd agree, TxMCJ, that is not going to win you friends. On the other hand, Gnixon, to deleve into a users personal history is even worse. I'm not going to look into the history of this interaction to see how this was all initiated because it seems you should both be able to take and step back and rationally see that both parties have been wronged. In reality, the best way forward from now is for you both to avoid each other as much as possible and keep your relationship strictly professional i.e. just comment on the edits and not each other. Do that and i think you'll both be a lot happier.

Lovely -- great feedback -- and thanks, TxMCJ 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TxMCJ has repeatedly demonstrated her refusal to interact with me professionally, despite numerous attempts by me to reconciliate. However, since her edits seem confined to Evolution, I'm willing to let her chase me away from helping at that page in the interest of avoiding her altogether. David, it's completely understandable that you wouldn't attempt to examine the full history, and in that light your comments are totally reasonable. In any case, your advice is irreproachable. Thanks. Hopefully this entire ridiculousness is over. Gnixon 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk's and David's comments and advice are reasonable, period. Don't try to downplay the dismissal of your accusations by implying that the administrators did not do their research. I'd be offended by that, if I were one of them. Accept the comments and advice as given, and move on, please. TxMCJ 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record I'm not offended but i would be if either of you post here again.  :) For both of you, your time is more valuable if it is spent enjoying some productive editing.

I noticed that there is an entire portal for one band: Portal:Rush (band). Is it just me or is it odd to give a band an entire portal? I've never even heard of them, but I need to know whether or not they should have a portal on Wikipedia before I make an sort of MfD nomination. Thanks for any help. The Behnam 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about portal policy, but don't start your MFD by saying you never heard of them. Rush is one of the biggest rock acts of the 80s and 90s, at least in the US and Canada.

Thatcher131

20:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about portal policy either... but agree with Thatcher131; they are extremely well known among rock aficionados and musicians, particularly drummers.--Isotope23 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I know better to than to reason an MfD involving music based around personal ignorance as I don't follow such things, but it still strikes me as quite odd that there is a portal just for that band. What could possibly be useful about it, and why does the band deserve an entire portal. The Behnam 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At one point we had a system set up for approval of portal creation which was designed to prevent portals with such a narrow focus. The system was rejected, so there is now no limits as far as I know on what portals can be created, except the MfD process. I suspect that any good faith portal which is well-formed and well-maintained, and which has an adequate pool of articles to showcase, will survive MfD.-gadfium 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess it is fine then. The Behnam 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of unusual portals and mfd's, although this isn't really the place to bring this up, is this new portal: Portal:Genocide a good idea?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Geogre reverted John Arbuthnot with the explanation "Consistent US orthography is superio(u)r to spotty and petulant conversion to Brit(t)ish orthography (and Noah Webster rulez anyway)". My sympathy is with the previous editor. Is Geogre expressing policy? - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is a matter for discussion on the talk page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the MoS calls for consistent spelling on any individual page, but also that the appropriate spelling varies by page, under the following rules: 1) for an article on a nationally associated subject use that nation's spelling rules (so the article on

GRBerry

21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

With point no. 3 being, IMHO, the most important. Natalie 22:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This admin is now describing other editors as "nonce accounts", which may nor may not be intended to mean

Nah, it's like

nonce words--he's saying they're disposable accounts. --Akhilleus (talk

) 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:: I wasn't aware of that meaning. Thanks for setting me straight. 
Hobson
 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is getting persistently silly. the doors are closed.

Matthew

13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have to put the archive template under the section header or else it will get munged by the archival bot.

Thatcher131

19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi, I was recently blocked (and it was mentioned

WP:SEX for guidelines regarding images, but I haven't found anything specific to entail my block. But that is besides the point. Basically, what I want to know is where my current standing is. Am I allowed to request pictures? Comment on other users requesting pictures? Request drawings? Comment on other pictures requesting drawings? I would like to know this so that an unfortunate misunderstanding doesn't occur a second time. Thank you.--Kirbytime

02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this... stop asking for child porn. Thanks. The Behnam 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are truly having difficultly understanding the line between child porn and !child porn, you should probably refrain from asking for images at all. And probably you should withdraw from editing articles on the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Several images, all of which are allowed on Wikipedia:

• Image:Cambridge tondo.jpg Is this child porn? It certainly depicts a child in a sexual act with an older man.
• Image:Virgin Killer.jpg Is this child porn? It is nudity, but no sex. Title suggests violent crime.

Seeing how those images are allowed on Wikipedia, that is what I used to claim that "Florida's laws permit Wikipedia to host pictures of simulated child pornography". Also it should be noted that Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_films contains many pictures albeit not of pornographic variety.--Kirbytime 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears you were blocked for this edit, in which you suggest that Child pornography could be improved through the addition of an image (possibly, barely reasonable) and that "Florida's laws permit Wikipedia to host pictures of simulated child pornography" (trolling or cluelessness). Given the rest of your comments on Talk:Child pornography, I would strongly advise you to abandon this thread here, before you get blocked for a longer period of time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So even questioning the circumstances of my block is trolling?--Kirbytime 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Consistently asking for a dainty selection of child porn on a silver platter, please, is, however. Or so that is the sentiment I am gathering from this thread. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about child porn. I just want to improve the article by having a picture of an example, per

WP:FA?, both of which say that having a picture which illustrates the subject is a very good idea. If I wanted child porn, <link redacted> there are plenty of places besides Wikimedia Commons from which I can obtain them.--Kirbytime

03:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, as a courtesy to people who might be at work or in a public place, please don't post a link to Google Images with the search query "pedophilia"; or, alternatively, at least write in bold NOT SAFE FOR WORK or something like that. --Iamunknown 03:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize.--Kirbytime 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article surely does NOT need a picture of a naked child engaging in anal sex to illustrate the article of child porn just to gain featured article status, thank you very much. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When the news covers a child pornography case, they don't show the pictures. They instead show the families, pictures of the criminals, and so on. We don't need to explicitly show a picture of child pornography.--Kirbytime 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then how does that illustrate child pornography? I'm not purposely creating a Catch-22 situation here, but the reasons you give are not substantial enough. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Sexual_intercourse, which does not have a picture of the act, but does have drawings, as well as a drawing of sodomy, which again seems to depict a child.--Kirbytime 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I concede that point. If you want that piece of art as a description of child pornography, then by all means take it to the appropriate talk page and discuss. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this sort of discussion is off-topic and should be discussd on the talk page. I am here asking what exactly I am allowed to do with respect to sexuality articles.--Kirbytime 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This does smell of trolling, but I can't help but roll my eyes to hear he was blocked for this. zOmG, aren't you all heros and looking out for the childrens :P Block him for being disruptive, maybe, but don't play the moral police, it's lame. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How is opposition to child pornography 'lame?' The Behnam 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Violates

WP:COI.--Kirbytime

03:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many

reliable sources that refer to child pornography in a negative light. — MichaelLinnear

03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between an RS which opposes child pornography, and an organization which actively tries to eliminate it. If a person is part of an anti-child pornography movement, it would be a COI for them to edit related articles.--Kirbytime 04:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if anyone has any opinion on anything, they shouldn't edit articles related to those things? JuJube 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying

This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing articles where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia. Please contact us if the article contents causes you concern.

--Kirbytime 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• You're talking past us. We're asking you to stop requesting that a federal crime be committed. — MichaelLinnear 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have never asked for a federal crime to be committed. What you said is equivalent to slander.--Kirbytime 04:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Slander is spoken and libel is written.— MichaelLinnear
      04:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I used the word "said", not "wrote". But you're dodging the issue. What you wrote is character defamation. Please strike it out.--Kirbytime 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Defamation? You mean personal attacks, do you not? Defamation is a legal term, if you did not know. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, Ned, that he wasn't blocked out of moral outrage – zOMG kiddie porn! – but rather because he was trolling and being deliberately WP:POINTy on the talk page of the article after repeated warnings. And he's doing it again here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When did I disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? Did I ever add pictures of child porn into mainspace pages? No. As an established user of Wikipedia, I took the right choice and discussed it on the

talk page before adding any pictures.--Kirbytime

04:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is becoming exhausting that he keeps bringing the issue back up in new ways to try to press for something that will not be granted. He should be blocked like last time he did this. The Behnam 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why won't it be granted? That's exactly what I'm trying to find out. Since you seem to say this with much definitiveness, I'd like to know why it won't be granted, from you. Thanks.--Kirbytime 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Two other editors have given you pretty clear advice:

• How about this... stop asking for child porn. Thanks. The Behnam 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you are truly having difficultly understanding the line between child porn and !child porn, you should probably refrain from asking for images at all. And probably you should withdraw from editing articles on the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep pushing. — MichaelLinnear 04:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be tolerated at all. Not only is it a continuation of trolling he was previously blocked for, but it happens to be that this guy is literally requesting child porn. It is completely disturbing. The Behnam 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough silliness. Even 'established users' don't get to troll indefinitely. I'm recommending an end to this thread, and I'm blocking Kirbytime for an additional 48 hours in the hope that he can find a better windmill at which to tilt. I invite other admins to review this block, and to overturn at their discretion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The block seems fine to me. It might be a good idea to propose a topic ban at WP:CN, Kirby seems to have an ongoing problem in this area. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Super-strong endorse. As I was reading this, I was about to do the same thing.

Daniel Bryant

04:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Note - He continues to use legal terms and is also being uncivil on his talk page. The Behnam 04:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember at least two other posts in the past dealing with his POV towards this... I have no problems with an

uncensored Wikipedia, but this is going too far... I would support a topic ban towards him. --Kzrulzuall

05:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to assume good faith on the issue and work toward a resolution on the talk page (suggesting one of the censored Masha Allen photos as a possible compromise), but the more he pushes the issue the less patience I have. We don't need a drawing of child porn. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe this warrants a discussion. Anyone who uploads child pornography to Wikipedia should be banned and the police called to arrest any user who is breaking the law for possession of this material. Apparently, according to Kirbytime, there is already child pornography on Wikipedia. He says there are pictures of naked children and children engaged in sex. Paedophilia is the most despicable act. I don't want to look at those photos and no-one needs to look at them. Who would want to portray it here? Who wants to see it? What educational purpose does it serve? I am disgusted that this is being discussed in terms of this user's apparent breach of Wikipedia rules and not his violation of the law and the moral sensibilities of most of human civilisation. Furthermore, we do not need any pornography on Wikipedia - pictures of sex or anything like that. There are laws against pornography in many countries and also children could be exposed to it. I cannot believe that Wikipedia would host pornography in order to illustrate what are meant to be encyclopaedic articles. It's not necessary.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable people would disagree with you about child pornography not belonging here, which is why Matthew closed the section. As for exactly what would qualify as pornography in a non-child context, or whether we should have images with nudity of any sort, this really isn't the place to discuss that (and you're likely to run up against

WP:NOT#CENSORED anyway). Re-closing. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)

16:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Zomg, archived! Just wanted to say I stand corrected on my earlier comment, as the block was about a disruption and not specific to child porn. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgdorf is an impersonator of User:Burgz33, creating a user page with some personal information and some false information, and should be banned a.s.a.p. All of his/her edits have been not vandalism, per-say, but impersonating another person and attempting to make them look bad. I have blanked their user page, but I'm sure it'll be back up. The only solution is to ban the user in my eye, because the account was created for the sole purpose to vandalize ones name. I really don't think it is proper for him/her to have such a user page, considering user pages should be for constructive editors. 70.253.167.161 07:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, User:Quartet has tagged the impersonator as a sockpuppet of the original, which is wildly inappropriate, an admin needs to get on this right away. 75.43.136.46 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reason to believe

Enforcer (hockey)'s talk page, when all the IP is saying is "Thank You." This user among with two others including User:CambridgeBayWeather have been stalking IP edits, and reverting them even if they're constructive, just out of spite. I hope higher up admins realize what is going on here is wrong, and put a stop to it as soon as possible. 75.43.136.46

21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP address above is that of blocked user Burgz33 the creator of a large number of abusive sockpuppets who has been blocked for personal attacks, vandalism and using sockpuppets to circumvent a block. The user simply edits using random IP's since the puppeteer was blocked and continues to Wikistalk a number of editors with abusive and uncivil edits. See the contributions^[[24]] of any of this sockpuppets and you'll see a pattern of user talk page abuse, vandalism and personal attacks. This is simply another attempt to bait one of the admins who blocked him previously and this has been going on for weeks. Yankees76 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're full of it. Why would I create an account to bash myself? Sorry, but I'm not as feeble minded as you. I edit hockey players, mma fighters, and musicans, CONSTRUCTIVELY. You, STALK my edits, and are very uncivil with me. Please see

St. Louis Blues (hockey), etc, etc. I have tried to improve these pages, yet 9 times outta 10, one of the aforementioned trio reverts/blanks them, without reason. I wouldn't be abusive if my edits weren't closely watched. Please refrain from other personal attacks, and stop watching my edits so closely. If you want to change how I worded something, do it, and then mention why you did such on the talk page, like a constructive editor. I don't care if I'm blocked or not, I will continue to make constructive edits such as the ones to the pages above. I also revert any vandalism when I see it, because I consider Wikipedia the best online source for factual information, but when people like Yankees76, Quartet, and CambridgeBayWeather try to revert factual edits, it makes me wonder. 76.213.169.214

23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this a bit ironic, you spend your time abusing other editors to the point where you get blocked for 6 months, create sockpuppets to contine the abuse, return under different IP's to continue and then come and complain about the same thing. As to stalking your edits, well, don't flatter yourself. Every time you return you leave childish attention seeking "look at me" messages on our talk pages like this and this. No one has to stalk you because you spend so much time telling everybody that you're around. As to constuctive and not starting with the personal attacks I suppose you forgot about Talk:Jordin Tootoo#Bias, which you tried to hide? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was spam, if you want it there, say it. Look right under it, it said it was subject to deletion, so I did you a favor. [[25]] isn't me, I love how you assume it is. My user names are usually more clever, and have a three or something related to the word three in them, if you haven't noticed. I find it a bit ironic that you're an abusive admin, revert edits, and blank edits without reason. What is the purpose behind blanking factual edits? Do you have one? No, you don't. Please, refrain from further embarrassment of yourself. See WP:CAMBRIDGE. The Tootoo page, was, I'll admit, my bad. But you saying "He's a hero to his people" is a racist phrase tickled my funny bone for hours. But, he still has a stellar page when other people don't even have one. If I created a page for Jan Von Arx, it'd be deleted, by either you, Yankees76, or Quartet. And thats truth. What I would like to do is create a new account, continue to make constructive edits on that one without you three breathing down my neck every edit. You can watch me, make sure I don't slip up, warn me if need be, but don't just block me without 1000 warnings I see on other vandals page. Show me a Wikipedia page that isn't a talk page or a user page that I have vandalized. Please. 76.213.169.214 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP 76.213 etc.. above is a blocked user using random IPs to circumvent the block if the original account burgz33. According to Wikipedia policy WP:BLOCK, "A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page. An admin may restart the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the original block if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked. Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted. (Admins can revert all edits from blocked users and re-make the good edits under their own names, to avoid confusing other admins who may be monitoring the same users.)" Currently the user has accumulated 5 registered sockpuppets and has edited under 15 different IP address socks to avoid the original 6 month block. I've reverted numerous personal attacks by this user, removed spam and vandalism from both my and another users talk page, and reverted personal attacks on article talk pages. Even the example above of

You called me feeble minded first, me calling it back is being uncivil? What does that make you? So because you have a problem with an editor, they should be banned? Wow. Theres this thing, called LOGIC. Use it. 76.213.169.214 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I casually mentioned that an anonymous vandal who placed a ban tag on my talk page was feeble-minded and I did this while thanking an editor for reverting the vandalism - so you were either stalking me and assumed it was you, or it actually was you and if that is the case, if the shoe fits.... And it still doesn't explain your 6 month ban, your sockpuppet abuse or your vandalism of CambridgeBayWeather's talk page - and then coming on here an openly lying about it. Yankees76 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the person that placed the ban thing on your page was tagged as a sockpuppet of Burgz33, so even if it was or wasn't me, you thought it was, and called me feeble minded. Simple. Lying? You can't really lie about this stuff, buddy. Its all in the history tab. I only did vandalism to his/her(its?) page because I was provoked by blanking/reverting. 76.213.169.214 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, show me where I called you feeble minded - if you're basing all of your personal attacks on a passing comment you won't get far here. It's not on your talk page, it's not in reponse to one of your posts - so you have nothing. And a casual glance through CambridgeBayWeather's talk page history shows numerous instances besides the one posted above, of vandalism, trolling and baiting all by you various IP addresses. You call that or this [26] constructive? I rest my case. Yankees76 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not every IP is me, hate to break it to you. I noticed a lot of people vandalize his page. I'm not the only one that has a problem with every single edit of his being reverting. [27] You calling me feeble minded. Put 2 and 2 together. Was your edit constructive? No, it was spam. Stop being so hypocritical. 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't make me pull up the differences, we're all a bit smarter than to think that every IP is you, however your IPs are so obvious that it's very easy to point them out. Yankees76 00:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a number be obvious, a lot of people have very similar IP's, and if I didn't write on talk pages/revert the admin abuse, you'd have no idea who I was. Best believe. 75.59.138.223 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No it's only a coincidence that all the IPs that happen to be the perps of vandalism on my, Cambridge's and numerous other talk page are either 70 or 75 IPs coming out of SBC Internet Services in St. Louis, Missouri. Right. I must have a lot of fans there. Yankees76 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had IP's that start with 200 before. And 60-69. All the tagged sock puppets are me, but you've accused (but not tagged) as well as Cambridge other IPs as being me, when they aren't. 2 Million people, perhaps theres more than 1 outta 2 Million that edit wikipedia and have ran into you. The numbers are against you, pal. 75.59.138.223 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've "accused (but not tagged)" - show me. I reverted vandalism by the following IPs and users on User talk:CambridgeBayWeather: 70.253.167.161, 70.239.214.39, 76.213.172.21, L--F3--l. All the IPs from St. Louis and the registered sockpuppet is of Burgz33 who is from St. Louis. The numbers are against me huh... They're all you. I'm done. Post here all you want, but I refuse to be drawn further into this. Your 6 month block is more than justified, as are the actions of the editors who have reverted your edits. I can't see ho anything you post here can be taken with any credibility because you're way past the point of assuming good faith. This is as was noted above by Cambridgebayweather, another cry for attention. I won't be drawn into that game any longer. Goodbye. Yankees76 00:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you shoulda gave up a few lines ago. Obviously you have severe trouble reading and comprehending modern day english. 75.59.138.223 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I love how admin abuse doesn't get resolved! 75.40.60.88 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Being bold and tagging as resolved, nothing I can see here needs admin intervention, remove resolved tag if something comes up --Iamunknown 22:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping somebody can help with a problem I am having.

Abu Badil removed the photo with the edit summary "rm problematic commons image (source seems bogus)". I do not know if the source is "bogus" or not, as I did not upload it. I note, however, that it is the image used on the Dutch Princess Maxima article, and has been used for over 6 months (even on the Dutch Main Page) without being deleted. Given that she is as important a person to Dutch society as Prince William would be to the British or Laura Bush would be to Americans, if there was a copyright problem with the image, I think the Dutch Wikipedia would have removed it long ago. I'd appreciate it if an admin could look at the image and reach his or her own decision about it. If you don't see any problems with the image, please stop Abu Badil from deleting it again. Thank you. Jeffpw 08:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• One incident isn't stalking. Can you give examples of times where he removes images you added? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have refered the image issue Husky on commons who is a Dutch wiki admin and should be able to figure out the copyright issues. I'll have a look into the harassment complaint. WjBscribe 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• The image license does not mention commercial reuse and derivative works and is thus is Wikipedia:Non-free content. It should be deleted from Commons and, I see, a deletion request has been filed. --Iamunknown 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In Dutch and in English it says clearly non-commercial educational purposes. Plus no mention of modifying. It's all kind of obvious. Garion96 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Ignoring the issue itself, Jeff - how is this stalking? Why do you think this removal has to do with your past history? Mangojuice^talk 17:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A bunch of arguing. The license is moot; it is not a free license. If the translation is to be believed, it gives no permission for derivative works. The permission is given to copy the image, but not to make modifications. As no permission is explicitly given for derivatives, the permission doesn't exist. The license is not 'free', and isn't a valid license for wikipedia. With derivative permissions, may be considered {{
    Kevin_b_er
    23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just observed that someone is creating sock puppet account names that appear similar to an editor trying to maintain order in the article

THese have been blocked indef as impersonators of a legit editor. If we know who the controler of the puppets, see [[WP:SOCK}}Rlevse 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

user:208.40.177.71 recently vandalized white-tailed deer after being temporarily blocked. The user also appears to be impersonating an anonymous IP address, possibly to get the IP address blocked. --Savant13 16:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think they're impersonating an IP address - they are an IP address. Natalie 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to

Has the user made any particular edits that make you suspect this? I've skimmed his recent contributions and I don't see anything obviously awry. He says on his page "I apoligise in advance, although it probably will never happen". Although he may not tick the remember me box, he could still be worried that people could hijack his account if he left the computer without clicking log out, given that he appears to edit from a shared workstation. If vandalism were to start coming from this account then we could look into it, but at the moment I see no obvious reason for concern. Will (aka Wimt) 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you right, I was trying to AGF, it just seemed a little suspicious but I guess I was a little too suspicious, thanks for the quick responses. Cheers -

^Talk

19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He could also be worred by being affected by an autoblock or something at school. Or he isn't aware that we can't see his IP address when he's logged in, and thinks he will somehow by confused with a vandal that way. Natalie 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had problems with Taajir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for some time; he insists on making disruptive edits to a set of articles of which he's explicitly claimed ownership, making unsourced claims, adding non-notable names to lists of notable people, reverting to incorrectly formatted templates, etc. (see, for example, this typical example, and the same, but with a different edit summary, both reverts involving ownership claims; this is in a simiilar style).