Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive243

After eight days on AfD, Drini (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed this as delete. (It had previously been closed as delete by Daniel Bryant - but he chose to reverse himself and extend it for a bit). Drini's act was likely to be controversial - but he was previously uninvolved - and, frankly, any close was likely to be contested. Cool heads were needed.

However,

^g 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, wheel warring is a great way to do an RfA in reverse. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess we'll now have to write up a page about Wheel-war reform and have oodles of discussion on it...--Srikeit 19:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How much discussion do we need to say "Don't do it"? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, we've been saying it for ages and yet here we are... again --Srikeit 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad precedent. Daniel should have sent the user to deletion review, not reopened it. Drini action can be considered "necessary": the article must have been deleted in order to request the deletion review. Matt's behavior is unacceptable, though, as an interested side he should have not reopened the discussion, even if another admin had done so. We have a process for deletion review, and cannot just let administrators play the "he did it first" mantra. -- ReyBrujo 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In fairness here, Drini's close was pretty much ignoring the debate: he wasn't evaluating arguments, he just made one of his own and acted on it. I think we could stand for an independent decision. In my view, the debate hasn't reached a clear conclusion, maybe it will with a little more time. Mangojuice^talk 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's a view for DRV discussion - not for unilateral reversal.--

Doc

^g 19:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to agree here to restore an outcome of "delete" and send it to immediately to DRV. We have that forum for a reason, and wheel warring is obviously bad. --kingboyk 19:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

Agree entirely. Should be closed as delete, and sent to DRV -- Samir 19:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. DRV would be best for sorting issues of admin behavior. Letting the AfD reach an independent conclusion would be, by far, better for deciding on the status of this article. The DRV would be a complete mess, we should all know that. Mangojuice^talk 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't letting it run be endorsing wheel warring? Not that I disagree that the AFD could use more input, mind you. --kingboyk 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought wheel warring meant reverting another admin action more than once. I only see one undelete described here. Where's the wheel war? 75.62.6.237 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, arbcom defined wheel warring as reverting an admin action without discussion.--

Doc

^g 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} —dgies^t_c 06:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdent - Sorry, guys, this article is not notable enough to be worth fighting over. There are cases where admins interfere in ways they probably should not do, but I don't believe this is one of them. Any actions taken here have been done in haste because there is too much other work to do. Admins should be given a free pass in this case. The real solution would be to create more admins, you're welcome to nominate me if you think I'm talking sense. PalestineRemembered 19:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're not. Whatever people think of the article - wheel warring is bad. If you think it is stuff for a 'free pass' then I oppose you being an admin.--

Doc

^g 20:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Could we get
  Nardman1
  19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, not if involves undoing another admin's decision :) Let's draw to a conclusion here (quickly please folks!) and then the next step will probably have to be DRV. If it's kept pending DRV the talk page can be undeleted then. --kingboyk 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I undeleted it, should be uncontroversial: it was deleted by Bryant who had reversed his own closure. Mangojuice^talk 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification: I normally avoid undoing my closures, but the information and arguments presented were substantial to the point where my close was (by my own admission) incorrect. Hence, I undeleted the article, reopened and relisted the AfD, and made a suggestion that it run the full five days further.

I appreciate why Drini wanted to close it early, though, and acknowledge that he has free rein to do whatever he likes even if I suggest anything. However, what Matt did was totally unacceptable. I have reverted the AfD to Drini's close verion, protected it, and redeleted the article per Drini's close. The speedy, out-of-process undeletion had no merit.

And for those of you who argue I was wheel warring as I deleted it initially, I hope you can apply

Daniel Bryant

23:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I commend Daniel's actions in this matter. And I feel that he correctly recognises that Drini's deletion was entirely valid based on the AfD discussion. His request in relisting was advisory and I'm sure was taken into account. When I first became aware that Matt Crypto had reversed Drini's close, I thought it was out of line. We should not reverse actions by other admins carried out in good faith. But I hadn't realised that Matt had been a participant in the AfD discussion. In light of this, it makes his decision to undelete the article all the more problematic. Wheel warring is bad. Wheel warring when you are involved in the dispute is utterly unacceptable. Cool heads are what are needed in discussions such as this one, not reckless acts clearly motivated by not getting one's own way... WjBscribe 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that Matt Crypto's actions were wrong. I didn't like them before, and i had failed to note then that he had previously commented and !voted in the discussion, which only made them worse. I am sorry that I didn't revert them instantly and take the matter right to
  deletion review, becaue I was surely not going to wheel war furhter (in fact I did so before I was aware of this thread). It is said above that "comments made after a valid close" should have been reverted, but I and four other editors commetned in good faith on an AfD then listed as open. It is not as if I or any of the other four asked for the revert. Reversion of comments in good faith is IMO undesireable. DES ^(talk)
  01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not the place but who?

Not a serious question for here, but I wonder, and someone here will know - who first coined the phrase ""Wikipedia is not therapy" - I think I am going to need to quote it, and would hate to give a wrong attribution - was it Kelly?

Giano

22:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this any help?

Doc

^g 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First edit on page: 13:29, 25 March 2006 Fred Bauder (Talk | contribs) (A start) It was apparently Fred Bauder. Funpika 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's where I first remember seeing it:

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/archive4#Wikipedia_is_not_therapy. Jpgordon, 3 May 2005. I'm not sure if it came up before that. Antandrus (talk)

22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly earlier citation (also from jpgordon) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive17#Arbitration_notice - User:Irate:

"Wikipedia is not therapy, nor can it provide therapy. If Irate hadn't been recognized as a useful contributor, he would have been unceremoniously and arbitrarily booted for being an abusive vandal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)" -- MarcoTolo 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I used to think it was a very mean thing to say, these days it just seems to be useful.

Giano

07:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For background, please see RfC/Grazon, RfC/Devilmaycares, AN/I#Block evasion by Grazon, or AN/I#More block evasion by Grazon.

Grazon, who has been indefinitely blocked, has again crept back onto Wikipedia qua

• 132.241.245.132
• 132.241.245.245
• 132.241.246.111

His edits have generally been less problematic during this latest spell, but they have still been somewhat tenditious, and some of the summaries are the sort that would get a regular editor cautioned:

• “he jerked off a guy and he blew a guy”
• “rvv” inappropriately
• “dream on Chompbots”
• “Reverted Vandalism by BrianSmithson” inappropriately
• “For shits sake Donald was in 7 war time film and was in uniform in every one of them! WTF is wrong with you?”

Additionally, there are again many edits (some certainly not minor) for which he is not providing a summary. —75.5.175.229 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please do something about this user because basically, the editor seems to be using Wikipedia as a webhost. I left a suggestive message on his talk page[10], which he ignored. His userpage seems, at a quick glance, to be full of religious POVs and poetry. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User page deleted reduced to a stub, user - who has no edits other than to his user page - blocked until he indicates he wants to work on the encyclopedia. Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with this. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

0CDisorder you and wikipidea addiction (talk · contribs) - He's back, again, after being banned, I think, three times last night. Can someone banhammer? Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 08:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Viridae^Talk 08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just

regular nonsense. Luna took care of it. — MichaelLinnear

08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Postings of copyright violations after being warned

Resolved

• Bravehartbear (
  Smee
  09:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Blocked indef, at least until he agrees not to copyvio any more. Sandstein 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time.

Smee

09:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

This article is currently in an older revision containing many spam links in violation of

a web directory.

This is because an anonymous user (User talk:71.51.113.146 and User talk:65.186.91.97 has been repeatedly reverting since 9th April.

Myself and others have worked on a newer revision [11] without the spam links. But I can't revert again without violating 3RR (although this anonymous user has).

Over the past month I have repeatedly asked this user to read

on both his talk pages and the edit history. He hasn't acknowledged this and continues to revert on the basis of "I'm not adding these links, they were there before".

10:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have NOT violated 3RR; I have not made more than 3 edits in the last 24 hours. 65.186.91.97 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you hadn't; that was my mistake, sorry (thought 3RR was '3 or more', not 'more than 3') Marasmusine 11:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Semi-protected. Please ask at
  WP:RFPP if this happens again. Guy (Help!
  ) 11:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

IP 12.149.132.3 (and several other IPs that I think are the same user) is determined to remove a paragraph from this biography. He comes and removes it at least once a day, sometimes twice. He refuses to use the talk page, communicating only through rather cryptic edit summaries. He ignores all warnings and pleas for discussion. He provides sources that do not say what he thinks they say. I hesitate to bring it to the simple vandalism board, because... well, he thinks he's having a content dispute. I'm requesting a 48-hour block, to give him time to consider the advantages of discussion and consensus. Does someone agree? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like

WP:BLP issues evident, contested content fully sourced. Blocked 31 h. Sandstein

11:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly added a statement about global warming to the article Arctic, taken from a single dubious news story. I have reverted him 8 times now over the past 3 days, such as this [12].

(Note: Looking at the edit history, you will see that I also reverted another editor. This was because he mistakenly thought my removal was vandalism; once I explained he stopped.)

I have explained that this addition is out of context, and there are more appropriate articles that already discuss this. He has not responded to these criticisms. Instead, he has repeatedly made statements on various talk pages: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] that call my reverts 'vandalism', imply that I am not allowed to do that, or are personal attacks.

I am only reporting this here as he has (see the last 2 diffs) threatened to have me blocked. I would like to see this user blocked for disruption and incivility. The way, the truth, and the light 12:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs some reference to

global warming and the predicted changes that will come about in the region. This will not be easy, since there is a wide variation in the estimates of what is going to happen, and User:Manchurian candidate's contribution is, as you say, pretty insubstantial. However, it would be much better to cooperate with him/her and invite improvements rather than battling over the article. If push came to shove, the addition been sought is not un-encyclopaedic, and it's your reverting of his additions that might appear to be disruptive. PalestineRemembered

13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heads Up! - I have informed User:Manchurian candidate of his involvement in WP:AN/I. --24.136.230.38 13:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You say that global warming has been covered in another article. Why not just have a header saying "global warming" then have a "main article: article"? --24.136.230.38 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Arctic should have something about global warming. However User:Manchurian candidate has clearly been uncivil and does not appear to be capable of a reasonable discussion about it. The way, the truth, and the light 13:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

boohoo cry as much as you want.Check the Antarctica link and the creator of the article lists that global warming should be added in the antarctic page.You don't want me to add the link and you say it is fake.son wiki news has that article [[20]] and you are editing it again and again,you don't want the truth to be known.what a hypocrite name you have.I have complained you to the admin,he would settle this out.I still believe that the global warming article should be added. manchurian candidate 13:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More of your incoherent ranting. The way, the truth, and the light 13:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is from my talk page and clearly needs a more timely response than I can give. Will someone please take a look at it and refer it to AFD or Mediation or take action themselves? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

hi how are you? i remember you were giving me advices about fixing the article but not to open a new thread on the issue, right? Then now i expect you to come and fix the vandalisms that started since the time Alexius opened a new article about the whole issue of massacres in that time..User hectorian by now already violated three revert rule--laertes d 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The only vandalism has been done by Laertes. He has already been banned several times for your nonsense vandalizing articles on issues pertaining to the Greek Revolution. Please read the discussion pages and it should be quite evident that Laertes has managed to contribute nothing of substance other than various vandalism. AlexiusComnenus 02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexius stiop this game of following me in every single place, you shoul understand that youre not convinvcing anybody but these same people dont want any mention of the massacres in Peloponnese in a decsent way and thats why people are doing nothing about you..

Magyver, as you know you and others previously voted for the deletion of the article claiming it to be POVfork and now alexius opened a new thread

12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:75.183.9.210 is peristently adding the unsourced claim that Donald Watkins is worth $2.5 billion:

[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

No matter how many times he's been told that wikipedia requires everything to be cited[32], he defiantly persists on re-inserting the unsourced claim over and over again, without even bothering to justify it in his edit summary. While it’s true that a 2002 Washington Post article noted that by various accounts Watkin’s may be worth at $1.5 billion (a statement which itself violates

15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the matter with this user, beyond in the edit summaries of your reverts? Try writing a message on the user's talk page. You might find

WP:DR helpful. -SpuriousQ (talk

) 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well to me this is a very clear cut case. You're not allowed on wikipedia to claim someone is worth $2.5 billion unless you have a source claiming they are, and even then you should state that it's only an estimate and list the source. I didn't bother going to his talk page because the user was so unresponsive to complaints in edit summaries and seems to not even care that his assertions are 100% uncited. I figured if he isn't responding to me in his edit summaries, why would he respond to me on his talk page. The only response I'm interested in is him providing a source. But I will leave a message on his talk page just on the small chance it makes a difference, but I think it would have more credibility coming from an admin. Pacingcar 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they didn't see the edit summaries, not everyone is familiar with how the mediawiki software works, edit summaries are never a substitute for constructive discussion. --pgk 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Try to

assume good faith: he might not see or understand your edit summaries, or know how to respond to them in his own edit summaries. The first step in dispute resolution is discussion; there's probably no need for admin tools at this point. -SpuriousQ (talk

) 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just didn't see many edit summaries asking him to stop adding unsourced content, and have left him a friendly comment on his talk page. But if he continues to add the unsourced content, what should I do? Pacingcar 16:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well

WP:BLP, so I'd ask myself how important is it that it gets removed/sourced immediately? If it'll wait a few days add a {{fact}} in the relevant place to show it's missing a source, note your concerns on the talk page and then revisit it and remove if needed in a few days. --pgk

16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well according to Jimmy Wales everything on wikipedia that isn't sourced should be aggressively removed as this is essential for us to have any credibility. And it's a pretty extreme claim to say that someone who Forbes magazine refuses to list as a billionaire is in fact a billionaire two and a half times over and the person has now been informed that he needs to add sources and has demonstrated an ability to do so in the past. I would just prefer if we were a little stricter about facts on wikipedia Pacingcar 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought BLP meant everything and not just potentially offensive material. How do you we know he wouldn't be coy about his worth (in $)? Feydakin 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out if there are any sockpuppets and sockpuppeteers in the

because I don't think I have sufficient evidence. I am instead requesting that an admin check and/or monitor these users and help me if there is enough evidence to file a case or if there is a doubt and that these users should be monitered instead.

The below users are users who I believe are sockpuppets or sockpuppeteers.

• User:MCASGT

I believe that this user is a straw man sockpuppet. This user also makes weak claims over the disputes that have no supporting references or facts. MCASGT also has poor spelling, which is also inconsistent. MCASGT states that he is mainly interested in the Dokdo dispute and he is only commenting on the Dokdo talk page, which shows that he may be a single purpose account.

• User:Macgruder

• User:Komdori

This user has not been active for the past several months. However, as the dispute in Dokdo became more heated, he has made numerous comments which are quite informed about the subject and the discussion. I doubt that he has simply been observing from the sidelines for several months then suddenly join the discussion. Komdori claims to be Korean, however his arguments are for the Japanese side of the discussion at the talk page, which is very strange, although that may be possible.

• User:LactoseTI

The account for MCASGT was made on May 6, 2007.

The account for Macgruder was made on May 4, 2007.

The account for Komdori was made around May 10, 2006.

The account for LactoseTI was made on May 11, 2006.

All the accounts have been created at similiar times. MCASGT was created on a later date. I believe his creation is simply to cause more heated discussion at the talk page and is a strategic move by the sockpuppeteer to make the Korean side look bad. I believe that I strongly believe that there is a sockpuppeteer among them and the rest sockpuppeteers. Thank you. Good friend100 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The banned user VinceB (

16:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to

WP:AIV. --24.136.230.38

16:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Check that case, what Tankred linked in. I reported an impersonator of me [37] I assume my opinion about Tankred, and I can give difflinks for that. --195.56.21.239 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This article (Elgin, Moray) has been vandalised, just do a search for "HIV" on the article and you'll see.

Henricbl 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(Moved to

17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Rat

Resolved

 – Content restored by an administrator

The page Rat was moved by a vandal. The vandal has been blocked indefinitely, and the page moved back, but all of the content of the page has been removed. Can an administrator access the revision history? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The page is just sitting at Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaat but needs an admin to move it back. Will (aka Wimt) 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've alerted an administrator that is logged on currently. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

01:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Nlu appears to concur, I have implemented the above. —dgies^t_c 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sock puppeter clade.. --AirFrance358 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan (history) (difference between versions)

“

Red symbolizes the blood of Kurdish martyrs and the continued struggle for Kurdish freedom and dignity. Green expresses the beauty and the landscapes of Kurdistan. Yellow represents the source of life and light of the people.

”

source

Kurdish flag which in turn sources kdp.se

There is an ongoing revert war over the colors around the wikiproject. I and at least one other editor (Makalp) find the colors to be unnecessarily political. I feel the colors are a

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX

violation. The removal of the colors has been reverted back as "vandalism" or that with a rationale that the colors have no political or controversial value even though there is a source establishing the contrary.

A past attempt in discussion was mostly ignored

This is a wikiproject so a "content dispute" isn't the case. Measures should be taken to avoid controversies in wikiprojects. If you take a look at wikiprojects about other geographic regions or even wikiprojects on countries (Wikipedia:WikiProject France, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia) no such bordering is seen.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

These color are using the to give an image supporting the

PKK (which is listed as terrorist) see flag colors of PKK;PKK flag

].

one of the contributors declared in edit summary that there is a political agenda.Must.^{T C} 13:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that. It only adds to the controversy. -- Cat ^chi? 13:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys are revert-warring over a 3 pixel wide boarder around a table? ---

WRE

) 14:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You may say that, yes. There is more to this than 3px borders obviously... -- Cat ^chi? 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I support using those colors. They are the colors most commonly associated with Kurdistan - if that is for the aforementioned reasons, so be it. See "Celtic nations" and the templates if you want to see some real political POV. Kurdistan is nothing compared to that.Ploutarchos 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

These colors just match the national flag. That makes them thematically relevant and otherwise no big deal. --Masamage ♫ 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/13256 There is a redirect there whose name is a big long decimal number. No prizes for figuring out the hexadecimal representation. See also the deletion log for the redirect; I don't understand why it didn't stay salted. 75.62.6.237 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted again. It's been speedied 4 times already - it's just another silly keyspam - Alison ☺ 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• And SALTed. Enough is enough - Alison ☺ 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Any one want to comment on this users use of warning templates? [Here is one for example ] Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heads Up! - here is an old revision showing the personal attacks he made. --24.136.230.38 20:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • masterka
    20:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Seems to have agreed to stop, considering his/her apology. —210physicq (c) 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message to the user about being civil and so forth. I hope this user understands that I am trying to help. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WMF-hotwax (talk · contribs), the account pretending to be WikiBlue, is the same person as the insane abusive troll account Jabales (talk · contribs), using an open proxy on a hosting company range. Which I've just blocked - David Gerard 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a bug in Wikipedia's software whereby a page that tries to

:-

(Please note: I am NOT complaining against User:(aeropagitica).)

Hey, I noticed suddenly my "General Userboxes" sub-page was suddenly re-created by you, meaning that it somehow got deleted. I was wondering who deleted it, and why... generally, what is going on, I didn't even know it'd been deleted =/ as you were the last person to edit the page other then me, I assume you have some idea of what's happened? ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Please what was the full filename of this apparently re-created page? Anthony Appleyard 21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Hey, the page is User:The Haunted Angel/General Userboxes. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Because of a known bug in Wikipedia's software, a page that tries to transclude a missing template is sometimes treated as being tagged for speedy delete. In this case, several user subpages showed in the list of files speedy-delete-tagged db-author, but they proved to contain no speedy-delete tag. So I went into one of them in edit mode, and its list of transcluded templates showed two red entries, so I created those missing templates as dummy templates. Whereupon all the spurious speedy-delete listings went away. Anthony Appleyard 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Ah, I see. Is there any way for me to get back the source code for the deleted page, or do I need to go to an Admin for that (or are you an Admin?). ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC) I have restored User:The Haunted Angel/General Userboxes including all its old edit history before it was deleted. What you want will be in its old versions in its history. Its records say that at 15:40 on 13 May 2007 User:(aeropagitica) deleted User:The Haunted Angel/General Userboxes as "(CSD G7: Author Requests Deletion)", likely because of the bug that I described hereinabove. (I am an admin.) Anthony Appleyard 21:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks! You've been a great help, thanks a load mate :D ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the "two red entries" was User:The Haunted Angel/General Userboxes.

Likely before 15:40 on 13 May 2007 User:The Haunted Angel/General Userboxes tried to transclude another missing template file, and so by the effect of this bug appeared spuriously to be speedy-delete-tagged.

I have come across this bug before. It may be caused by the software, looking for the missing template file, finding an old work buffer that has a copy of a speedy-deleted file in it. Anthony Appleyard 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a single by La Toya Jackson that was re-issued by 2007 under DEAD END! Records, a small record label owned by myself. However, copies have been sold, and continue to be sold and manufactured, and this classifies as an official release. Vandals who know me outside Wikipedia (and don't like me) continue to remove any reference to the 2007 release, simply because I'm associated with it. Also, they decided to change "DEAD END! Records" to "Robert is a Gay Twat" in the article, and at one point, even adding my photograph to the article. Not only should this page be fully protected against further vandalism, but administration should consider having the users involved, specifically User:HelenRail, 82.34.226.152, User:J9306, AND User:Vinylcollector82.

Rhythmnation2004 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem horrible right now (if kept in check). If it gets worse, go for

WP:RFPP. --PaxEquilibrium

22:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's not bad as far as I can tell too. I've added a unreferenced template to the article, though. There are no sources saying that this was re-released at all. Metros232 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a citation, but you can bet that the vandals will removed it again within a few days. These vandals need to be blocked. Look at this: Record label changed to "Robert is a Gay Twat", My photo is added to page This type of vandalism is completely inappropriate and unacceptable on Wikipedia, and this user is taking their personal dislikes towards me to vandalize Wikipedia. This can not be ignored. Rhythmnation2004 23:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Flatspace20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sent a wrestling article to AfD, and checkuser has confirmed open proxy use. Can someone block and deal with the AfD closure as well please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Done - Alison ☺ 23:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What should be done about this? --Ideogram 23:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. It has been deleted. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've spent tonight starting to go through

23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. It is not clear legally that the sources are necessary. (They are, however, best practice.) There is a thread up the page aways about your actions. May I suggest that we currently keep the discussion confined there? --Iamunknown 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

would have been nice for someone to leave a message for me to tell me!Madmedea 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel for you, and it sucks that we don't have a source for some of these articles. However, if you look at it, the sourcing policy for digital images is chiefly to avoid copyright claims - it's secondly for encyclopedic merit. Perhaps we should make a {{pd-nosource}} tag which can be used on images like that, which clearly have no copyright claims, but which have not been properly attributed. It seems silly to delete images with no conceivable copyright violation because they haven't been sourced, but it's also silly to have no middle ground. --Haemo 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Madmedea has left notices at my talkpage about on-line sources for 16th-century engravings adequately covered by PD-old, for two-dimensional works of which the author is long-dead. One copy of an engraving or lithograph is pretty much like another, and I can't rediscover the on-line sources. Is this a prelude to mass deletioons of engravings? Is this genuinely intended to serve Wikipedia and the Wikipedia reader?--Wetman 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wetman, please see the Sources for Mona Lisa thread some ways above. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

As I've written above, I have obviously stumbled into something which has hit a sore spot whilst trying to do something I think is worthwhile - moving images to the Commons. But every digital image, taken from a 16th century original or 19th century original, will have a source - it could be a website, an non-online image database, or your scanner. We do, however, need a new "no sources" tag for PD images which doesn't threaten deletion (not that I'd be the one deleting as I'm not an admin). I have asked for help with one from the

01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Article Tags

Many have avoided the naming issue on the

Dokdo

page since the article falls to edit wars particularly easily. There is, however, an earnest discussion on the talk page about whether or not the current name of the article is appropriate. The argument is not about article content, etc., just the name. To this end, several editors have attempted to put a tag on the article informing other editors of the discussion, both in the case where someone happens by and in the case where someone views the dispute categories.

At least four editors are (currently) posting that they believe the name is inappropriate and are open to discussion, but other editors seem very diligent in removing the tag, saying there is no dispute. I understand removing the tag if the dispute became stale/no more posts were being made there, but I believe that removing the tag like this is not good for either side. I do not see what can be gained by stifling the discussion.

Their only reason for removing the tags is that they dispute there is a dispute. I'm not sure if this is the place to post this or not, but what should be done? Just keep putting the tag back? (I don't like this idea, seems too easy to escalate into a full fledged edit war.) Or what? Komdori 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand where the editors are coming from who want the tag removing - it's very frustrating to reach a consensus, have four months pass, and then have a handful of new editors pounce on it and claim there's a dispute again. A good way to make sure this isn't going on is to read back through the archives - see how people argued before, and see how they reached a consensus. If you've got, numerically, as many editors disagreeing with the rationale for the previous consensus, as previously endorsed it, then I say you have a dispute - just as a rule of thumb. The same is true if you have substantially new arguments, which were not previously dealt with. If there's really a dispute, it should be either based on new material, or consist of a substantial number of editors disagreeing with the rationale for the previous concensus - not just starting the argument over again. This are just my 0.02$ about this topic - they're not rules or anything; just my feelings about what makes a dispute a real "dispute", and not just the inevitable turnover of editors refreshing an old argument. --Haemo 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The current "consensus" is based on the following (badly managed) poll:

• Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_4#Requested_move

The people who started the poll forgot to tell everyone there was a poll going on, resulting in a 100% "support" for the page move. The poll was hastily closed, once people started voting against it. But people continued voting.

Then apparently somebody solicited votes in an outside blog, resulting in over 100 or 200 "oppose" votes, and the polls had to be closed anyways.

When counting the votes of established editors, I found more "support" votes than "oppose" votes, and so I endorsed the result (although I didn't endorse the count).

Anyways, it's been almost 1 year since then. The previous voting was conducted improperly, and so you could probably lodge some kind of a complaint or start another poll based on those grounds.--Endroit 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer came into the picture sometime after this poll closed, and suggested that perhaps another poll may be done after 6 months. Be sure to ask him for his opinion.--Endroit

00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User evading ban

Boat-proof is a sockpuppet of User:Panairjdde, who was banned last December for sockpuppetry, edit-warring and so forth. This is just a trolling account, but if someone could block it, that would be swell. Thanks! Dppowell 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Could I please request that other administrators review my comments here? CJCurrie 23:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments will be reviewed there. Or am I missing something in your request? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have concerns that some aspects of this process present the appearance of unfairness. CJCurrie 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Like...? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a very well written comment that should go on file in the arbitration case. nadav 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to User:physicq, please review the link above. CJCurrie 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please block RefDeskBot (talk · contribs)? It's messing up pages it's archiving, partially deleting categories and page headers. Corvus cornix 00:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, though it doesn't seem to be operating now. I suppose it can't hurt though. Prodego ^talk 01:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Blove 6969 created Tyler Waespi, which I subsequently placed a db-bio tag on. He subsequently made the following statements on my talk page. [39] and [40]. He has not made proper use of Wikipedia. Laaabaseball 05:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Warned, blocked for one week, and now blocked indefinitely ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor

12:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it appears thisis not the first incident regarding him and this page. [42] I don't think we can have established eitors referring to the subject of a biography as a "cow" not in main space anyway.

Giano

12:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually brought this up before, as he was stalking my edits that day. For example I made this edit to an AfD at 20:08 and he votes 1 minute later. Then when I reverted vandalism to the above article, his edit put it back five minutes later. I have no objections to anyone checking my contributions, as that's why they are logged, but I regard his actions as going beyond that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm begining not to like what I'm seeing here, [43] especially when one looks at Peabody's talk page.

Giano

14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your link shows General Peabody trying to set up a revert tag team, and here's another one:[44]. But note that he's a brand new user, I guess that's why people are being

extra patient. (FWIW, he looks like a genuine noob, too--a sock would know to do these things more discreetly.) Bishonen | talk

14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

The user hasn't edited since Giano put a note on his page. But just to make it clear that we seriously can't have such behaviour on a

WP:BLP page, I dropped a message myself, too. Bishonen | talk

14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

• The edit, and be aware I didn't write its contents, was a mistake! I shouldn't have made it. --Counter-revolutionary 14:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm quite struck by this. You reinstated an edit by somebody else without reading it...? How does something like that happen? Bishonen | talk 14:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I think Bishonen is referring to this surprising admission. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was an error on my part! --Counter-revolutionary 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

An error, to be sure. On that point we can all agree. But, it seems, the error is the result of a campaign on your part to revert anything done by One Night In Hackney. He reverted an ignorant, shameful comment, and you were quick to simply revert what he had done without being bothered to look. I find that disturbing, and what I find even more disturbing is that you seem to be motivated to do so by ideology, and not what is best for Wikipedia. ---Charles 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• The horse is dead, quit tormenting it. --Counter-revolutionary 13:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This edit summary: m (Perhaps if they could source it...) doesn't look as if it were something you reverted without reading. Corvus cornix 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This user seems to be problematic. His user page reads "Leave a message (unless user:Vintagekits)" which is needless uncivil. JoshuaZ 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Re. the edit summary; I didn't read the whole thing. There are sources for her children attending a grammar school in NI, obviously not for her being a cow.

The reason I state that Vintagekits shouldn't write on my talk page is that he has "banned" me from his. --Counter-revolutionary 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Retiono Virginian. Either that, or the user has snapped. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Looks like he's hunting for 'resigned' and inactive wikipedians to hack now? ThuranX 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what that was. I think I've cleaned everything up though. Metros232 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's blocked now anyway. Secretlondon 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unlikely that this user snapped based on his edit summaries in his contributions. I can't be too sure however, can anybody provide

checkuser to see if this account is really hijacked? It could be the same person who hijacked all 5 admin accounts.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)}

18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

When Retiono Virginian resigned, he created a new account, Eaomatrix (talk · contribs) (see this edit for confirmation of that). The last edit from that account was at 18:08 UTC today. The account hijacking of his old account was 18:14 UTC today. Might a checkuser be in need here? Metros232 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm yes. I also have my suspected of who hacked the old unused account. As the account, I asked for everything to be shut down to prevent hacking and it was blatantly rejected. It may be User:Mr oompapa who is responsible for this, as basically I was a target for him as Retiono Virginian, and partially a way to escape him for one was to have this new account. I am not responsible for this mayhem. Perform a checkuser. Eaomatrix 18:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eaomatrix, I use to edit as

The Sunshine Man

18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Eaomatrix, I got a question. How can Mr oompapa hijacked your account? Did you use a strong password?--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Retiono Virginian account did Not have a strong password, which makes it quite vunrable. However I believe it to be Oompapa because he was always leaving abusive messages for me (many were oversighted as they contained personal information) and he may have clicked on that the account had resigned and comprised it. I'm not sure though, it could be anyone. Eaomatrix 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this. If you didn't intend to use the account again, and in fact wanted it closed, why didn't you set a random password? The failure to take even minimal precautions here is extremely worrying. Why knowingly run an account on a weak password? Why, having done so, leave it exposed? --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

After I retired as

The Sunshine Man

18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit summaries scream Oompapa to me. However, a Checkuser should set everyone's minds at rest. – Riana_ऋ 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell

Demcdevit to do checkuser on your original account to see if it is that abusive sockpuppeter, a person who hijacked 5 admin accounts, or some other person.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)}

19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite guys, can someone throw out a link to his failed RfA from last month? Reg is just P'd off his RfA snow balled after his comments about Kelly Martin, - check his contribs just before he left, he either went crazy or gave someone his password. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

HERE YOU GO. Anchoress 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, I highly doubt that he went crazy in his account. He created an account named Eaomatrix a week ago or two before the incident today, so it is likely that his account has been hacked.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 19:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he was annoyed. Really, who would want to hack his account? Anyone wanting to cause trouble would just create their own account. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would quite like to see a checkuser - who knows, if the edit summaries are Oompapa like, Retiono may well have been vandalising on the sly with Oompapa accounts, and when he ran amock on his old account, he mistakenly used the Oompapa style, perhaps in anger.

19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A user hijacked 5 admin accounts?! Please state who they are, because I must have missed that disscussion, and is that user the same user that you accuse of hijacking this account? Also, is it possible that this user (the hijacker) could have an automated password cracker? I have noticed that sometimes a message is displayed to prevent automated password cracking, but this is very rare. Is it possible to block all of the ips of the abusive user from clicking "Sign in/create account", and prevent him/her from logging in under any username? Should a feature like that be created, to prevent banned users from doing so? Also, for banned users with changeable ips, is it possible to install a mediawiki feature to track a banned user's new ips, and automatically block them both from signing in and from creating an account? Also, should there be a thing that automatically checks the computer of a user (in the form of a cookie, etc, that is not malware) for any password cracking devices, and automatically ban them from entering the account signin/creation zone? Is such a feature possible? Or, do "we" just not have that kind of technology? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001^(T+C+U) 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the stuff you're suggesting is not really possible. However, mediawiki should probably track overall statistics of successful vs. unsuccessful logins and alert the devs to sudden changes, if it's not already doing so. 75.62.6.237 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Admins desysopped. -- ReyBrujo 20:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to drop my two cents in; while clearly something was up with the On Wheels stuff, my accusations of sockpuppetry concerning the time period prior to that were unfounded; I had no evidence apart from a photographer's barnstar given to someone who habitually claimed that copyrighted images were his and released under a CC license. I had suspicions, but no actual evidence. grendel|khan 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Eaomatrix's past is relevant here, and should provide some background to my breakdown of good faith in an earlier comment. As has been admitted to me on IRC (a couple of days ago), Eaomatrix used to be

22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like another Michaelesque situation...and that worked out well. — MichaelLinnear 08:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be irrelevant, but User:Retiono Virginia was created and blocked last week as a VOA. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is almost certainly not a hijacking, and the same as

08:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not cool, and quite disruptive. Perhaps help Eaomatrix with their wikibreak [45] with a block for disrupting Wikipedia? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 08:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Far out, that's disappointing. So is Retiono/Eaomatrix the same person as Oompapa? – Riana_ऋ 09:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the checkuser results show that the vandalism on the Retonio account was on the same IP as Eaomatrix. Nothing to do with Oompapa yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

THERE. I'M GONE, and not returning. You better be happy now. Becuase I AM NOT this Oompapa troll or Molag Bal. Martinp23 is just some arrogant kid. Eaomatrix 10:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. What, we just block people whenever they feel like it? – Riana_ऋ 10:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Eaomatrix for a month. Vandalism is not acceptable, and then trolling when you get caught isn't either. Moreschi ^Talk 10:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit weird to think that Eaomatrix/Retiono Virginian is Mr oompapa because Retiono Virginian's account did get affected by continuous vandalism from Mr oompapa and was 1 of the reason he left and created a new account and how the hacker managed to find his password might have been something to think about but I don't think it's the same person..It seems dubious though but it definitely ain't the same person..A checkuser needs to be done on Mr oompapa to clear this all and maybe the Admin involved with all this Chrislk02 needs to be brought in to solve this once and for all..----Cometstyles 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps - but in the past (you'll have to take my word for this until I have the time to trawl through the relevant categories), Molag Bal/Eaomatrix/Retiono has used accounts later proved to be him by checkuser to attack his other accounts. I can't remember examples off the top of my head, but if you drop me an email or something, then I can send you the relevant IRC logs, should you wish.

inp23

13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite strange

This thread on ANI has been vandalised a few times in the past half hour, mainly by one IP and one user. The IP vandalism is like this, [46] and was followed by this post to Dmcdevit's talk, attempting to avoid an IP check as I requested there. The user who vandalised ANI was

14:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I blocked both IPs and Malcourno, all of whom were obviously trolling. Checking WHOIS, the IPs originated in the UK, apparently. I'm not techie enough to tell whether they're open proxies or not. Moreschi ^Talk 16:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The user behind Malcourno, Eaomatrix and the rest uses BT internet, which can geolocate anywhere in the country, and is dynamic to the extent that if one unplugs the router, and reconnects, one gets a new IP.

inp23

16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, (and prompted by a bit of vandalism to my talk page, especially) Retiono, et al., is certainly the same as Mr. Oompapa (and Malcourno).

t

06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Trust me to welcome the vandals...anyone know if Eaomatrix/Malcorno/Retiono have any more socks, or have we rounded up all of them? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This guy was already warned and blocked once about this. [47] [48], [He keeps putting the Israeli flag next to the name "Palesting" and the Palestinian flag next to the name "Israel". His user page shows an obvious antisemitic bias where he accuses Wikipedias of whing "pro Jewish bias". i thought this was taken care of but I guess not because he's back trying to inflame people. He needs to be blocked for a longer period or time or someone needs to set him straight and i think its safe to quit assuming good faith at this point. he also has a history of disruption using his Rastishka (talk · contribs) account and his IP 82.33.32.160 (talk · contribs).

Here is what hes doing now, soapboxing, causing a disruption with his soapboxing garbage. [49]. Please make him stop! The Parsnip! 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked him, for persistent POV pushing, trolling, and soapboxing despite repeated warnings and two previous blocks for doing so.

talk

) 20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the offensive material itself, which is still on the user's page? MSJapan 20:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the indef block; he was given ample warning the last time. (I was the admin who blocked him.) If he wants to troll, he can do it on some other site. Per MSJapan's comment, I will replace his userpage with the appropriate template. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Support the indefblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also support block. Clearly not a useful contributor by any means. Sandstein 09:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Support indefblock as well, per obvious evidence above.

Smee

10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Support indef block. MastCell ^Talk 15:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is aggressively edit warring across a large number of articles to delete all links to a certain website, and is falsely accusing the editors restoring the links of vandalism. He recently used 198.36.23.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to engage in similar activities. It may be necessary to place a block of an adequate length on this user to prevent similar disruption. If he were to return during the block with a new IP address, all of his edits could simply be rolled back. John254 13:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Have the user reported to

13:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a report regarding this user was recently removed from

WP:AIV. John254

13:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And we'll repeat the reasoning: This user has not been communicated with or warned. ---

WRE

) 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this matter has been discussed with this user (editing as

Talk:Garrett_A._Morgan#Garret_A._Morgan_references_that_contradict_Brinkster. John254

15:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=%2A.brinkster.com&namespace=&limit=500&offset=0 The brinkster links appear to be linkspam and cleaning them up is the right thing to do. In particular see http://www33.brinkster.com/iiii/inventions/ to get a sense of what is being inserted into Wikipedia. Thanks but no thanks. 75.62.6.237 00:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brinkster.com is just a general website with users on it. Your link was dead, but brinkster.com/iiiii/ is run by Ian Taggert and appears to be a well researched website. Ex see: http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html What exactly do you find objectionable there. It has references, it has links to the U.S. patent site. I assume the objectionable portion is that he doesn't think Garrett Morgan should get credit for being the father of things that he wasn't the actual inventor -- an odd goal for one's life, but not necessarily evil. -- KelleyCook 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In the light of issues discussed at Talk:Sheffield Town Hall#Coordinates and his other recent reverts, this edit (with a hidden link to "Feces") would seem to be unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Step one in

dispute resolution is to talk to the other parties involved. I couldn't find where you've done that yet, so I'd suggest you start there. Also, you might find your time on this page more fulfilling if you read through the bit at the top starting with "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks." Thanks, William Pietri

22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That edit is also to his own userpage isn't it? Secretlondon 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It still seems rude and intended to provoke, but if somebody has a problem with it they should ask the user to play nice. William Pietri 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that; got no T-shirt; I did provide links to one of the relevant pages; and the user concerned insists [50] that I (and other individual editors who have asked him to be more civil [51]) should not post on his talk page. Andy Mabbett 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you try speaking to him for a change Pigsontheing? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your somewhat bemusing question lies in the posts immediately above yours. My name remains, as I have repeatedly told you, Andy Mabbett 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Pigsonthewing, I meant have you taken the advice of those above and used the day which has passed since then to bring it up with the user concerned directly? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your further, bizarre, question is also in the posts immediately above yours. My name remains, as I have repeatedly told you, Andy Mabbett. Your comment here is unhelpful. Andy Mabbett 08:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was informing the user about this action, as you clearly had not the courtesy to do so. May I ask what was wrong with that? I as stated on talk:Sheffield Town Hall, he is simply expressing his dislike of microformats, and his edits are consistant with this dislike. Perhaps he could do so in a more civil way, but this is his own userpage and contains I do not see a personal attack, nor any other reason why this should offend you. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of discourtesy in not notifying someone who has told me not to post on his talk page. It was your tone, not the fact that you posted, which was unacceptable, as I'm sure you're well aware. You may not see any reason why linking "microformats" to "feces" is unacceptable, but I'm sure a reasonable editor would. Andy Mabbett 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be some difficulty between you and this user, or at least there was a month ago. However, this is--as the header explains--not the Wikipedia Complaints Department. If you are actually offended by this user's page (rather than sustaining or inflaming some running foofaraw) then please proceed through the steps of

dispute resolution, starting by leaving the fellow a polite and amicable note asking him to change the link to something more appropriate. Thanks, William Pietri

02:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"starting by leaving the fellow a polite and amicable note" - I repeat: the user concerned insists [52] that I (and other individual editors who have asked him to be more civil [53]) should not post on his talk page. I believe that the misleading link I highlighted should be changed, but clearly it would not be sensible for me to do so. Andy Mabbett 08:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy, you appear to be hear to argue, not to solve your problem or to work on an encyclopedia. I've made it clear how you can achieve your stated goal. I'm now done with this. Good luck. William Pietri 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Andy, you appear to be hear to argue, not to solve your problem or to work on an encyclopedia." On the contrary.

"I've made it clear how you can achieve your stated goal" - no, you have not. You have suggested I use an avenue which, I had already indicated, is not open to me.

Andy Mabbett 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Andy, but I thought you could connect the dots. Let me try again: A while back, he asked you to stop bothering him. I don't know whether or not you were bothering him. But for this, it doesn't matter. If you are actually offended, the place to contact a user is on their talk page. So either contact him or don't, but give it a rest here until you have worked your way through

dispute resolution's clearly numbered steps. If this is still hard for you to understand, contact me on my talk page. Leave this page to its clearly stated purpose. Thanks, William Pietri

12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, and for your kind offer, but I understand the situation, and the purpose of this page (not to mention the meaning of the word "final") very well. Andy Mabbett 12:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been available throughout Pigsonthewing's presence on Wikipedia. There is little need to once again, go on a third party page to complain when you are unwilling to settle the issue. Getting third party to agree and impose your point of view is not the spirit of Wikipedia and I believe you are unable to justify your edits and so constantly require the aid of peers... Get your act together, follow William Pietri's guide to how to solve it and make your case to me. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, now that you're aware of the problem, you could

be bold and remove the snarky link. Neither of you is blameless in this. William Pietri

11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User will not allow merge discussion to be closed.

On May 8

.

The only editor who was for the merge was the proposer, three other editors said "No merge". One of these editors edited the Crisscross page to remove repetition. According to policy I waited five days (13 May) to close and archive the discussion. I placed a tag on

to say that the result was "no merge".

Heatedissuepuppet insists on changing this box to say "This article was nominated to be merged with Crisscross on 8 May 2007. The result of the discussion at Talk:Crisscross was no consensus, due to it being closed prematurely." You can see the history here: [54]

I have already informed the editor on Talk:Crisscross that there is no "no consensus" category for merging pages, and that if he has a problem with the "no merge" decision that he should take it to dispute resolution. He insists on reverting the text back again. Rather than indulge his edit war, I thought it would be best to get some advice on how to close the issue. Thank you for your comments Sparkzilla 07:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Blatant sock, used solely for the purpose of disruption. I blocked the account. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sparkzilla 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

here not sure what's going on with this user - he seems to be creating versions of the same pages over and over. --Fredrick day 10:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a

Petros471

10:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article John Moyer (which is about a rock band's bassist) has repeatedly been replaced with a biography of a comedian log by Comtheo (talk · contribs). I tried to contact him, but my messages were removed from his talkpage by the user. Now, while i do think that the old, long existing article should remain in place i wanted to bring this up here to get some comments on wether i should try to take action against the repeating replacements, or accept the new article and create a new one for the bassist.

The bassist's article stands out because:

• It's been there for a long time.
• He is the bassist of a famous main-stream rock group, presumably more famous than the comedian.
• The article is wikified.

The comedian's article stands out because:

• It provides remarkably more information than the bassist's.
• While the bassist's article only has short information about who he is, the comedian's is "more complete", meaning it is an actual biography.

Some opinions and directions would be greatly appreciated.

PS: If this discussion was to bring up that the old article should be kept, what is the proper way of action to have the article be protected from the user? Thank you in advance. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider

John Moyer (bassist) and John Moyer (comedian), linked from a disambiguation page John Moyer. x42bn6 Talk Mess

12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood. However, what i have forgot to mention, the comedian does not seem to qualify as notable enough for an article. It would seem that way, as the article John E. Moyer (which the user has created and re-created simultaneously to replacing John Moyer) has been deleted (and eventually protected from creation) multiple times. Given that situation, wouldn't keeping the bassist's article seem right? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I created the John Moyer (comedian) page with user:Comtheo's content. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to move the content to a new page, but

WP:3rr violation too. Flyguy649^talk_contribs

14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved

John Moyer (bassist). User:Comtheo is now warring as ChrisPUT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Flyguy649^talk_contribs

15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have requested

semi-protection for John Moyer as a redirect right now, since the article about comedian is likely a speedy candidate. Flyguy649^talk_contribs

15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, i can see things really went round on my way back home from work. As far as my opinion goes, we should determine if the comedian should have his own article, and if so, create a disambiguation page. Otherwise, keep it as it is? A disambiguation would server the encyclopaedia the most i guess, i am hoever not sure if Comtheo would be setteling for this. Nevertheless, the thing seems to have been resolved for now, thanks to all of you. And thank you a lot for your help Flyguy649. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid has undergone two peer reviews, both of which have been archived. In my attempt to file a third, I successfully moved the first peer review from "Archive1" to "Archive2". However, because "Archive1" is now a redirect to "Archive2", I cannot move the second archived peer review to "Archive1". Could an admin please delete the redirect at "Archive1", move the second peer review to "Archive1" and delete the redirect that results from this move, so I can create the third peer review?

I apologise if ANI is the wrong place to post this request. However, as this request is non-controversial and an admin should take less than two minutes to fulfil this request, please fulfil it and then refer me to the place I should post such requests in future. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This will do in future or

WP:RM, request fulfilled. Viridae^Talk

12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

IP Address Making Unconstructive Edits

68.39.163.15 (talk · contribs) - User constantly removes cited material from the Todd Fedoruk article without reason (diff: [55], [56]), User has also vandalized other user talk pages (diff: [57]). Final warnings have been issued, yet user persists. --Quartet 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll get a quicker response if you tell admins in

WP:AIV (as noted at the very top of this page). --ElKevbo

13:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

We have a lot of links to famitsu.com, but the site appears to be in Japanese so of rather limited relevance to the English Wikipedia. Is this spam? Anyone speak Japanese? Guy (Help!) 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a commercial technology (especially gaming) news site. I doubt it's being linkspammed but because it's Japanese language-only, I would have thought links ought only to be made where there is no English language source. Sam Blacketer 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu is the authoratative source on videogames in Japan. I wouldn't consider it spam. –

Steel

14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu is a long-running and massively notable Japanese magazine. It's become somewhat of a cultural institution, in fact. I wouldn't discourage links to it, although this being the English wikipedia English-language links containing the same information would probably be preferred if available. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu Um...Kind of ironic, really. You asking here what Famitsu is when...Oh, never mind. HalfShadow 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, kind of ironic that an editor on the VG articles has sent an email to the foundation complaints address bitching about linkspamming, you'd have thought he would have known better. Me, I know nothing about video gaming, so I came here to ask some people who do. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My point was it took my five seconds to pull that up and three of those was the page loading. We are an encyclopedia, you know... HalfShadow 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are an encyclopedia--an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and one can't always expect articles to be honest about their own notability or lack thereof. Guy asked a perfectly reasonable question in a perfectly civil manner. No big deal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have turned down two 3RR block requests at [58]. The first did not appear to be an actual violation. The second, was a valid concern but was a bit old and clearly in retaliation for the first. Could someone please review my actions on the User:Corticopia reported by User:Ploutarchos case? Thanks. --Selket ^Talk 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Aristovoul0s and Corticopia were edit warring, and Corticopia definitely broke 3RR. Both users have been recently blocked for 3RR. I would have blocked based on these reports, but I don't have a problem with Selket's more lenient stance. However, both users should both be warned in no uncertain terms that further edit warring will lead to a block. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. --Masamage ♫ 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User

was blocked for inappropriate username and "consider yourself also temporarily blocked for, and warned about, disruptive editing on Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. This includes edit warring, breaking the three revert rule, and breaches of civility".

Instantly after that, user Beatle Fab Four appeared and started the same edit war. He was again banned.

Then, after a while, same edit warring started from several IP's (links are to contributions list):

• 85.140.211.220 [59].
• 85.140.243.184 [60].
• 84.249.52.136 [61] (also vandalized my user page ([62]), but I am not sure it was him. Same style, though - disregard of Wikipedia rules, writing comments using bold).
• 85.140.211.200 [63] (in this case, it is definitely him: [64]).
• 193.232.195.136 [65] (probably switching to modem).
• 85.140.209.118 [66].
• 85.140.243.52 [67].
• 85.140.209.67 [68].

Also, at some point user User:Nazis Hunter appeared and started same edit warring. User Staberinde requested a checkuser (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beatle Fab Four), with result "likely" from two administrators.

Now the original ban for Beatle Fab Four has ended and he is back using that nick again.

I am not quite sure what it is possible to do, as this user shows total disregard to Wikipedia rules and authorities (threatening administrator Sandstein, [69], also threatening me with Mossad, but I assume that was an attempt to joke). Bans are not effective, as the user is obviously on dynamic IP and will evade - I'd wouldn't like to apply for semi-protection for the article he stalks, Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, as there have been quite a lot good edits from unregistered users, besides, most of his edits are now on talk page.

In any case, I would like to report him for repeated block evasion.

09:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Beatle Fab Four. And I'm not a vandal. On the contrary, this DLX constanly tries to purge controversian articles on the political events, avoids controversies rosolving procedures and cherry-picks admins to block users who disagree with him. In addition, he constanly expresses pro-Nazis view in discussions, which I stronly believe is inappropriate in Wiki community. Best regards Beatle Fab Four 13:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop lying. I haven't tried to "purge controversian articles" - give me even one example where I have done that. And my "pro-Nazis" views exist only in your imagination, I deeply dislike both nazis and communists - they are both equally evil, as far as I am concerned. As for "rosolving procedures", please give an example of avoiding those? Asking you several times to discuss your POV changes is "avoiding", apparently?

DLX

13:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm anti-communist. So what? There are no exuses for pro-Nazis. They should discuss their views elsewhere. In prison, I presume. Beatle Fab Four 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DLX, you started an edit war once all those not-reliablr sorcess you loaded were nocked-out by reliable one (For example me giving you quotes from the bock written by a Nazi Soldier, Tiggers in the Mudd, and by that nocking you out from half of your claims). Fab Four nocked you even in a more elegant way, giving a part of speach from your Prime-Minister where he admitts that Estonians colloborated with the Nazis. Once you lost, you started runing and complaining to admnistrators who feel bossy but dont even care to learn the case. You try to blame others for stuff you did. If anyone should be blocked, it's you. M.V.E.i. 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So what has that got to do with me? Truth isn't pro-nazi, but denying the truth is worse then being pro-Nazi. And still no evidence of "purge controversian articles", I see.

DLX

19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Beatle Fab Four is the agitator, and edits where it looks like he's trying to pass himself off as DLX [70] are also concerning. (He may be trying to indicate who is saying the things he objects to, his english seems lacking.) ThuranX 13:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that was not the case there (ie trying to pass as me), it is his style of editing - he comments into middle of comments by others, removes his own comments etc. At least I don't see that as trying to be me.

DLX

14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(De-indent) I originally blocked

08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You didnt even learn the case, if you would learn it you would understand how your speach doesnt fit here. M.V.E.i. 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone should be blocked its

so if somthing should be done about this case, is blocking DLX and taking the administratoe role from Sandstein. M.V.E.i. 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Now Sandstein tries to fight me in a more "mature" way, saying that images i uploaded to Fab Four are not free domian, while i copied there licence execlly as theye were written on their original pages on Wikipedia. As i said, he isn't checking anything, is that what an administrator should be like? someone who isn't checking licence before he staits somthing about using those images? Someone who blockes people without learning the case? He isn't justifing his status. M.V.E.i. 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How about finally giving some example where I "vandalised" an article? You both keep saying that without giving even one example of that - while my edit history is visible for anyone. I have provably not done anything you claim that I've done - however, you have failed to show any evidence to your silly (and quite frankly, insulting, racist and hate-mongering) claims like "They baltic people feel little, useless. Everything that the baltic countries now have is thanks to the Soviet Unian. Technology, ruads, everything, and that makes them hate soviets even more. In their everyday life they see that all that they have, was made by the Soviets, and that makes them feel small, and that makes them hate the Soviets.", "The Baltic tribes were always considered the most primitive among Europe. You forgot how your Baltic union The Lithuanian Kingdom in the middle ages started a war against Russians? You started it, so relax. The Russians were to soft ith you, you deserved more. Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people). How excacly did we take your freedom?? We gave you technology, everything.". Do I need to say more about you then "there not considered people"? That shows very clearly what kind of person you are, I think.

DLX

18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There have never been that kind of kingdom? unfortunately, there has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Lithuania you dont even know your own baltic history. And then in turned into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania . I cant give examples because Fab deleted those plces were you vandalized, but if anyone would like, your all welcome to enter the Bronze Liberator talk page, and see the lies that DMX was repeating over and over, and us smashing that with facts and real proves. M.V.E.i. 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was

DLX

18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I offer somthing better, lets visit the talk page, its full with your lies. M.V.E.i. 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the alleged vandalism? Couldn't find any, eh? Stop your insults and lies - and enough of this here. I tried to reason with you on your talk page, your responses were insults bordering on racism. If you want to talk, message me on my talk page, this is not the place for this discussion.

DLX

02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Me liying? And that i hear from a man who said that the Estonian SS didnt kill any Jewe your prime minister even says they did, and that i hear from a man who said Americans fought better then Russians while even a Nazi Soldier from WW2 says that one Russian was like 10 Americans? youve lost man, then and now. M.V.E.i.

This discussion here has became totally pointless. Beatle Fab Four was caught evading block. Sandstein was extremely generous because usually block evasions are punished with new, and usually longer, block. This is not place to dispute history, so do it elsewhere or not at all.--Staberinde 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody proved that I broke rules when I was blocked. But it is not surprising to hear lie again from you. Beatle Fab Four 04:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should he respect a block that he didn't deserve? Rules should be sacred for the may as long the man is sacred for the rules. He didn't brake any roles but he was broken by them, why should he respect them? there is no logic here. M.V.E.i.

blocked this account with the explanation that it was "a single-purpose account that had served its single purpose."

Discussion on ANI (now archived here) drew mixed reviews for the original block, and a couple of days later, DragonflySixtyseven unblocked, with the summary "Fine. Let's see if you behave."

After the unblock, AmendmentNumberOne made several posts to the ANI thread over a period of a few hours, claiming that the original block was unjustified and that the blocking policy had allegedly been violated. AmendmentNumberOne's only other post was a thank-you on the talkpage of an editor who had supported him. At this point Ryulong reblocked AmendmentNumberOne, with the rationale "User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia." AmendmentNumberOne did not initially post an unblock request, although another user posted on his talk that the matter was worthy of an arbitration case. Initial reaction to the reblock (see same ANI thread above) was primarily favorable, although no ultimate conclusion was reached because the user did not posted an unblock request.

As the users continued to fume about the block, I suggested that a review could be requested, and posted to Ryulong's talk that I had reservations about the reblock. My comments to Ryulong read:

Hi. I know you feel strongly that the block was appropriate, but I have some qualms about your reblock the other day of

User:AmendmentNumberOne

. The account was obviously created as an SPA and may well be a sock/alternate account, and I have previously opined on ANI that its approach to a difficult issue was unnecessarily confrontational and strident. Nonetheless, neither a harsh tone on talk pages nor an editor's protesting against his previous block on ANI is, of itself, a blockable offense. I don't see any other user misconduct (in fact, as you noted, there hasn't been any other user conduct at all yet, one way or the other). In your block summary—"User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia"—the first two sentences do not constitute a strong basis for a block, and the third is a conclusion based on what I consider insufficient evidence. Under the circumstances, I would have preferred, at a minimum, to allow more time to see whether problems developed before there was any consideration of reblocking. I'm sorry to be critical, and I'd welcome any additional thoughts you may have on this.

Unfortunately, Ryulong does not seem to have been online today, although a post he made yesterday to User talk:AmendmentNumberOne probably summarizes his position sufficiently. AmendmentNumberOne has now posted a formal unblock template request. My view is to unblock, but rather than act unilaterally and in disregard of the prior discussion, I am bringing the situation here. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Support unblock. Ryulong blocked the user for the exact same reason Dragonfly had originally provided. The block seems unjust, given that the user was only given two days to make encyclopedic contributions and it's understandable that they would still be riled up about being "unfairly" blocked. I would recommend unblocking this user, and keeping a close eye on the user for the time being. Also, as

blocking policy states, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I don't see how this block is anything but punitive against the user. Nishkid64 (talk

) 21:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, he could be considered guilty of

soapboxing. As to whether that';s a bannable offense, I can't say. HalfShadow

21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why unblock? This is self-evidently a sockpuppet of an experienced user. They've made their
  WP:POINT, time to move on. Guy (Help!
  ) 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the presumption is that accounts are left unblocked unless there is a reason to block them, not the other way around? Newyorkbrad 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and in this case the editor registered a sockpuppet account with a provocative name just in order to troll. There's three reasons in one. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep blocked soapboxing from the very moment of enrolling that username, in addition to all the other stuff mentioned. Could have been blocked for advocacy per

WP:USERNAME at very first edit. Also probable sock per JzG's analysis in the earlier thread (and just now, edit conflict). 75.62.6.237

21:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this all comes down to whether

22:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize as I've had limitted internet access over the past couple of days (I am currently sitting in

) 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support block They are clearly a sock of an experienced user. That, as well as being a SPA are not prohibited, but people are given accounts so that they can contribute to articles, images, templates, etc, not solely to try influence Wikipedia policy on talk pages and DRV. If this is a sock of an experienced user, I don't see why they need an alternate account solely to push POV while hiding their main identity. In the unlikely event this is a new user, then can be unblocked if and when they want to make a contribution to the project, rather than opine on the DMCA. —dgies^t_c 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support block. Ryulong's judgement was sound.
  talk
  ) 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd just like to comment about this - I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to discuss here. The way I see it, is that no clear policy-based reason has been extended for blocking this user - in fact, the reason extended is that the user "doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia". Frankly, I don't understand this - the encyclopedia is more than just the mainspace - it extends to all of the bureaucratic material which backs up that mainspace; and this includes deletion debates and reviews. Let's say there existed a user who solely edited to comment on deletion debate - I could not, in good faith, say that user was "not contributing" to the encyclopedia. The same is true if they only commented on deletion reviews. Like it or not, but these are essential parts of the encyclopedia, and commenting on them in an informed and reasonable fashion can be as important as writing an article. There is nothing wrong with being an informed editor, who comments on issues they feel passionately about, and bases their arguments on policy - even if they choose only to contribute outside the project mainspace.

It doesn't jive with my understanding of how this encyclopedia is supposed to function by blocking such a user, and it definitely doesn't jive to then characterize their attempts to be unblocked as "whining". There has been no evidence advanced that he's a sockpuppet, either. Let the user contribute - and if he actually breaks policy, then take action; not before. --Haemo 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As Haemo said, I don't see where these sockpuppet allegations are coming from. The user's edits may be suspicious, but who says the user is not a legitimate editor who created his account to address an issue he was watching on Wikipedia? I think we should be blocking people based on facts, not mere assumptions. I know assumptions are used when blocking suspected sockpuppets, but when we don't know who this person is (assuming it's a sock), then we shouldn't go around blocking people. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support unblock, as per Nishkid64. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Even if it is a sock, unless the puppet was supporting his/her main account in the discussion, or using it to !vote twice in the DRV, it's not an abusive sock. Unless we have evidence of that, there's no reason to leave the account blocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps ANO can show what he would like to contribute to Wikipedia aside from his personal beliefs in free speech and whatever that number is?
  Phony Saint
  23:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors do not have the burden of laying out a plan for future contributions as a condition of being allowed to edit. With due respect to Ryulong, Guy, et al., I still see no foundation of any kind for this block. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean it like that... I support unblocking him. But it would probably be more reassuring to the others to show that he does intend to contribute more than pursuing justice against admins who jumped the gun in some sort of WikiCourt case.

Phony Saint

02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• The evidence that this accoutn is a scok is IMO far from compellign, but grantign that, I see no evidence at all of thsi being an abusive sock, and none of disruption. The user was arguing a PoV, perhaps more strongly and stridently than was wise or polite, but that is not grounds for blocking, and neither is complaining about a block on the proper forum. There is no time limit within which uers must edit an articele or be blocked, nor are SPA's forbidden. And if we blocked every use who argued for a PoV, we would ahve far fewwer editors on controversial topics. No policy-based reason has been advanced for this block. Support unblock. DES ^(talk) 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• This reflects a problem we have with contentious discussions - namely, that admins are willing to block any SPA who joins in. He may or may not be a sockpuppet, but
  WP:SOCK certainly allows a seperate account for controversial that people do not want associated with their main account. Support unblock, if it isn't obvious. -Amarkov moo!
  02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Soapboxing, while probably not a good thing, is not against Wikipedia policy, even if done by a sock. As long as its not disruptive and doesn't violate other policies such as civility, there is no justification in blocking the sock. There is no rule saying that Wikipedians cannot participate in policy discussions with socks, as long as they are not abusive. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Soapboxing most definitely is against Wikipedia policy.
    Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox has been a policy for years. Uncle G
    18:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If I need to reiterate, contributing to the encyclopedia is generally considered to be the main space, while the project pages, such as this one, are part of Wikipedia as a whole, it was obvious that A#1 is a single-purpose account created to soapbox and argue. If the user had not had been blocked by DragonflySixtyseven initially, the user would have no reason to contribute to any page. He was originally here solely at the DRV on the article that had the number as the title. Since then, the user behind the account (whoever it may be) solely whinged about the block. This unblock was in place for two days and only after I had blocked the user did the discussion about the supposed abuse get archived. The user was never here to do anything but soapbox and complain about censorship and then adminabuse. I have a feeling that once the account is unblocked, that it will initiate another massive discussion about how I abused my admin tools and not contribute anywhere else.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a whole lot of assumptions on your part, I think, based on very little evidence. First of all, you blocked him for "not being here to contribute" - as has been discussed, that's not a policy-based reason for

blocking

. Furthermore, as I discussed above, it's not prima facie that a user who doesn't "contribute", by your definition, can't still play a valuable role in the encyclopedia. Past that, your objection is that the user is "whining" and committing "admin abuse" over being repeatedly blocked for this reason. Frankly, that's not compelling, given that a large number of people also disagree with the block. It's totally inappropriate to claim a user trying to be unblocked over a block which is widely debatable is "whining" or "abusing the admins", and it marginalizes the user essentially because he disagrees with you. Am I "whining" about this block? Are my comments "admin abuse"? If so, then there's something wrong with your definitions here - and if not, then neither are his.

Blocks should be based on policy, and not on personal beliefs about what does, and does not, constitute satisfactorily "constructive" contributions, especially when there is no evidence of disruption. Being a single purpose account is not blockable. Only contributing to deletion reviews is not blockable. Asking to be unblocked when blocked without any policy justification is not blockable. I don't see any reason why this user was blocked, and the justification given is not satisfying in the slightest. We have policies to govern blocking precisely to protect the encyclopedia from abuse - admins should try to abide by them, unless there is a clear reason to

act on the principle rather than the literal text. --Haemo

06:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Adminabuse" is generally abuse of administrative actions, not abusing administrators.

That aside, the user was only here to stir up already controversial topics and was blocked for being an account who directly made his way over to DRV. When he was blocked, he directly contacted the admin who blocked and there was other discussion that led to DragonflySixtyseven's unblock and apology. From what I saw, the apology was rejected and he spent the 48 hours that he was unblocked on this message board complaining about how he felt that he was unjustly blocked. Although I generally only apply blocks for non-contributive accounts on those that solely built up their user pages or user talk pages. There is nothing written in

assuming good faith, when good faith is not assumed by the other, and after 2 days, then good faith is lost.—Ryūlóng (竜龍

) 06:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at his contributions you can see that he registered, set up his user and talk pages, commented on deletion reviews, and then was blocked with the reason single-purpose account that has served its single purpose.

His next edit after being blocked was then to request being unblocked, where he asserted My edits have been made in good faith and represent a legitimate attempt to communicate my opinion on the titular subject of an article that I feel is important to Wikipedia. I believe the blocking admin has incorrectly and without reason assumed bad faith on my part. The block was then reviewed, and declined, with the argument User clearly acting in bad faith.

He then proceeded to argue on his user page that he was not acting in bad faith, and cited policy repeatedly to justify this. He was then replied to by User:Yamla, who was the reviewing admin, who accused him of [a] deliberate attempt to get Wikipedia sued by posting information you know will cause the MPAA and asserted this was a clear indication that you have no business being allowed to edit here.

The user then replied, on his talk page to this comments, calling them unwarranted and in bad faith. He asserted he was upset about being accused of disruptive actions, and demanded an apology from User:Yamla.

He then, apparently following the blocking admin's actions, posted a response to accusations made against him on another talk page, which he was unable to edit - namely that user was banned for making a lot of (now-deleted) articles containing the HDDVD string, and for tantrumming about how Digg was being an Evil Awful Censor. As he notes in his reply, this is totally untrue. After no reply for a number of hours, he requested help from any editors, especially to post on this noticeboard. After no action, he commented again, requesting help.

After, apparently, a comment was made on this page, the blocking admin replied here, stating More to the point, I freely admit that I may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction, but he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review. A single-purpose account if I ever saw one, and I've damn well seen lots of them. The user then replied on his talk page, questioning why he was blocked if this was the rationale, and asking what he did wrong. He continues to comment about his block, citing policy, and asking for justification for his block, and posting related information to his talk page. Days later, he requests help again. He then write a letter to the blocking admin, summarizing his few. A few minutes later, he was unblocked, with the reason Fine. Let's see if you behave.

He then thanked involved users, who agitated on his behalf, and opened an informal complaint on this page, asserting that he was blocked for no reason, and asking for remedy to protect other users from the same treatment. He then reverted a couple of User:Ryulong's reversion of his pages. He was then blocked, with the reason I have blocked this account indefinitely for having no impetus to contribute to the encyclopedia at all. This was created solely to raise issues with the encryption key debate and has not made a single edit to any page outside of the Wikipedia or User spaces.

The rest of this brings us here. Now, frankly, if that is "whining" or an inappropriate use of a user's time, then we have a much more serious problem. I know that if I was blocked for no apparent reason for days, before being unblocked without any serious acknowledgment of what went wrong, my first move would be to bring this up here - and for exactly the reasons he brought it up. I see no reason to categorize this as "whining" or as any sort of conduct that is worthy of a block. We should not expect users who are understandably upset at being blocked for no apparent reason, and then unblocked without any acknowledgment of a mistake to just "roll with it" and move on. --Haemo 07:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but what does this project (i.e. the creation of an encyclopedia) gain if we unblock this user? It doesn't seem to me that this account is likely to contribute content nor has expressed any desire to do so. What is the purpose of this sock? Why can the original account not be used to make the posts this account makes? Without answers to these questions, I'm not really sure unblocking is a good idea. WjBscribe 07:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We gain an articulate, knowledgeable editor to comment on issues? As policy says, there's nothing wrong with being a single purpose account. Frankly, I don't believe it should work like this regardless of what we gain - users should not have to "prove" their worth before being unblocked, if the block was not valid in the first place. That's backwards. --Haemo 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is really pissing me off. There is no policy backing up all 3 of his blocks (original, the unblock review, and the current one). None. Zero policy behind it. Follow the guidelines that are in place. They're there for a reason. Haemo has deftly argued the points of this case and I don't understand how anyone can agree with this block. Presumption of innocence? Accounts are not created on a probationary basis. A user remains unblocked unless there is a reason to be blocked. Honestly, have the admins that are agreeing with this block even read Wikipedia policy? This user shouldn't be unblocked because he pledges to contribute, but because he was blocked unjustly in the first place! - JNighthawk 08:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not really had much chance to edit Wikipedia the last few days, due to other circumstances, so this is really my first chance to comment about the issue.

This user may not be a sockpuppet: he could have heard about Wikipedia from someone else who has an account, and that may be why he knows a bit about Wikipedia. We should WP:AGF unless there is evidence that proves he is a sockpuppet. Just because a new user may know about Wikipedia policy, templates, etc. does not imply they are a sockpuppet - they could be friends of another editor, etc. (although wouldn't that fall under meatpuppetry??) Either way, we should let him edit again - and the single-purpose account policy says there's nothing wrong with it. I agree with Newyorkbrad's opinion on this:

Editors do not have the burden of laying out a plan for future contributions as a condition of being allowed to edit. With due respect to Ryulong, Guy, et al., I still see no foundation of any kind for this block.

If he just wants to edit articles relating to freedom of speech etc. then that is probably permissible per

.

Apologies if this seems overly long, I hope I've helped you with this one - it's a situation that is a bit of a

09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• This was a good block. The username has absolutely no edits in article space and he's done nothing but whine endlessly about censorship. Please don't waste any more time on this idiot. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with Tony on this one. I don't see any valid argument for unblocking this guy. He's not here to write the encyclopedia, he's here looking for a discussion forum to advocate his views on "freedom of speech". This is what
    Wikipedia is not. --Cyde Weys
    14:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Concur also, minus the impolite expressions. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, it is an encyclopedia. Users - and even more so single purpose accounts - who show no inclination to ever actually contribute to the encyclopedia should be blocked. If this account belongs to an established editor, I see no legitimate reason why they should not express their views on this subject under their own user name. Sandstein 14:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Totally silly block, no policies have been violated. Sandstein if you think "Users - and even more so single purpose accounts - who show no inclination to ever actually contribute to the encyclopedia should be blocked" then you should change
        Wikipedia:Single purpose account to say that. But there is worse, the accusation of whinning is much more important here, one of the reasons for the continued block is the user complaining about the block. That is admin abuse, if the user had been uncivil about it then he should be blocked but to ban the user for going through DR proceedures is an abuse of power. Hypnosadist
        14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

        Disagree with the block by all means, but if in a case like this you're going to go yelling "admin abuse", don't expect to be taken seriously.

        One of the excuses for unblocking this disruptive non-article-editor is that he may be the

        Wikipedia:single purpose account of an article editor. If that is the case then his views can be expressed without a separate account. The account is not helping Wikipedia in any way and should be blocked. --Tony Sidaway

        15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

        Any diffs of this editor being disruptive then tony? Hypnosadist 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

        Does calling someone an idiot not violate

        wp:civ? Hypnosadist

        15:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

      • Its not just this case, many posts on this page have admins threatening users with blocks for trolling or whinning if they complain, this case is just one. This clearly has to stop as it is being used as a way to suppress complaints about how admins do their job and what policies they block under. Note you still fail to offer a policy that this user has violated, if the rules for blocks is "because admin X says so" then say that, if the rules are for violating policy then state which policy this editor has violated to justify this block. All i see are assumptions of BAD faith on behalf of the blocking admins. As to "but if in a case like this you're going to go yelling "admin abuse", don't expect to be taken seriously." thats the problem, first i did not yell admin abuse and second did you stop for a second to consider how this blocking without policies looks to non-admins or outsiders. —The preceding
        unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs
        ) 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
      • I hope I'm missing something but I don't see the disruption. It seems to me that this user would like to contribute to the encyclopedia (by adding those magic numbers) but feels denied that oppertunity due to current consensus. Instead he has been trying to persuade a change in consensus and was blocked for expressing an opinion that most of us disagree with. What am I missing? --Selket ^Talk 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, exactly. There has been no evidence of disruption on the part of this user. He was initially banned for being a single purpose account - which is contrary to policy - with additional justification that he was being disruptive and adding the so-called "magic number" to a bunch of pages. This appears to be patently untrue, and there has been no evidence given to support this. When he pointed this out, in requesting to be unblocked, he was told that "he was obviously acting in bad faith", again, without any evidence to back this assertion up. After requesting some actual justification, he was accused of "trying to get Wikipedia sued" and of "acting in bad faith", again, without any justification. After sometime, he was unblocked, with the comment "Meh, I'm being too nice" - and no acknowledgment of any mistake, or explanation for the actions of two separate admins. He then posted about this on this page, lodging an informal complaint, and was blocked for "not contributing to the encyclopedia" - again, another reason for blocking not based in policy.
        • There has been no justification for any of the blocks given - there has, however, been a whole lot of bad faith, outright mistruths, and accusations leveled at this editor with absolutely no support. Most jarringly, in my mind, is the fact that people seem to believe that agitating to be unblocked, after being blocked without justification, and using fallacious evidence, is "whining", and that attempting to get some degree of accountability from admins involved is "whining", and is deserving of a block. That is totally unacceptable in my mind. The onus is not on editors to prove that they meet some arbitrary, undocumented, and undefined level of "contribution" in the minds of any given admin in order to remain unblocked. --Haemo 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, my initial reaction upon reviewing this block was that it was not sufficiently supported by the blocking policy or by evidence. Rather than act unilaterally, I posted about this unblock request here. A wide range of views have been expressed, by both admins and non-admins, but unfortunately, no consensus appears to have been reached one way or the other. As in any on-wiki discussion the quality of the arguments matters more than the numbers; but numerically, for what it is worth, there was a slight preponderance of users opining against the block.

This leaves me to exercise my discretion as the reviewing administrator, and my conclusion remains that for the reasons discussed above, the reblock is without sufficient foundation to stand. Accordingly, I have granted the unblock request and unblocked this account, with the hope that this editor will proceed to make valuable contributions. I will, of course, monitor the account. My thanks to everyone who provided input in this thread. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. The editor in question obviously has no inclination to work on Wikipedia and the account should be blocked for that reason alone. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't THINK of a word to describe that message. I am tempted to start a new discussion revolving around that comment. Funpika 18:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One idea I have had is whether the voluntariness of the agreement to license one's contributions under the GFDL might be affected by new contributors being prevented from future contribution if they don't contribute in time or enough or to the right area. -

AmendmentNumberOne

00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad for the time, effort, and thought you put into this unblock review, and ultimately unblocking me. Thank you everyone who argued in good faith both for and against. I plan to make valuable contributions, although after two incidents of unfair blocking, I have grown quite tired. It seems like a good time to sit back, relax, and watch. One last thing, before the opportunity slips away, since this thread does a good job of laying out both sides, I wonder if other editors have ideas on clarifying

AmendmentNumberOne

12:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV should be added to the list as well as admins calling editors IDIOTS is not appropriate especially as admins stand in judgement on civility issues over editors. Also the accusations of whinning need to be delt with, editors have the right to ask civilly for admins to account for thier actions. Hypnosadist

13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely Hypnosadist. Tony Sidaway has been

AmendmentNumberOne

00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support block, I think Ryulong had the right idea. Even if the person is not a sock of an existing editor, the person has the same net effect. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask you the same question as tony, what wikipedia policies has this account violated? Please provide diffs as we've seen lots of false accusations made against this user. Hypnosadist 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but it seems to be a continued problem. The

20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate has been characterised by multiple breaches of

WP:OWN, false accusations, and dishonest claims to have both consensus and policy support in cases where there is no such support (as I have made clear), from multiple members of the two projects concerned. I have raised these concerns on ANI and elsewhere (e.g. [71], previously. I have also suggested methods of compromise, which have, it seems, been dismissed out-of-hand. I have recently (but prior to the above) made appeals for third-party input in the hope of resolving these issues. The above also misrepresents my views, not for the first time in this matter. Andy Mabbett

21:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to ask the readers what they think. As a reader, I find the infoboxes to be very useful for "at a glance" details. Others will no doubt disagree.

Either way, I don't think this necessitates protection and as you say it will only move the battlefield elsewhere. It's probably going to take dispute resolution or blocks tbh, preferably the former. I've also observed

WP:OWN issues with the two projects mentioned, it has to be said; I doubt very much whether it would be fair to paint this as a story of abuse on one side only. --kingboyk

21:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy for some form of dispute resolution - as I said, I've recently asked for third-party input (I made a point of doing so using very neutral language and look what the response has been). The following two comments show the unacceptable tone taken by some of the others involved perfectly; there have been no "POINT" edits, and my knowledge of classical music is neither something for others to guess at, nor relevant to whether or not consensus is achieved - raising it (not for the first time) is another facet of ownership. Andy Mabbett 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop refactoring this discussion. If you're going to reply to my points, reply to them after my comments.--

Folantin

21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd second what Makemi said. Mabbett is an immensely unhelpful, uncooperative and often downright aggressive editor with a penchant for

21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Mak's description of events. User:Pigsonthewing argued extensively on WikiProject pages that infoboxes should be used on composer pages. The communities (by a wide margin) decided they should not be used, and now he is edit warring over the issue on individual articles, claiming that the consensus needs to be restated on each talk page (and, after it is, he continues to revert anyways: e.g.) His uncivil language and pointed edits are consistent with one blocker's comment "This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributers; not to write an encyclopedia." Fireplace 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Send it back to the Arbs then? --kingboyk 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When did WikiProjects get

22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did an individual editor who likes infoboxes get

ownership rights on articles? -- ALoan (Talk)

22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did editing an article be limited only to those who participate in the WikiProjects which have staked out the article as their territory? Corvus cornix 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying that only those who participate in a WikiProject which has staked out an article as its territory may editing that article? This is about one editor insisting on his opinion overriding the consensus opinion reached by a group of interested editors. And ANI is not the place for this to be discussed, any more than it was last time. I suspect that this is going to end up in the ArbCom. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the transactional costs (time, blood pressure) of ArbCom can be avoided. The last ArbCom's enforcement option ("may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, should he... excessively revert any page. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year") had no termination date, and a one-year block has already been used once since then. Fireplace 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse everything that

. After exhaustive discussions she summarized on 28 April. The overwhelming majority agreed that infoboxes were not needed (and the Opera Project later unanimously agreed with this). One respected edtor made a reasoned argument in favour of infoboxes and it was agreed that if he wished to design a special infobox for composers, the project would consider it.

Unfortunately Pigsonthewing refused to accept Mak's summary and the weight of opinion behind it. Since 28 April he has tried to create the impression that (1) no agreement or concensus emerged from the discussion initated by Mak and (2) that there ia a substantial body of opinion, among contributors to classical music pages, in favour of infoboxes. Both are untrue.

The Composers and Opera projects are actively building a lot of worthwhile content and would like to be able to get on with this in peace without having to deal with disruptions, edit warring and

23:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone with experience of ArbCom restrictions clarify Pigsonthewing's revert limitation? According to this he's limited to one revert per article per week for a year, and I'd assume the year must start from when his one year ban ended otherwise it's a bit pointless? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not that restriction is still active, he is indefinitely on

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Pigsonthewing. Fireplace

02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who was (until recently) a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, but not the Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, I would like to point out that the "consensus" cited by several above regarding infoboxes was reached entirely out of view of those who are not members in both Projects. Then it appears it was suddenly deemed to be the "consensus" of Opera Project as well. It also appears that two or three members of the Opera Project seem to feel they have "ownership" rights over articles once they've slapped a banner on the article talk page. The reasons cited on the Opera Project talk page for eliminating infoboxes was "inaccuracies" and that they weren't appropriate for "our" articles. As to the first point, no examples were provided with respect to Opera articles. As to the second point, it demonstrates the "ownership" problem that's apparent (to me at least - which is why I've dropped out of that Project). I continue to think (as others do) that infoboxes can be useful and that the primary (but rarely directly expressed) objection of others is essentially one of aesthetics. Nickbigd 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to get a consensus on a group of articles without using WikiProjects. I think it would have been more obnoxious to spam each and every composer talk page with a link. Perhaps others would disagree. There was no attempt to do this behind closed doors. I think I've made it clear that my position is that if a contributor to an article feels strongly that there should be an infobox, that should be respected. The problem is that it seems like Andy Mabbett is editing articles he hasn't looked at before, simply to be disruptive, and is assisting in edit-warring on them. I'm having trouble figuring out what conflicts you've had with the opera project, since I don't see any in your very few talk page edits, single Wikipedia talk edit, and completely blank talk page (except for Orphanbot messages). Perhaps this is part of the trouble? People don't know that what they're doing is upsetting to you unless you leave a message somewhere, preferrably not in edit summaries. Mak (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"The problem is that it seems like Andy Mabbett is editing articles he hasn't looked at before," - you're either guessing (wrongly), or making things up. Neither is helpful. Perhaps you can tell everyone how you think you know which articles I have or have not "looked at"? Or how long you think should elapse, after a person first reads an article, before they are allowed to edit it? Since I've had an interest in the Michael Nyman article since 2003, an interest in the Steve Reich article since 2004, an interest in the John Adams article since 2004 and an interest in the Philip Glass article since 2004 perhaps you would like to issue a public apology and retraction? Also, it took me just a few seconds to find [75]; to which this dismissive reply [76], disproves your latter claim. Andy Mabbett 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy, you beat me to the punch. Yes, my entirely independent attempt to raise a concern (not having any idea that there had been a long discussion on some other Project page) was swatted down with an answer about "our articles" and that "Editors don't want to spend time trying to fix something they regard as unnecessary" (as if that was a universally held view of Editors) and talk about what "we" do and don't do. The entire tone was condescending (and yes, dismissive) and strongly suggested that the writer has very strong sense of control over everything. Not exactly encouraging to someone who was hoping to become a longterm member of the Project.--Nickbigd 14 May 2007

Perhaps you can tell everyone how you think you know which articles I have or have not "looked at"? Or how long you think should elapse, after a person first reads an article, before they are allowed to edit it? Apparently the answer, in your case, is that you don't have to read the article at all or know anything about its contents before you get stuck into editing it. I've already linked to you doing this in one of your

Folantin

17:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How many disputes is User:Pigsonthewing currently involved in? I see there is another one on this page [80] and a related report to Arbitration enforcement [81]. -- Kleinzach 00:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing banned from infobox-related edits

• Under his
  Thatcher131
  04:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect User:DJSEDISTICAL is a sockpuppet for User:ORLRDVXL, a user banned due to a previous offense in a previous account for looking for child pornography.

1. Both accounts are in all capital letters.
2. The former was blocked on May 11. After being blocked, the user said he would change IP addresses and come back. Two days later, the new account is created.
3. Both claim to be workers at a local radio station in Orlando, Florida ([82] [83])
4. Both posted on the same talk page about a similar subject (regarding Subtropical Storm Andrea and how it affected wildfires in Florida). Both are/were also members of the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject

There is probably more evidence, but I strongly suspect they are one in the same. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The original account is User:O-TOWN'S AT, also following the same naming pattern. — MichaelLinnear 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive87#User:ORLRDVXL_-_previously_indef_blocked_for_solicitation_of_child_porn. – Chacor 08:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest account also makes random edits to talk and user talk pages, like the original (O TOWN'S AT) did. – Chacor 09:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please have a look and make a decision? The user keeps removing the suspect sockpuppet tag from their userpage. I think we've quite positively identified him as the same person. – Chacor 03:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked him, the evidence looks pretty clear that he's the same guy.

talk

) 03:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User Java 7837 [84] added a lengthy amount of material to Moses [85], which I reverted, thinking it was original research. Java7837 re-added the material, [86], which on closer examination of their references, appears to be block copied from JewishEncyclopedia.com[87]. Since I understand that to be a clear violation of copyright, I reverted a second time. At this point, UserJayjg [88] reverted the article to Java 7837's version[89], claiming 'the copyright on the Jewish Encyclopedia expired long ago'. Obviously, one of us is wrong.

Similar things occured on the Jonah article,[90], only User Jayjg accused me of 'harassing this editor for no particular reason'.

I have reverted several edits of Java 7837's recently as they appear to be replacing all mentions of 'Jesus Christ' with 'Jesus of Nazareth', even where it is within articles about Christian beliefs[91]. His edits claim he is eliminating POV, but he's changing information about actual Christian beliefs. The most extreme example of Java's editing is on the article List of athletes on Wheaties boxes, where he changes the obvious vandalism of 'Jesus Christ - Dodge ball' to 'Jesus - Dodge ball' [92], again saying he is removing POV. Since Jesus is not an athlete, he could not have been an athlete on a Wheaties box, so I removed him and several other non-athletes as well as athletes not notable enough to have their own pages. [93].

User Jayjg has since gone through and reverted several of my edits[94], then posted to my talk page, accusing me of stalking [95]. , which I feel is an unfair and inaccurate description of my edits, based on the definition provided on [96] and my actual intentions. Edward321 06:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I told Edward on his talk page that contents from the Jewish Encyclopedia are public domain due to age (last published in 1906, so it meets the pre-1923 deadline for works published in the United States). However, I do not blame Edward for some of the edits he made, since people cut and paste from other sources all the time and I assume that Edward had no idea about the copyright situation. As for the stalking issue, I would say he is not doing it, since it is normal for some admins to check the other contributions for copyright problems (I personally do this for image checking). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If I look at the Terms of use of JE.com, You will use the Service and any content, material, or information found on the Service solely for lawful, non-commercial purposes. , which is not compatible with the GFDL. So I think it all depends on whether or not the content was updated since 1906. If it was, I think you can't copy it there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The online version of the

Jewish Encyclopedia

is a public domain text that is unedited. It says so on their main page: "This website contains the complete contents of the 12-volume Jewish Encyclopedia, which was originally published between 1901-1906. The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain...This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia."

Ok, their terms of use implied the encyclopedia was updated by volunteers (there a part about not uploading copyrighted material). Since it seems to be their future plan, they probably are "a bit" in advance on this side of their website. Weird... -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right to be cautious, though - a source a century old may well not accurately reflect current scholarship, and including that kind of content can be a kind of POV-pushing by traditionalists kicking back against 20th Century interpretations. Large scale copy and paste is usually wrong at some level unless we have nothing better to start from (as with the original imports from the 1911 Britannica). Guy (Help!) 10:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As Edward mentioned on my talk page, it would probably be a better idea to just to link to the website instead of using a block of text from it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Edward, you followed Java7837 to at least two dozen articles and reverted his edits; only two of those articles involved alleged copyright violations. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In his defence, he has discussed the other reversions above, and made an argument as to why he doesnt consider it w-stalking. Hornplease 01:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Duraiappa stadium mass gravean article that appeared on DYK on May 9, an editor who has been warned by admins about his continious policy violations in his talk page at least twice has gone on to remove all relevant categories, reverted it 4 times, maliciousy tagged all sources as biased sources and has been very uncivil in his comments towards others editors in the talk page. The page is totally out of control, vandalized unless and admin helps to get control. Thanks 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DR. Viridae^Talk

06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nanaharas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who I believe is also 24.229.136.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has made repeated personal attacks and legal threats to sue Wikipedia for referring to Brandon Teena (a murdered transgendered man) as a man (as WP:STYLE's guideline around transgender identity currently recommends). The user threatens to sue WP unless the name chosen by the family for a gravestone determines WP pronoun usage for this now-deceased murder victim, rather than the individual's own self-identification during life. [97] [98] [99].

While there is some controversy around the use of the name 'Brandon Teena' (while there is ample, notable usage of the name 'Brandon Teena', some sources claim he only used the first name 'Brandon' rather than reversing his birth name entirely), I'm of the opinion that the threats require intervention regardless of the content issue around naming. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Kafziel ^Talk 19:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody come and help keeping the peace at Talk:Transnistria please? People are getting all worked up over a checkuser result that says one account was a reincarnation of another, older one (not used simultaneously though). My neutrality has been called into question, so I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes when edit-warring should again erupt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is more assistance still necessary? --Selket ^Talk 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord toaster head (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was caught uploading an image of a Douchebag and then caught vandalizing the Chevrolet Camaro with said image. The name might have a relation to a known vandal, but my cold has shut down any memory of it. Can anyone refresh my memory and tell if i'm right or wrong in my assumptions?--293.xx.xxx.xx 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Kinda a side question, but why does the talk link above go to an edit page that signifies new text into a new talk page when I already gave him two tags for uploading an inappropiate image and text vandalism??--293.xx.xxx.xx 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed you put {{userlinks|User:Lord toaster head}} should have been {{userlinks|Lord toaster head}}--pgk 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an image uploaded there two years ago by User:Shmackmier, if that helps. --LuigiManiac 22:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks pgk for the correction. That helped!! And LuigiManiac, is that so? Wish I got a screencap of the image he uploaded to see if it was the same image. But doesnt matter, he got tagged-n-bagged for vandalizing the Al Sharpton page.--293.xx.xxx.xx 23:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Gon4z is back. If someone doesn’t know what this means- he usually smears, threatens and insults users that do not allow him to edit his greatly inflated Pro-Albanian numbers into articles regarding Albania: some examples of his behaviour: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104] [105] [106]
He was report over 5 times on this page in the last 2 weeks here, here, here, here and here; furthermore he was warned and banned for 24h for 3RR violation here. Also he keeps to blank his talkpage to hide all the warnings and bans he received exmple
As he was banned for 48h on May 10th for insulting other users he stop to this now, but he keeps on editing his grossly inflated numbers into the following articles:

rather to have continuously looking to the Albanian Militaries articles.
I tried to reason with this user for days, but to no end, as I did not accepted any argument that runs counter to his worldview. i.e. He insists that Albania’s GDP is at minimum in excess of $30 billion. When I pointed out that the IMF states [[107]] it is around $10 billion this year he called me "God dam retarded", insinuated that I must "have some sort of hatred towards Albanians" and more. I don't even want to discuss with this guy anymore as it is a senseless endeavour: i.e. response to the IMF numbers he came with this link that talks about the impact of PONZI schemes on Albania and the Philippines and announces the Military spending of the Philippines, which he then claimed to be the Albanian and inserted this then in the articles!!!
As of now ALL the mentioned articles have been filled again with his inflated numbers- like: "Albania will purchase hundreds of Leopard 2 tanks" or as he does now declare the PPP adjusted GDP of Albania ($20 billion) to be to low, as he know it that is more like "$50 billion". I just want to contribute to Wikipedia, I'm not here to pick a fight. I have inserted valid and good sources, other users tried to reason with Gon4z too, if I take out his false information once more I'm in violation of the 3RR rule and need help to deal with this. noclador 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heads Up! - I have informed User:Gon4z of his involvement in this post.

Gon4z has reverted 5 times today on Albanian Air Force. He may have reverted in other articles also. --24.136.230.38 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

6 reverts here. --24.136.230.38 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

6 reverts here. --24.136.230.38 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

3 reverts here. --24.136.230.38 21:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Gon4z_reported_by_User:MrMacMan_.28Result:.29 in the meantime. BTW, did he just file a report about me below this report? REALLY? He's joking. MrMacMan ^Talk

22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously nationalistic vandalism - just ignore the report below. Reverting unsourced and dubious material, which quite frankly is vandalism, in favour of sourced and accurate material is specifically exempted from 3RR. This user is totally unreasonable. --Haemo 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be laughing about the post below, but I'm so fed up- I just want this to end and return to my projects that are much more work, but so much, much more joyful. noclador 22:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours for edit-warring, 3RR violations, disruption, etc as a repeat offender. As this seems to be a persistent problem, it may be worth proposing a topic ban or more wide-ranging remedy at the

community sanction noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk

22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think it should have been for a week, but that's just me. I don't see why we need consensus to indefinitely ban him if he continues this behavior. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly considering

community sanction noticeboard for this issue. While I hate to post this someplace else, again, it seems like it isn't going to be resolved any other way. MrMacMan ^Talk

03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd look over there before bothering. They can't agree to ban anyone there. ThuranX 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... if you'd prefer, let me know or come back here if Gon4z returns from the block with more of the same, and it will be extended to the point where it'll end up being indefinite, unless his M.O. changes. It does seem like

04:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again I would like to raise a concern that there are two vandals User:Noclador & User:MrMacMan they have been editing all articles that have to do with the Albanian military non are correct I have been blocked in two occasions for no reason, I have tried talking with them and reasoning with them but they are not listening they even changed the my words that I put in their discussion are to seem like I was attacking them so I would get banned, I would really appreciate if you take some action against these users, they have only provided one source for their edit that is 3 years old and even that does not match with he figures and information they have given, in their source it states that Albania operates 375 tanks and User:Noclador wrote that the tank inventory is only 79 which does not match at all with his source, every time I fix the information so it matches with his source he reverts it, I also have added the PVO banner because me and some other people do not agree with their sources and they keep removing it.

I have cities all of my edits but for some reason they keep changing them with older information and as it ways in the wikipedia dispute article you should give let them have their wary and I am letting them use their source for now but they can at least quote their source correctly and not make number from the top of their heads.

User:Noclador & User:MrMacMan do not seem to obay the 3RR rule they have reverted my edit over 3 times now and wont stop I urge you to take action pls they are vandalising the articles. Gon4z 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

these two users have choose to use this source http://www.csees.net/?page=country_section&country_id=1&sec=8 but tey dont seem to quote it correctly the source that tey ahve represnted states taht 375 Type-59 tanks are in opration but for some reason tehy have only put 79 I dont see how that can be correct I have only edited the article to match the source.

Goz4z, let me remind you that you have reverted 20 times today (see above post). Why are you complaining about them? --24.136.230.38 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and 3RR violation (see above thread). I don't see any cause for any kind of action against Noclador (talk · contribs) nor MrMacMan (talk · contribs) here, so would suggest closing this thread. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the continuation of an ongoing problem; give me time to find the old sections here on AN/I. Ok, i'm blind. There are others, I believe, but above's enough, you can backtrack to the others through their contribs, I guess. ThuranX 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Cabel Starcraft (talk · contribs)
• Cat attack quack (talk · contribs)
• Flasherlr (talk · contribs)
• Flat Top Bully (talk · contribs)
• Flatreef (talk · contribs)
• Flippage9 (talk · contribs)
• Hashbeefcorn1 (talk · contribs)
• Hirschman A (talk · contribs)
• Howlerah (talk · contribs)
• Insipid Dr (talk · contribs)
• Out of control Smurf (talk · contribs)
• Skiier43noogie (talk · contribs)
• Slumphitter (talk · contribs)
• Wet Fish Handshake (talk · contribs)

Discovered through CheckUser. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Killed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Some more found in the logs of others

• Jackblackattack (talk · contribs)
• DGPie (talk · contribs)
• Devils Wings RZ (talk · contribs)

–– Lid^(Talk) 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Got those, too. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I will put {{sockpuppet}} on their userpages as they are sockpuppets. Funpika 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, we have user Oren0 describing editors as "bully[ing] other editors, try[ing] to delete pages, or perform[ing] other egregious behavior, ". He also suggests joining his efforts to canvas editors.

Perhaps this needs attention from the administrators, especially since he's actively encouraging folks to contact the administrators?

Atlant 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying as administrators are supposed to be contacted when intervention is needed with bull-headed editors (which do exist), I'm not sure why we would come down on Oren0 for that. The canvassing... well, that's mildly upsetting, but I don't see anything here that screams "an admin needs to do something". EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of "history" around the

Global warming

article and the edit-wars thereof, but I really don't want to say more out of concern for biasing folks' perceptions.

Atlant 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That edit does seem to provide a good argument for deleting Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a case for

WRE

) 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking issue with cited bisexual statements of Barrymore, and continually removing content on both article and Talk page. Is a professed friend of banned users - trumpeting their vandal behavior on their talk page. Can an admin step in here, please? it's

David Shankbone

03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuous violation of WP:LIVING concerning a President in office

Unfortunately the highest level admins (namely

WP:IGNORE. [111] (Also removing tags informing the readers about the problems in the article, which will further encourage his violations.[112]

)

I have noted the wrong claims on the article's talk page as well as the user talk page, failing to receive any response for his edits, either from him or from the certain renowned admins involved in monitoring the article.[113][114]

The following is simply wrong, let alone uncited:

• Uncited and wrong claim of 50% quota - one whole paragraph, see below.
• Uncited claim that a student leader wants to topple Ahmadinejad's government, see below
• changing back elderly Iranians... -> "numerous Iranian..." - contrary to the source which state the former

looking at the paragraphs and sources in question:

In 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government applied a 50% quota for male students and 50% for female students in the University entrance exam for

Rooz Online, the quotas lack a legal foundation and are justified as support for "family" and "religion."^[1]

• Persian source: the source says it's a bill proposed by some MPs and has nothing to do with the government and/or Ahmadinejad

An organization numbering 12,000 students led by student leader Abbas Fakhr-Avar, living in exile in the United States, opposes Ahmadinejad and hopes to topple his government.[2]

• source: the person mentions the Ayatollahs regime/state, and doesn't mention Ahmadinejad's government at all. The only thing he says about Ahmadinejad is that "Ahmadinejad is stupid."

I understand that those "admins" involved are not to be questioned, but a warning or temporary block on this user is in the interest of Wikipedia.--Gerash77 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

plus what has been told above, please review all the contributions of that user in the main space of WP in that article, clearly violating

Pejman47

21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For content disputes, please pursue the

noticeboard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you are one of the admins I was talking about in my report. Please respect the administrative policies, and don't interfere in matters that you yourself are involved as an admin. Thank you.--Gerash77 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What? He's one of the "certain Jewish admins" you discuss above? I read the article and its talk page. You and Sefringle have sources that say conflicting things. This happens all the time when you're writing articles. It's a content dispute, which should be solved by

civil

discussion. It's unfortunate that your civility seems to have lapsed on that talkpage.

Labelling edits made in a content dispute as

personal attack. You should also stop asking questions of type "Have you stopped beating your wife?" as they are unhelpful. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals

) 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't understand the reason for your furiousness. I did not want to name each one of the admins involved in this vicious violation of WP:LIVING, and defamation of a president in office,[115][116][117][118] was because I know what would have happened if I did. My report is very clear with regards to blatant violations, if you could even have a response for one of the libellous insertions, such as the false 50% quota, which is being reverted by this user, and his support from these "admins" who take out the simple tags we have placed there, then I take back my case. In any case, a look at the talk page and history page of the article would reveal the following admins who are not stopping these violations of policies, and taking sides with the violating party: Jayjg (talk · contribs), Avraham (talk · contribs), Jossi (talk · contribs) and Humus sapiens (talk · contribs). --Gerash77 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not angry and don't know where you get that idea. I have no stake in this dispute and am just offering my observation that it is a content dispute, not really something that would require admin tools. I also pointed out that it seems that your behavior on the talk page that is discouraging rational discussion of the dispute. You should confine yourself to commenting on the content of the article and not on the contributors. In addition, as Jossi has pointed out, the place to address

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals

) 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have re-checked my posts, and it has become apparent that I never have attacked any Wikipedia editor for their religion or ethnicity, or called any of their edits "propaganda". It seems that my unwillingness to name the admins have resulted in your bad assumptions. Please

WP:AGF, thank you.--Gerash77

23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You accused them of bias based on their ethnicity, which certainly borders on a personal attack, as I said above. Also, you don't, in fact, appear to have called someone's edits "Jewish propaganda" on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

No. Look at the article: "the Ayatollah regime" "Former President Khatami. 'He was a lie'" (this one I agree with) "President Ahmadinejad. 'Stupid'" ... which part of these Jewish propaganda can be called a reliable source?--Gerash77 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You say they introduce material from a source that is Jewish propaganda. Frankly, I don't see a lot of difference. I have no doubt that you are simply trying to get the article to reflect a

neutral point of view, at least as you see things. You do seem to be pretty emotional about the topic, though, and this seems to have impaired rational discussion on the talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals

) 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this is not a case for BLP discussions. It is a case of a person continuously violating policies, who has put many uncited

WP:LIBEL into an article, and revert those who remove these libellous and uncited comments, and hence require intervention of an admin not involved in this issue.--Gerash77

00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I did not call someone edits propaganda, thats in reference to an Israeli newspaper, please pay attention to details. Furthermore, please see my above post. Again, if you find one source who claims this 50% quota, or that this person says what is claimed on the article, I take back my case. I doubt that you can find it, which is why you are arguing when the case is an obvious wp:libel--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to find any source. I am not involved with editing the page. I'm trying to explain to you how to resolve a content dispute amicably. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, you are trying to distinguish between "Your edits are Jewish propaganda" and "Your edits rely on Jewish propaganda." I don't see much of a distinction there, but even if there is, use of the term "Jewish propaganda" is not necessary in disputing the reliability of the source and is needlessly inflammatory. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read BLP and LIBEL. The material should be taken out immediately per policies. Constant reversions of the past few days would require intervention of uninvolved admin, hence my report. In any case I thank you for your explanations.--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been called a lot of things in WP, but to be called a "Jewish admin", as if that in itself is a basis for an argument against purported incompatible behavior, is totally unacceptable. This is a content dispute and you have to take the steps in

WP:DR rather than place here spurious accusations bordering on the irrational, and waste everybody's time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that no one is trying to waste your .. time. I just noted that you as an admin involved in this issue, can't decide on this case!--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no case, as explained to you by an uninvolved admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

May I please ask you who this uninvolved admin was?!--Gerash77 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, here's an uninvolved admin. Please stop making sweeping condemnations and assumptions of bad faith against an entire class of editors (real or imagined) and make use of one of the links jossi provided you with. This issue does not need administrator attention... Yet.

masterka

05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. I've just taken an interest in that page, and while there's certainly some POV-pushing all round, and a bit of ownership, I've seen nothing that suggests admin misconduct of any kind, let alone anything stemming from ethnic biases. Even if I had suspected the latter, the rules of engagement here on WP firmly abjure me from actually modifying my actions to act on that suspicion. Hornplease 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Existence of Jewish cabal

It seems that some have taken my comments above about Jewish admins to think that I believe in existence of the Jewish or Zionist cabal. I hereby state that by no means I meant to have that kind of impression at all.--Gerash77 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another completely uninvolved admin: I don't care, and I don't much think anyone else does, whether you believe in a Jewish or Zionist cabal. Its that you used it as a descriptor, when it is a religious and/or ethnic label; "Jewish admins" simply doesn't parse in any way which is not at least implying an insult of some kind. Whether you believe there is a Jewish cabal, whether you are personally anti-semitic, or whether you think something else about Jews in general, it simply is rude and insulting and frankly, horrible logic to tie those two words together and expect anything but for everyone with any decency and sense to doubt your decency and sense. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the small (but apparently vicious) Mexican dog. Such prejudiced comments have no place in Wikipedia; in an ideal world, nor would the people who make them. I'm continually amazed that Wikipedia tolerates this crap and defends the people who spew it. Raymond Arritt 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable assumption would be that he is referring to people who he think has an interest in a particular point of view on the article. In that sense, it would be the same as saying "certain Microsofties who monitor the Linux article" or "certain Republicans who push their POV on the Bill Clinton article". Unless there is some prior situation with Gerash77, that's what I would tend to think that he meant. —Centrx→talk • 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Unfortunately, it appears that no matter how much I explain the phrase "Jewish admins", which is the same as any other similar phrases such as "Muslim admins", who in no way has a positive or negative implications, there are some who incorrectly assume that I wanted to present myself as someone who believes in the existence of the cabal, or ridiculously enough, I am antisemitic!!--Gerash77 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I feel like a suitable badass being part of the Jewish cabal....

^{Denny Crane.}

22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For examples of how 'Jewish editors' can be easily taken as hostile, look on this page for the 'anti-albanian' cabal. Also, any angry Litvaks may want to consider DUAL cabal memberships. (I'm JOKING!) ThuranX 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Where can I sign up for this Jewish cabal? Apparently you don't have to be Jewish to be part of it. (A serious comment: in no way does Jewish when referring to a person mean "supporting a Jewish position," it means you are ethnically and/or religiously a Jew, similar to calling someone a Chinese or French admin. It'd be best for Gerash to apologize and find some other way to express admins who support a particular view, rather than clinging on to a bad choice of words.)

Phony Saint

23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there always a Jewish cabal in every institution? (as one has said apparently... I'm allowed to since I'm jewish) haha. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll join the chorus of voices calling for at least a retraction of the Jewish administrators statement and preferably an apology. This site's

WP:NPOV in pursuit of that bias - and a third unwarranted assumption that the supposed bias originates in these individuals' religious/ethnic origin. Etymologically speaking, prejudice means to assert a conclusion before seeing adequate evidence. I've watched this dynamic operate at Wikipedia before and it really doesn't matter to me which group gets targeted: prejudice is always an obstacle to collaboration. Durova^Charge!

18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice, whether of editors, sources or conclusions, is always unhelpful and uncollegial. Gerash, apologise for your phraseology, retract the accusation, and read

WP:DR. Hornplease

19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Because neither of the words admin or Jewish is negative, "Jewish admins" on Ahmadinejad article is not negative as well. It is used to categorize 4 admins, whom I did not want to name individually. Please note that if they were Muslim admins, then I would have said Muslim admins, and I am sure none of you would have mind that. It is very unfortunate that you fail to assume good faith per

WP:LIVING per Wikipedia's policies has resulted in severe and disgusting insults, such as being called "antisemitic". With this sort of paradox and negative views toward certain group of editors by assumptions of bad faith, I doubt that this behaviour by some Wikipedians is in the interest of a neutral encyclopedia. --Gerash77

03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that you Just Don't Get It, and that further discussion of the matter can serve no purpose. Let's all call it a day. Raymond Arritt 03:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am sorry for this sort of paradoxic response and offensive name-callings from some wikipedians.--Gerash77 04:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're sorry that the Jewish Cabal is ganging up on you and calling you names? Come on. This is trolling, plain and simple. You know what you did, you just want a pointy stick to poke things with. ThuranX 05:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerash, you can argue it all you want, but the phrase "Jewish admins" carries a negative implication whether you like it or not. We're not asking you to censor yourself, but to choose your words carefully, and to avoid making such comments in the future. You are engaging what the political world calls "parsing," and what psychologists call "rationalization," but the result is the same: that after the original intent of your words has been derided and condemned, you then find another excuse and reason to give a sense of mistinterpretation by others. Your continued denial will not obscure the fact that such comments, in whatever context, carry such a negative implication as to be found socially and morally reprehensible. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This thread has served one single useful purpose: to put an editor onto my radar screen. As I stated months ago at Raul's laws, any editor who makes an assertion that is simultaneously wrong on three or more levels is a person who is immune to reason. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So much insults... So many threats. It is not surprising at all...--Gerash77 01:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Threats? Now you're just imagining things. Especially as you started this by labeling some admins as Jewish.

Phony Saint

01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerash should certainly have chosen his words more carefully. There is a widespread problem on Middle Eastern articles with a clique pushing what's essentially an American/Israeli right-wing point of view, which seems to be what's going on here; just as elsewhere on Wikipedia there are problems with nationalist cliques, party political cliques, etc, etc. But labelling those cliques by their religious beliefs as "Christian" or "Jewish" or whatever isn't helpful, and it's not an accurate description of the problem. -- ChrisO 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, and if any POV clique is demonstrably acting to violate

WP:OWN I'd do my best to put an end to the problem. Burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of individuals who allege impropriety. For my own part I rarely edit on Middle Eastern topics but am neutral enough that I sometimes get solicited to settle disputes. Here's one example from yesterday User_talk:Durova#Request_for_help. Durova^Charge!

08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya know what; Wikipedia is a hotbed of POV arguments over everything from whether winning the war in Iraq is crucial to the existence of human civilization, to whether an overhead cam engine is inherently superior to a pushrod engine. And most of the groups in these arguments can be easily stereotyped as "Old guys who drive Mustangs and Camaros" vs. "Young guys who drive Hondas" or similar; but whenever it veers near an argument which boils down to "Jews are trouble", "Israel is a rogue state who control the US government", "the holocaust is a lie", etc., anybody who takes the other side, whether they think that Israel is a shining example among the nations or that Israel has made some terrible mistakes, gets lumped in as "the Jewish cabal on wikipedia". Nobody resorts to tarring aybody with "the Arabic cabal", "the Muslim cabal", even "the antisemitic cabal", although they are damn easily identifiable. Nobody argues about "the gay cabal" pushing their agenda on Wikipedia. Nobody tries to delegitimize edits as the product of "the conservative cabal" or "the liberal cabal". But the Jews; they're all acting together, you know. People can post according to whatever points of view they want, but anybody mentioning a "Jewish cabal" or similar is too paranoid to be deemed a reliable editor. Gzuckier 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, a lot of those other supposed cabals have been claimed by editors who were themselves troublesome POV pushers for the opposite viewpoint and some editor or other has tried to pigeonhole me into most of them. I'm not certain whether this thread lets me add Jewish to the claims that my religious views are atheist and fundamentalist Christian, but the honest answer there is none of the above - keep guessing and maybe you'll win the cigar. In the past I've offered to provide a full disclosure of potential real-life factors that could affect my POV on Middle Eastern topics, but so far nobody has requested that I make good on it. Shrug. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to ask you Durova; how could you be "neutral" when you can't distinguish a non-negative term and insult, when you call people who disagree with your POV "immune to reason"? What possibly beside being an admin on Wikipedia gives you right to assume that you may get away with any sort of insult and threats, even if you think from your own POV, that I didn't use the right words? Is it possible to humbly ask you why do you think you are "neutral", or would that result in your further insults for questioning your incontestable point of views?--Gerash77 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this to user talk pages. Durova^Charge! 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

See

^{Denny Crane.}

09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I have retitled this section because the old name was not that great. Picaroon (Talk) 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I recently blocked

WP:3RR

violation. Before continuing to read this paragraph, please view the user's block log. My block was the SEVENTH one he had received for either disruptive editing, or 3RR violations on articles relating to Persian, Greek, or Ancient Greece war related topics.

I initially blocked for 24 hours thinking it was a simple 3RR violation. (There was a section on the 3RR noticeboard on it that contains all the 3RR diffs). However, after viewing the extensive block history, I extended the block to 1 month. My justification? After 6 prior blocks, the user should be PERFECTLY aware of 3RR policy, as well as

WP:DE

: he continues to ignore the policies. This is not a newbie editor, these blocks are over 2 years.

I was warned by email that the user has "admins in his back pocket" and he would be unblocked immediately. That apparently was the case, he was unblocked within 24 hours, and I received several angry comments on my user talk page about it.

So I'm requesting a further block review. I cannot justify allowing a clearly disruptive user to continuously revert war, REPEATEDLY violate the 3RR, disruptively edit, and continue to do so. How other admins can justify unblocking that, I do not know.

^{Denny Crane.}

16:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• That block log is really weird. Blocked -> unblocked, blocked -> unblocked with references to IRC chats, etc. Strange! - Alison ☺ 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the block log, I'd say your block was justified and that Miskin is needing his/her sorry ass dragged before ArbCom.

I'd love to hear the reason to unblock a user who has shown a continual inability to work with their fellow Wikipedians too. -- Nick ^t 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, ArbCom sounds like a good place to go from here. I'll help you write up a case if you need help; obviously it's not helping that this guy keeps "getting away" with his clearly wrong actions. --Cyde Weys 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Cyde here. Something's not right. While the user's been around a while, they've been persistent in their violation of 3RR and you'd think that having been around that long, they'd know better. Frankly, the initial one-month block was not unreasonable. - Alison ☺ 16:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Or we could just skip ArbCom and give him a one week block right here right now, with a promise of further escalation if his behavior does not continue. Also, I want to applaud SwatJester for bringing this problem out into the open; it looks like this user was getting away with far too much for far too long. --Cyde Weys 17:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I too agree, the one-month block was reasonable given his past blocking history as a repeated offender. This whole "admins in his back pocket" thing smells fishy.
    talk
    ) 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the large numbers of personal attacks on the page (coming from admins who really should know better), I think it would be advisable for those passing judgment to become more familiar with the facts. The admin who changed the block explained why he did it on Swatjester's talkpage, however Swatjester did not mention his (maybe he forgot). I think Dbachmann makes some good points.--Ploutarchos 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh please, give that old personal attacks canard a rest. Nobody here has said anything inaccurate. If someone has serious problems with their editing behavior and you call them out for it, that's not a personal attack, it's responsible community management. You're not going to sweep Miskin's problems under the carpet again by relying on a strategy of, "But they said something mean!" --Cyde Weys 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• So I reviewed SJ's talk page beforehand, as is customary in such matters. My point still stands. This guy should know better. Re. Cyde's 1-week comment, I'll endorse that, with the note that the user sit THIS block out in its entirety this time. They've had more than enough prior warning here - Alison ☺ 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subjects this chap edits in, but his repeated appeals to "western scholarship" are a little worrying. Wikipedia shouldn't reject sources on geographical or cultural grounds. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's slow down a bit here. The reference to "seven prior blocks" is worrying, of course, but (even putting aside the reversal of several of the blocks since that has been questioned), I see no prior blocks in 2007 and only one 24-hour block in all of 2006. As such, the 3RR violation doesn't warrant more than the usual 24-48 hours. This appears to be a good-faith contributor, albeit with some rough edges, and reference to "his sorry ass" should be avoided. And suggesting ArbCom seems quite premature without even either getting the blocked user's comments or considering an RfC. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did anyone say "his sorry ass"? I'm not seeing it. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Above in this thread (not by you, Cyde). Actually, a gender-neutral formulation was used. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point do we say "Enough already"? Apparently not after repeated blocks and persistent incivility, to judge by some. Suggest a one-month block at this point, with each subsequent block to be twice the length of the previous one. Raymond Arritt 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No case has been made here for "persistent incivility." Newyorkbrad 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree broadly with Newyorkbrad here. The fellow's block log isn't particularly relevant. I think Swatjester has encountered a worrying situation here. I do think this should go to arbitration, but not to look at Miskin's conduct alone but at the ongoing warfare on these articles. It looks like a battle of points of view, and that isn't the way we should edit Wikipedia. Perhaps an article probation of some kind might be in order here. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any prior attempt at dispute resolution? I see some references to suggestions for DR on the user's talkpage, but can't tell if any came to fruition. Newyorkbrad 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester's reference to "seven blocks" is disingenious to say the least. As I have argued on

dab (𒁳)

17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm looking at six blocks here as opposed to seven, so you're correct here. I have to say that Swatjester while far from being "disingenious" as you say, did exactly the right thing in bringing the matter to ANI in the interests of transparency. His 24hr block is far from arguable, frankly. - Alison ☺ 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm having trouble seeing why the longer block was undone; one month seems reasonable. If it is to be shortened, it shouldn't be less than one week. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I came across this user yesterday. Aside from being aggressive and pushy in his editing, the level of rudeness shown by this user is more than I've ever seen. For one thing, most of his arguments are, quite frankly, ad hominem attacks and slanderous generalizations. --AlexanderPar 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine fine, the seventh block (and 8th) are mine. Six prior blocks are unacceptable still. Furthermore, I'd like to mention that this is my only contact with Miskin or these articles: I've had absolutely zero prior dealings with him before, nor have I ever edited any of those articles. Only reason that this came to my attention was because a user felt that there was some "shady adminning" going on, and emailed me to take a look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) Blocks of Miskin (talk · contribs):

• 2005
  • 4 July, 3RR, 24h
  • 25 August, 3RR, unblocked after 80 minutes
  • 13 November, 3RR, 24h
  • 28 December, 3RR, unblocked after 6 hours
• 2006
  • 25 September, "unilateral moves", unblocked after 38 minutes.

Swatjester's block was for 3RR, and he argued that the user's block log aggravates the penalty. I argue that this is nonsense. I did not look into recent civility issues. If you want to block him for 3RR, block him for 24h and be done. If you see civility or disruption issues, properly warn the user, and issue blocks if he persists, but don't conflate it with the block log, or the troll-induced 3RR vio. Miskin has served a total of 56 hours blocking time in 22 months, the bulk of it when he was a very new user. I also object to the title of this section and to Swatjester's, I repeat, disingenious presentation of the case. This is not the way to do it. Miskin is a valuable and long-standing contributor. If he has civility issues, he deserves detached admonition and proper warning, not a kangaroo court on his "sorry ass". thank you,

dab (𒁳)

17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. The block log here (regardless of the 6 or 7 whatevers) shows that the editor simply doesn't grasp the concept of 3RR. You'd think after this long that they would. I'd certainly endorse a 1-week long block at this point, and one which needs to go to term. This revert-war block + unblocking just has to stop. They are not immune to the rules any more than the rest of us and simply applying 24-hours blocks (which sometimes get undone) is obviously not working - Alison ☺ 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to be a valuable, long-standing contributor without being blocked once, let alone 7 times. Perhaps something else is at work here?

^{Denny Crane.}

17:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I also object to my presentation being referred to as disingenuous. I submitted this here for transparency. Would you mind refraining from such accusations? Or does good faith not apply to everyone anymore?

^{Denny Crane.}

17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) There is no such thing as a "troll-induced 3RR vio". If you're convinced someone who's edit-warring is wrong, you seek wider input. If you're right, other people will readily back you up, and there will be no 3RR. If you find people to agree with the "troll" instead, well, maybe you're not as right as you thought you were. There are exemptions to the 3RR for simple vandalism, BLP issues, etc. If what's happening doesn't meet one of those, "I'm convinced they're wrong" is not one. Unless said "troll" has somehow compromised your account, no one but you can choose to hit that revert button. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I support Swatjester's stance. Last time I checked, having 3RR violations spread over two years is not a valid excuse to have a short block. Rather, it is a valid reason for the direct opposite; to have the block lengthened since this user knows policy and is deliberately violating it. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• • the blocks are spread over four months, followed by a 17 month period with no 3rrvios. Why do people keep harping on the 2005 episode?
    dab (𒁳)
    18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Then that only makes his current behavior all the more suspect. He should have learned not to edit-war, yet he still does it, and gets blocked for it. It does not matter if it was done two years ago or two days ago. Your continuing defense of him is based on time, which is not a valid excuse. Does having blocks two years ago allow him to forget that he isn't suppose to violate 3RR? —210physicq (c) 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - I'm going to be
  WP:3RR. This is not a month, nor is it 24 hours. The message that revert-warring and 3RR has had enough time to have become understood, yet it has clearly not been. In light of previous offences, this is entirely justified. I am ignoring any comments re. emails and whatnot as they are simply hearsay at this point. I am focussing on this editors past history here re. 3RR. - Alison ☺
  18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

look, it's easy to keep a clean block log if you don't descend into the swamp that are nationalist infested topics on Wikipedia (I might add that I've spent more than two years in this swamp and still have a clean block log, but tempers are varied, and it's not for lack of people trying to have be blocked). I repeat, the 2005 blocks should be left out of this. If you're going to block Miskin for disruption, do it, but not after fair warning. This has nothing to do with 3RR at this point. Incidencially, if anybody still thinks I am "in Miskin's back pocket", you may want to review the archives of

dab (𒁳)

18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm over 3 years here myself. I've been intensely involved in both vandal reversion and dealing with POV on Irish Republican/Nationalist articles for a long time now. So far, no blocks whatsover. I'm ignoring anything to do with admins/pockets/emails/whatever. The guy was out of line here and was being disruptive. He's done so repeatedly before. A 1-week block is entirely justified, IMO. A 1-month block is certainly not. - Alison ☺ 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• No one here gives batshit about whatever awards or honors he has if he violated policy. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• And another thing, referring to my efforts here as "patent bad judgement" on that user's talkpage, apart from being phenomenally rude and out of line, isn't helping matters at all. Further, if the editor has a problem with my block, they can just use {{unblock}} and state their case, just like anyone else. Another admin will review accordingly. I am so not impressed with this at all - Alison ☺ 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The first 6 blocks weren't adequate warning? What about the 3RR vio noticebohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=48ard complaint?

^{Denny Crane.}

18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This fellow definitely knows enough about the

three revert rule: he has made comments about it recently on the relevant page: [119] [120] [121]/ --Tony Sidaway

19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, people are being a bit too harsh on this user. I believe I have seen instances of greater leniency in more serious cases. I am especially wondering about the "repeated violation" argument: if someone violates the 3RR-rule a couple of times in 2005 and then once again almost one and a half year later, can it still be considered as part of one pattern of 3RR-violations (as I get the impression that this is the case in this discussion)? And does this also imply that a user could be permanently banned after, say, five or ten years on the base of one violation despite a clean record of several years? Iblardi 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that depends on who ones enemies are. Apparently people are not allowed to improve on Wikipedia; their newbie mistakes stay with them forever. Reverting a troll running on open proxies (i.e. a likely sockpuppet) [122] should not count towards the 3RR. It just rewards sockpuppetry. What do we have

WP:IAR for?--Ploutarchos

19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's ignore the 3RR rules, after all they only apply to others and not to us ... right? It's quite possible to deal with sockery/vandalism/whatever wihout breaking the rules. I and so many others seem to manage just fine. Maybe we could keep a list here of editors who are allowed to break rules and those who are not. That way, we can avoid "patent bad judgement" in the future. Ugh! - Alison ☺ 19:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean I now have a lisence to use untraceable sockpuppets running on open proxies to rv war? Should it be allowed? As it's impossible to trace them (unless the user "slips"), how else can they be dealt with? Also, misrepresenting another's position like you just did is such a lame tactic. I would have expecet better from an administrator.--Ploutarchos 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And with that comment you just misinterpreted all our arguments. Congratulations for

calling the kettle black. Anyway, has anyone noticed that when admins crack down on such violations, they are heckled for the constantly frivolous charge of "admin abuse," but when we start cutting slack, we are accused of over-leniency? —²¹⁰physicq (c

) 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another section break

Oh god, not IAR again. Inevitably it's always brought up to avoid policies. Here's the rub: I did EXACTLY what I was supposed to do per

WP:BP

. Quoted relevant sections from Blocking Policy: "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity do not require further warning."blocks for all types of disruptive behaviour are typically for 24 hours, longer for successive instances;,blocks on types of user accounts considered disruptive are typically of indefinite duration;

and 3RR:

"Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations., Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. "If an editor violates the three-revert rule, they may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block."

Oh, and also, "Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." and from WP:WW "Possible indications of wheel warring are:.....An admin takes it upon himself to undo another admin's actions without consultation."

Honestly, what the hell is going on here? There's clearly overwhelming support for the block, both from other admins, and by freakin policy. And yet, I'm told that I'm "not allowed to indefinitely block for the 3RR". Let alone that my block was only for 1 month, policy says otherwise. Then, I'm told by a non-admin to go read blocking policy, which supports my actions. I didn't believe the allegations that there was an "admin in this user's pocket" at first, but I'm starting to believe them now. Something incredibly fishy is going on.

^{Denny Crane.}

19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I thought a one-month block for this editor was outlandish, and I'd never heard of him before this afternoon. Newyorkbrad 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Before we get to the point of painting Miskin as some kind of saint, I think you should look at his remarks on Battle of the Persian Gate dismissing opposing viewpoints with trollish comments like "you know that you're POV-pushing, so it will only be a waste of our time" , "Don't make me laugh", "Don't let your imagination run wild", "What can I say, this is for laughs". From my limited experience with Miskin on this topic, he is as much of a nationalist as one can be. --AlexanderPar 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, Swatjester and SouthernComfort. What I'm asserting is that edits made by open proxies are illicit as editing through open proxies is forbidden under

WP:NOP. Such edits should be revertable and reverting them should be exempt from the 3RR (as the policy says such edits are "banned", so reverting them should be like reverting a banned user). As far as I can tell, this is the only was to enforce the NOP policy. If users see they cannot use them to revert war, they won't do it. Anyway, I don't expect you to understand; people rarely admit they're wrong. No one is perfect on that article (in fact people are worse), and I'd be very interested to find out who was behind the open proxy.--Ploutarchos

19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you dragging the topic of open proxies into this conversation? We're not even talking about them. Please get back on topic and not go off in tangents. —210physicq (c) 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the topic. Miskin was reverting what proved to be an open proxy [123]. Honestly, don't you read what I wrote?Ploutarchos 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You conveniently left out User:AlexanderPar, with whom Miskin (and you) was having a content dispute with, though 3RR was not breached in respect to AlexanderPar. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, however, did Miskin rv him (and/or another legitimate user) more than three times? No.Ploutarchos 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You just repeated what I said earlier. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read

^{Denny Crane.}

19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's where IAR comes into play? If you don't invoke it, you are rewarding a breach of

WP:NOP.Ploutarchos

19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"reverts to undo actions performed by banned users" is, in fact, in the list of exceptions enumerated in

WP:NOP states "Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects". I'll let the wikilawyers figure out how to do the math, but the idea that 3RR doesn't apply to open proxy edits doesn't seem crazy given the above. 75.62.6.237

02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Again per, 3RR "Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly." If you ignore this rule, you are rewarding edit warring, which is FAR more dangerous than a proxy.

^{Denny Crane.}

19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite considering that the open proxy user was most likely a party to the existing edit war. So you are also rewarding a breach of

WP:SOCK for rv warring purposes. In fact, your approach encourages edit warring by open proxy sockpuppets.--Ploutarchos

19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that for sure? No. That's pure speculation. That also ignores the fact that we can simply block open proxies, problem solved. But Miskin made a conscious decision to edit war, instead of reporting to an admin to block the proxy.

^{Denny Crane.}

19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a realistic possibility. Open proxies are not allowed to edit, period. Allowing them to edit and treatign open proxy edits as legitimate just created more and more potential for edit warring. Miskin for example next time he wanted to rv war, could do it with an army of open proxy socks, his opponents do the same, and then there is ten times more edit warring. Do you want me to give you an example of that happening? See

Republic of Macedonia on 3 April 2006 (that sticks out in my mind it was so blatant).--Ploutarchos

19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been following closely but I choose not to comment. For the example you were trying to find, check the recent history in Odorheiu Secuiesc where an anon user seems to be reverting himself! In fact, it was two editors who chose to pick the same open IP!! That was the funniest instance that comes to mind ("funniest" in the sense of "black humor" of course). NikoSilver 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also who is the Southern Comfort person you keep referring to.

Your justification is inadequate. Miskin could not have possibly known that he was reverting an "open proxy", and he CHOSE to violate the rule. --AlexanderPar 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's sufficient ground to overturn a block though, don't you agree, SouthernComfort?Ploutarchos 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not SouthernComfort, but no, it is not. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to bear that in mind. The problem with it though, it that by treating open proxy edits as legitimate, it'll encourage people to use them more for single purpose revert war socks.--Ploutarchos 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin did not indicate his knowledge that he was reverting an open proxy when he was edit warring. You are only using the hindsight bias. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, your approach rewards violating

WP:SOCK), whereas mine rewards reverting "banned" edits.Ploutarchos

20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which violation harms Wikipedia more: edit-warring, or using open proxies? Please get the priorities straight first. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I say using open proxies for edit warring is worse that straightforward edit warring.Ploutarchos 20:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd say that edit warring, whether using open proxies or not, is equally harmful and should not be treated differently. --Iamunknown 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Both are harmful and neither is okay. If an open proxy edit wars, it will be blocked for being an open proxy and/or for edit warring. If a non-open proxy editor edit wars, he will be blocked for edit warring. I don't see any confusion here. --Cyde Weys 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that open proxy reverting is a violation of the policy

WP:SOCK), whereas rv warring plain, merely violates a guideline? I didn't know that 1 + 1 offences = 1 offence. Interesting logicPloutarchos

20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, the funnniest of all is that the anon users with the same IP in Odorheiu Secuiesc technically did not violate 3RR because it appears like it was one who was reverting himself to avoid it! NikoSilver 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Blatantly violating policies and blatantly violating guidelines merit equal dealings. Creating a false dichotomy between policy and guideline in this manner is reprehensible. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're resorting to a straw man argument, misrepresenting my position. I say that violating a policy and a guideline (or two policies or two guidelines) is worse than violating one guideline.Ploutarchos 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I apologize for my mistake. But you are still wrong, because violations are not necessarily compounded by additional violations. We don't work like the courts with mandatory sentencing rules here. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we work on what's practical and common sense. It's better to discourage edit warring through open proxies than to discourage normal edit warring (of course both should be discouraged). The reason for this is that normal revert warring can be regulated. Once an open proxy sock is blocked, the puppetmaster just creates another one, whose edits will still be treated like those of a legitimate user and reverting them is subject to the 3RR. Open proxies are banned, they should be treated as such.Ploutarchos 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Miskin edit-warred, and therefore he was blocked. He has edit-warred in the past, and therefore the block is longer. The open proxy thing has nothing to do with this, since Miskin gave no indication that he knew he was reverting an open proxy. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: Open proxies are banned, they should be treated as such. Please read

WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. Oddly 3RR is disregarded when reverting a banned user (e.g. User:Bonaparte) even when there is no conclusive evidence (e.g. checkuser).--Ploutarchos

20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that there is no indication that Miskin knew that he was reverting a user from an open proxy at the time. The fact that the user edited from such a proxy was only discovered after a checkuser was performed later. Therefore, Miskin was not intentionally reverting a banned user. The idea that, if a user's edits were later found to have come from an open proxy the person reverting them is then exonerated, is fallacious. Will (aka Wimt) 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make any difference. Once it emerges that it is a banned edit, 3RR should not apply for reverts of that edits. Example:[124].Ploutarchos 20:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) That example which you have just given was a banned user. Unless I'm mistaken, this was not a banned user but merely a user editing from an open proxy. There is a marked difference between reverting edits by a user who is not banned (but is later found to have edited from an open proxy) and reverting edits which are (in many cases obviously) those made by the sockpuppet of a banned user. In the latter case, it is a fair assumption that the reverting user might realise this to be a banned sockpuppet. But in the former case, there is no reason why the the reverting user would suspect the edit to have been made from an open proxy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To make things clearer, we block on intent and context, not after-the-fact apparitions of apparently exonerating facts. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case I mentioned, that didn't happen. Alaexis reverted the banned user's sock before it emerged that it was a banned user (you can see that for yourselves). Why the double standards?Ploutarchos 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which banned user's sock? I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that this was the sock of a banned user; all I see is that this was a user editing from an open proxy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the example. Back to the point: open proxies are "banned" per

WP:NOP. They should be treated as banned.Ploutarchos

21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. Miskin had no idea that this user was editing from an open proxy and had no evidence that this user was banned (and indeed this user appears not to be banned). Therefore, Miskin intentionally edit warred. There is no evidence to suggest that had this user not been editing from an open proxy that Miskin wouldn't have edit warred. The exception to the 3RR is very specifically reverting the actions of banned users. And to do that you need to know that the actions were performed by a banned user. Will (aka Wimt) 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. In the example, Alaexis didn't know Tiraspolitan was a banned user. It conclusively emerged later after a checkuser. Nevertheless, his reverts of Tiraspolitan were not counted in determining a 3RR violation, even though they were made before it emerged.Ploutarchos 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've become entirely bored by this argument, but in my mind there's a very clear difference between a banned user and a user editing via a method that is banned. All I see here is that there was an obvious intent to edit war by Miskin and there are a few people who will do everything possible to find some loophole to get him unblocked. Will (aka Wimt) 21:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that "loophole" has worked before (of course I consider it a very widely invoked exception). And as far as I know, a ban is a ban.Ploutarchos 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Who is "SouthernComfort"? --AlexanderPar 20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A pleasing alcoholic drink? --Cyde Weys 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request posted

Mishkin has now posted a formal unblock request. I would reverse. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would only reverse for pending arbitration. But it's not my call.

^{Denny Crane.}

21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I support reversing the block. It has been proven that one of his reverts was reverting an edit made in defiance of the ban imposed by

WP:NOP, so that revert shouldn't count.Ploutarchos

21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've made clear above, I don't think that fact is relevant to any unblocking decision. Will (aka Wimt) 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been before. An admin chose not to count reverts of banned edits for the purpose of 3RR even though the user in question did not know they were banned at the time.Ploutarchos 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That was entirely unrelated to

WP:NOP. A banned user is likely banned because their edits are disruptive and so it follows that any of their future contributions can be reverted. The same is not true of a user who has edited via an open proxy. I have not seen any evidence that a user editing via an open proxy has ever been a reason for another user to have not violated the 3RR before. Will (aka Wimt

) 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A

WP:BAN, as I said before.Ploutarchos

21:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ploutarchos is not an admin. You do the crime, you do the time. I think unblocking will set a bad example for the community, punishments are supposed to be severe enough to deter the violator from repeating the same violation again. --AlexanderPar 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Alex. Tell me, what do you think of evading ArbCom article bans through sockpuppets?Ploutarchos 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you be more specific as to what you are trying to say here. --AlexanderPar 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does

WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy to make sure you know the implications of what you're doing.Ploutarchos

21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't ring any bells. It seems to me that you're trolling to change the topic, but I'll give it a wack anyway. What are you accusing me of, exactly? And on what do you base your accusations? --AlexanderPar 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What does Ploutarchos's status have to do with anything? Non-admins are encouraged to contribute on the AN pages. I would weakly support a reduction to 48 hours, but I don't think there is sufficient support for a straight unblock, which, if executed, would be a slight to two administrators. There is no consensus yet that this was an unwarranted or bad block; that IMO is the only reason for a straight unblock. Anchoress 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought only administrators could vote to reverse the decision. --AlexanderPar 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but anyone can comment on it. Anchoress 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin hasn't been blocked for 3RR in over a year. He has repeatedly said that he didn't consider it a 3RR violation and the first admin to decide his case when he was reported to

WP:AN3 said it was not a revert and he shouldn't be blocked. Swatjester then streched to rules as far as possible to interpret an edit as a revert and blocked him for a month. This seems more like an honest mistake on the part of Miskin to me than a deliberate persisten 3RR violation.Ploutarchos

21:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So? He broke the rule, he got blocked. He broke the rule before, he got blocked longer. Seriously, enough with the emotional pleading here. By the way, Alex, we don't punish. —210physicq (c) 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument again? It's also questionable that the rule was actually violated. Looking at the diffs, I don't see it. The first admin to look at his case thought so as well. Science fiction when deciding 3RR cases is a bad combination IMO.Ploutarchos 21:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw man? Where? And it's always questionable if there is a cabal or not. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain how exactly Miskin violatred 3RR? Also, see this [125].Ploutarchos 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring the now-blocked editor. And why do you ask for the obvious? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum Just because one admin says so doesn't mean that I, and other admins, can't dispute it. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with reversing the block. I've followed this chain but have not commented. The User's 3RR block log is one thing; his contentious editing and abrasive style don't merit leniency. There is short shrift given to civility on Wikipedia these days, and he needs to take some time away to learn how to communicate in an educated-setting, which is what Wikipedia aspires to be. I also think a group of admins should discuss with Miskin the tone he uses in what is meant to be the building of an encyclopedia, not a pissing contest. Besides, he doesn't even give reasons for why his block should be reversed, just repeats that they should be "reviewed" which, which is restating the request to have the block reviewed. I'd like to see Miskin stick around, but I'd also like to see him mature in his manner of discussion. --
  David Shankbone
  21:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with reversing the block, he's been blocked 7(?) times before - he knows what he's doing and knows if he edit wars, he will get blocked. 1 week seems to sum up what he did fairly well. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)`

• Hopefully Miskin learns his lesson and just creates a new account. There is no point in building up a history of good behavior on this one. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When did the "electric fence" get knocked down? 3RR has always been a goal, not a right. Somebody who's been blocked and warned repeatedly about edit warring knows what the purpose of the 3RR rule is, and it isn't to give somebody the right to edit war three times in every 24 hours. Whether he's technically violated three reverts plus in 24 hours, he's edit warred, and has been warned and blocked before. He knows better. The block should stand. Corvus cornix 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The block should stand. If anything, we're too lenient on edit warring and incivility; we shouldn't be shy of using admin tools to deter such conduct. -- ChrisO 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The block rationale cites the 3RR violation and (ancient) history of same; civility issues aren't mentioned. I have counselled the user to change his editing behavior per the discussion on this thread, whatever happens to the block. As I mentioned in the sub-thread below, the initial reviewing admin didn't even believe there was a 3RR violation. A borderline situation might warrant 24-48 hours given a prior history, but I consider the one-week block here excessive (and the original one-month block truly outlandish). I find it difficult to believe that the events of today would not affect the editor's approach, and if problems continue, then a longer-term block could be considered with far less dissent than currently exists. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• As someone who has both edit-warred AND been incivil in the past, and been blocked for it, I found them highly effective tools for me to examine my behavior, and improve it. --
  David Shankbone
  22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate accounts and disturbing behavior

The following statement by dbachmann concerns me "it would seem justified for you to begin editing under a new account (using only one at a time of course). That basically seems to me to be encouraging evading a block. Dbachmann, what is going on with you? You unblock without even consulting the blocking admin (a violation of blocking policy at [[WP:BLOCK, and the guideline at

^{Denny Crane.}

22:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say, that is a popular opinion this day [126].Ploutarchos 22:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the implication was that the user should get another account to bypass the block. It was to get another account so that future edits won't be unfairly evaluated based on a "long history of prior blocks" most of which the editor characterizes as newbie mistakes from a year and a half ago. Personally, I would prefer to see the editor continue editing under his current account, but as indicated I have serious reservations about the current block. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then no issues. However, it doesn't read that way to me.

^{Denny Crane.}

22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one. However, because of humanity's basic instinct of never admitting error, we'll remain remedyless.Ploutarchos 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop with the glib comments? The vast majority of commentators here agree with the block.

^{Denny Crane.}

22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't support block evasion; I suppose he can sit out a week, then create a new account, assuming this block is not overturned. But why keep a black mark on your account if it will be held against you forever? That's just foolish. I'm just saying that if we have a punitive, unforgiving system (and I think the block you gave was certainly punitive and unforgiving) then people will act to avoid being punished, and I don't really blame them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think anyone is engouraging block evasion around here. Obviously those administrators were speaking for when after the block has expired.Ploutarchos 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann wasn't encouraging block evasion, he was suggesting that Miskin serve out the block and then start over so he wouldn't get blocks from 2005 held against him. Miskin's manner of editing is distinctive enough that he'd be recognized under a new name, though. At any rate, like Newyorkbrad, I have strong reservations about the length of this block, and think it should be no longer than 48 hours. It seems clear to me that the block is as long as it is because of Miskin's abrasive personality rather than the 3RR violation in and of itself. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's questionable whether there even was a 3RR violation. As Miskin has pointed out on his talkpage, the initial reviewer at AN3 found no violation. Granted that edit-warring can be sanctioned even without a 3RR violation, I don't find this situation sufficiently aggravated to warrant a block for that a certainly not a one-week block. My view is still in favor of reversing or reducing the block. Having said that, I have counselled the user that whatever happens with the block, he should address the perceived civility issues and moderate his style of editing to take into accounts the comments that have been made here today. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think there was a 3RR violation. Miskin's third revert [127] comes after Dharmender6767 was indef blocked as a sockpuppet. And as noted, the admin who initially reviewed the AN3 posting found that the fourth "revert", [128] was in fact not a revert. Now, if you want to argue that Miskin was acting against the spirit of the 3RR rule, fine, but I don't think that justifies a 1-week block. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The third revert came after Dharmender6767 was blocked for 3RR, he was was apparently indef blocked one day later. This is all besides the point though, Miskin made two partial revert after that. --AlexanderPar 23:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on the timing of Dharmender's block, but I don't think those "partial reverts" qualify as 3RR violations. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 7 blocks, I know an admin who's been blocked also 7 times, but these 7 blocks weren't an obstacle to his easily and with a formidable amount of votes obtain adminship, and rightly so. I'm probably the admin that's more often interacted (and clashed) with Miskin, as it's almost two years I know him, and I can say that Miskin, while he remains often too confrontational on talk pages, has made enormous progresses, as from his block log should be blatantly evident, and has become a quality mainspace contributor; punish him for misbehaviour committed in 2005 - when only few of the presents here were active in wiki - seems to me incredibly cruel, and more imoprtant, of no help to the encyclopedia. I see that you're a very fresh admin: this may explain part of your passion, and what I read as an obvious misjudgement. I must admit that also your tone isn't perfect: comments like "I didn't believe the allegations that there was an "admin in this user's pocket" at first, but I'm starting to believe them now. Something incredibly fishy is going on" would be nice to avoid, especially considering that you've readily warned (correctly) Ploutarchos to be less exhuberant. Sorry, but I have to stand with Newyorkbrad, it's not even clear Miskin violated the 3RR, and while I'm not against blocks when less than four reverts, I certainly find a week too much, and agree with Newyorkbrad and Akhilleus.--Aldux 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Aldux, I don't think you're honoring Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You were involved in this edit-war, and took sides with Miskin. --AlexanderPar 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If its for that, I should be recused for having a (very) long records of quarells and dispute, so I may be considered to have good reasons of resentment against Miskin, to a level that nobody has here. As for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, maybe you should consider reading it, instead of giving the link.--Aldux 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you should be recused for having been involved in this edit-war in support of Miskin, using vandalism-fighting tools to revert edits that were not vandalism. [129] I like you as an editor, but I don't think your involvement here is appropriate.--AlexanderPar 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally out of line. We're neither discussing Aldux's use of the tools here, nor the article content. We are discussing Miskin, and they are not exactly buddies as everyone knows here. As for the diff, I think you should know better. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice examples we are setting here:

1. defying original admin's reasoning [130]
2. defying reviewing admin's reasoning [131] (who btw has confronted Miskin in other subjects)
3. defying
   WP:3RR
   that states that reverts on banned don't count
4. defying that Miskin's block log has been clear of 3RR for 2 years, with a brief intervening block for "unilateral moves" that was later revoked (as old as 6 months ago) [132]
5. defying that the 3rr itself is a borderline case regardless of the WP:NOP issue (see 3d rv vs 4th alleged rv and rationale)
6. defying precedent that such cases where rv's of
   WP:BANned edits are exempt [133]
7. defying that 6(!!) esteemed admins here have questioned the block (Seraphimblade, Dbachmann, Newyorkbrad, Christopher Parham, Akhilleus, Aldux)
8. defying that all supporting admins accuse Miskin of irrelevant offenses (vague incivility insinuations in other venues), for which he hasn't been warned and for which no diffs have been brought forward (a.k.a. his block shouldn't stand)
9. and now for people consulting him to erase his past ([134] [135] [136] and Dbachman) because the rest cannot disregard it as they are supposed to...
10. if not to resort to open proxies himself since legitimate editors suffer the same consequences

...and punishing him for a week over all that! Congratulations ladies and gentlemen. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did I hear something quack? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I look like an [accidentally unlogged]

WP:DUCK? Thanks for the good faith. Or maybe we should also punish Miskin for avoiding his block now eh? And I don't get it, are you arguing that anon comments are illegitimate here? Should they be intimidated at sight? NikoSilver

00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The tone of the (previously-anon) comments seemed strangely...blunt and combative. —210physicq (c) 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia problem: Block logs in perpetuity

This discussion raises a valid problem: there is little reason why a block log should remain a "permanent record." Even though I think Miskin's abrasive editting style deserves a week-long block, I find it very problematic that block logs are never expunged. This is something that should be changed, lest the only way for a person who has "grown up" in how they edit forever have years' old blocks follow them around for the rest of their Wikipedia life. It's pretty ridiculous. I think block logs should be expunged every 365 days. I think dragging up two year old blocks is unfair to any editor. Are we going to bring up three, five, or six year old blocks as Wikipedia ages? These things will outlive bankruptcy filings? --

David Shankbone

23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The admins should do their work like they are supposed to. Historic blocks may be interesting for unrelated issues. I also think it is not technically feasible. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we all understand that editors' habits change over time, so we don't hold very old blocks against people whose more recent editing is unproblematic. The question of expunging old blocks came up in the Giano arb case (the first of them, I think) and the result was that even a block that everyone agreed was incorrect didn't get expunged. 75.62.6.237 01:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was, in fact, eventually expunged, but you are correct that it was not immediate. Picaroon (Talk) 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sadly unsurprised at this point that Swatjester should attempt to squeeze as much "incriminating" evidence against me out of my comments in order to be able counter my "disturbance" at his attitude with "disturbance" on his part (metoo). My comment to Miskin, as anyone following the discussion will recognize, have nothing to do with recommending block evasion. In the unlikely event that this isn't self-evident to everyone except Jester: I was rather objecting that a long-standing contributor should be made to go through this sort of nonsense because he did show some disruptive behaviour, back in 2005 (I remember this case: I would have blocked Miskin myself then, but I was involved in the article). My comment reads: If our overworked admins these days cannot be expected intelligently read a block log, duly making a difference between a stale history of 16 months ago and more than redeemed with valuable contributions, and a history of permanent troublemaking, it may be better for a user with a log of historical blocks to start over with a clean slate.

dab (𒁳)

10:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the fact that we are discussing the possibility of such a valuable and long standing admin as Dbachmann resorting to idiotic (not to mention suicidal) gestures such as instructing a blocked user to evade their blocks, is a sign of utter deterioration. NikoSilver 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The deterioration is also evident from the fact that we have come to the point of discussing expunging block-logs so as to forcefully make admins disregard them, as is their duty. NikoSilver 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Few of these arguments make much sense, since a person only need go through the five-second process to expunge their block log themselves by creating a new User name. What it does is penalize stability in the User names; if a person wants to shed their former poor behavior, they can do it themselves. The "technically impossible" argument doesn't hold much water with Wiki, and in the technological age; absent any hard knowledge it is impossible, this is just musing. If a person changes their user name, then all the arguments above fall to pieces. Instead, we should look to reward improved behavior by not dragging out the past and using it against people all the time, and look at their present contributions. Using either light, Miskin's block would still hold without having to talk about what they did years ago. --
  David Shankbone
  13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional input from the blocked user

I have requested and received some additional input from the blocked user (see final thread on User talk:Miskin). The unblock request remains pending and at this point I am inclined to commute the block to time served (and keep a close eye on Mishkin's upcoming contributions). Newyorkbrad 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea. I think the case for this being a 3RR violation is not strong, and I don't think that it's right to issue such a long block based on behavior that occurred over a year and a half ago. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I'd be inclined to support that conditionally that if he violates again, it's indefinite block time. That allows him to continue editing, and if he wishes to be constructive he has one (and only one) last chance. Without that condition, I'd have to lean against unblocking.

^{Denny Crane.}

01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on this editor and telling him be careful, no problem. "If he ever makes a mistake again, indef" would be a bit much. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "make 'mistake' again, one month"? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends what kind of mistake. Prearranging these things in advance rarely works. There will certainly be enough eyes on this editor, without giving those (I don't mean admins) who don't care for him a target to shoot for. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The "mistake" I meant was another 3RR violation, if I wasn't clear. —Kyриx (什麽呢?) 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. The vast majority of the administrators here have endorsed the one-week block (19 administrators!). The reduction of the block would be against consensus, and in violation of

WP:WHEEL if not implemented by Alison. --AlexanderPar

01:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While I oppose a straight unblock, I am willing to tentatively support a block reduction. —210physicq (c) 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am against unblocking. I found him very rude and uncivil. Altough I had no previous conflict with this user when I started a discussion with him/her , He/She started atacking me personaly and accusing me of being nationalist instead of responding to my reasonable discussion. Because he got blocked for persian gates battle I want it to be clear that he had broken 3rr elsewhere too. He obvioulsy violated 3rr in Last stand but I was surprised when he was not blocked.(Arash the Archer 01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

I'd hazard a guess that Miskin understands the concerns brought up here and will be careful from now on, even if he is reverting open proxies. (Discussion above suggests that most do not view that as a 3RR exemption.) So I think we should unblock with, as Brad said, the time he has already been blocked as the extent of it. Blocking is not punitive, and I don't think there is anything to prevent; if it turns out there is something to prevent, he can be reblocked. Picaroon (Talk) 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Miskin does understand the concerns brought up here. Look at User_talk:Miskin#To_Swatjester, 2 3RR violations in 2 days, and he still refuses to acknowledge any fault or take any blame or make any promises to improve his behavior. I think he has to learn his lesson the hard way, Wikipedia shouldn't be rewarding such behavior.--AlexanderPar 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the person who reviewed the 3RR violation, he unambiguously and clearly violated the 3RR AGAIN after the report was filed (but before my block). See here. He clearly does NOT understand the 3RR rule, otherwise he wouldn't have broke it multiple times, and STILL complains that he "did not 3RR vio": while it's clear he unambiguously DID violate 3RR, without touching the fact that he STILL violated the spirit of 3RR. Remember you're not entitled to 4 reverts per day. Apparently, he thinks that. I have to agree with AlexanderPar.

^{Denny Crane.}

02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the block remaining in place. It has been shown clearly that he was in violation of 3RR after being fully aware of the rule. He has been blocked more than a handful of times before, and no good editor should ever break 3RR more than once, whereupon they are informed about it and never do it again. That it was an open proxy has no bearing on the block whether he knew about it or not (and there is strong evidence to say he did not) because even if someone is editing from an open proxy, that doesn't make reverting their edits exempt from 3RR - if they are using an open proxy, report it, have it blocked, then continue editing without that disruption. The arguments that his history of blocks some time ago is being held against him unfairly would only hold water if he was squeaky clean now - however he isn't, has not been shown to have learnt anything from any of those blocks and consequently an escalation in the length of the blocks is appropriate. I do not at this time support a indefinite block, or the threat of one as condition of unblocking. I don't believe he has reached that stage yet, but he is getting very close to that or an arbcom case. Viridae^Talk 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't learned anything? His behavior has been more or less acceptable for nearly 18 months during which he has thousands of constructive edits. Had he switched account names at that time he would have a track record of equal length and approximately equal quality as the original blocking admin. It troubles me that numerous admins are unwilling to put aside his early troubles, and are willing to dismiss thousands of constructive edits over the past year. The episode suggests our community has become unforgiving and incapable of accepting reform. I would say Miskin is an excellent example of someone who has learned something and has substantially reformed himself, which is not to say he is without error, but even arbitrators pick up a 3RR violation now and then. If we are incapable of forgiving and forgetting then there is no point in users attempting to reform; hence my point above about Miskin simply making a new account -- why try to reform yourself if the community rejects such efforts out of hand? Miskin's response to this whole situation has been unfortunate, but in my view unsurprising given Swatjester's initial action. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That the original month long block (although in my opinion excessive) was reduced with no consultation whatsoever with the blocking admin is serious in itself, but that the user has continuing support despite policy being clearly shown to be against him leads me to believe that a certain admin should not involve himself in any further blocks or unblocks of this user. There is quite obviously a conflict of interest here. In future I ask that they refer the matter to this board or another uninvolved admin. Viridae^Talk 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry Alison, I wasn't refering to you) Viridae^Talk 03:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• *sigh* - as the current blocking admin, I'd like to say that while I would personally be opposed to lifting the block at this time for numerous reasons, I would certainly defer to community opinion here. Given that the matter was brought here in the first place by SJ for that very reason, that is the most appropriate response. Having said that, I have to say I am disappointed by the way this whole issue was handled here by numerous people on all sides of this heated debate; the assumption of bad-faith on behalf of others, the incivility, the making of grossly inappropriate comments on the talk page of the blocked user in question, the email campaign that started up. And on it goes. While blocking for 3RR violation is not meant to be a punishment, I don't feel the user in question has learnt from this experience. My one-week re-block was done in good faith to prevent this whole issue getting out of hand, which ultimately it ended up doing anyway - Alison ☺ 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that much of the tone of this discussion has been regrettable (to say nothing of an "e-mail campaign," which I know nothing about). My strong view remains to reduce the block to time served at this point with a stern warning and some monitoring, but I was waiting for your comments. At this point consensus appears to be that the block stands, and I will not unblock overtly against consensus. I say that with regret, in part because it appears we may wind up losing this editor permanently, and that would not be a good thing. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

yet another section break

Honestly, I think the way the block was originally imposed is inappropriate. Miskin was reported to AN3, and the admin who originally reviewed the case said there was no 3RR violation [137].

WP:CANVAS, but Mardavich certainly violated its spirit. The news that there's been an "email campaign" for the block doesn't make me comfortable either. --Akhilleus (talk

) 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad, I appreciate your waiting. And yes - I can see from your perspective re. unblocking. However, I will defer to community opinion on this one. I note, though, that Mardavich's behaviour was inappropriate as it was ostensibly "admin shopping", and that kind of behaviour hurts everyone. Not impressed. It would be a pity if the blocked user chose to leave as a result of all this, but that is ultimately their decision - Alison ☺ 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't "forum shopping", I did nothing out of the ordinary, the closing admin had made a mistake which he later recognized and regretted[139], I had asked him to review it[140], the admin wasn't available, so I asked another admin what step I should take next [141]. That's not forum shopping. Akhilleus's got it all upside down! If there's been an "email campaign", it's been to get this user unblocked, the disproportionate number of editors/admins involved in Greek-related topics showing up here out of the blue (such as User:Akhilleus) is a clear indicator of that fact.--Mardavich 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine that, an admin showing up at the administrators' noticeboard, out of the blue. By the way, on what basis are you saying I'm pro-Greek? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I reworded my comment to avoid the ambiguity. --Mardavich 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nice of you to change that. However, you still seem to be claiming that I'm posting here because I've been urged to do so through email. What basis do you have for claiming that? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what I said. I didn't single you out, I said a disproportionate number of the individuals coming here to support Miskin also happen to be involved in Greek-related topics which appears to be out of ordinary. That's a simple observation. --Mardavich 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true, you didn't single me out. You said I was part of a group of "editors/admins involved in Greek-related topics showing up here out of the blue", which is a "clear indicator" that there's an email campaign to get Miskin unblocked. I suggest you refactor that comment, or provide some justification for saying that an email campaign drew me (and whatever other editors you were thinking of) to this thread. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your brought up the topic of "email campaign", not me. I just made an observation based upon your statement. --Mardavich 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you'll note that the original admin who said "no violation" has since changed his opinion, he now states there was a clear unambiguous violation. See

^{Denny Crane.}

05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that post, but I'm confused by it, and I hope that Sam Blacketer will explain his comment further. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope so too, but it seems pretty clear to me: At the time of the inital 3RR request, Sam found no violation. By the time I saw the request, there had been a clear violation. Upon notifying Sam, and over night, he saw that after his initial decision there had been a clear violation, and he changed his opinion to "violation occured". That's how it reads to me,

^{Denny Crane.}

06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that Miskin made another revert after Sam looked at the 3RR request? As far as I can tell, Miskin didn't make any edits to Battle of the Persian Gate after Sam decided there was no violation. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After I had filed that 3RR report, User:Miskin had made yet another revert within the 24-hour frame-work. --Mardavich 06:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So, um sorry to jump in well into the conversation but I've got two things I feel I need to add. 1) I think that wen admins start debating whether one another are pro-whatever on an unblock request, the process has gone horribly awry. 3RR blocks are given out, not because of content disputes, but because of disruptive behavior during content disputes. Our discussion here, as to the appropriate duration of a block, should be about conduct not content. Therefore, this discussions' participants' POV should be totally irrelevant. 2) We seem to have lost that blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. This thread is one of several examples going on right now. My final opinion on the matter? I think Miskin deserved a block, just not a 1 month block. I don't know what the right number of days is. I don't think there is a right answer. But, this user is not a "SO-AND-SO IS GAY" vandal. This is someone who has made positive contributions over several years. I think it is important not only to prevent him/her from edit waring now, but also to encourage him/her to continue making positive contributions in the future. --Selket ^Talk 05:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love this to make positive contributions. Nobody's trying to scare him away. We're trying to get him to follow the rules, which he thusfar refuses to do unless it suits him.

^{Denny Crane.}

06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I should say investigating this potential 3RR violation is by now making my ears bleed. When I closed the initial report it seemed to me that the central 'approach' issue in Miskin's reverts was whether the Battle of the Persian Gate should reflect the Encyclopaedia Iranica or the 'western consensus', with Miskin a supporter of the 'western consensus'. He had three clear reverts, but the edit at 18:44 looked more like a compromise: it demoted the 25,000 to 40,000 estimate to merely being "the western consensus" rather than stated as fact. For that reason, and the fact that I don't believe the 3RR should ever be used to stop editors being bold and trying to find a compromise, I held the 18:44 edit not to be a revert and closed as no violation (although Miskin was clearly sailing close to the wind).

Following that reasoning, I think the 10:21 edit was a revert, because the effect of it was to elevate the 'western consensus' about when casualties were inflicted into a clear factual statement in the article, in line with Miskin's previous reverts. For this reason there was a 3RR violation. I think that a 1 month was extreme, because Miskin's block history shows no 3RR blocks since 2005, and I disagree with SwatJester's comment in the block log that Miskin has "clearly no intent of editing constructively". He is a combative and forceful editor but he was discussing on the talk page throughout. Sam Blacketer 08:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting something out of this issue

OK, there is a point of contention here, policy-wise, that has been generally unadressed.

cool stuff

) 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is correct; open proxies are banned in the normal colloquial sense, and they are blocked as discovered because of the potential for damage. There is no reason to revert constructive or good faith edits from open proxies, though such edits may be few and far between. I don't think this needs to be clarified any more than it is; I think most of us can recognize that attempts to evade this issue on a purported technicality are a red herring. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's totally irrelevant to this topic. As discussed before, Miskin could not have possibly known that he was reverting a registered user on an open proxy. If we make an exception in this case, edit-warriors will cite it and ask for an exception when excessively reverting newbie users that may—or may not— turn out to be using an open proxy. --AlexanderPar 09:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

nobody disputes Miskin should have properly served a 24h block, and I never did "unblock" him in spite of what Swatjester would have you believe. But seriously.

dab (𒁳)

10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See

^{Denny Crane.}

09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock for ArbCom

As a anrbitration request has now been filed, I think it is only fair that Miskin is unblocked to defend himself, that is not me questioning the 1 weeks block, but it seems to make sense in light of how things have moved forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have copied his opening statement to the case page from his user talk page. If the case is accepted, he can post evidence on his talk page as well. Although, with the current arbitration case backlog, a week's delay in posting his evidence would likely not affect the outcome.

Thatcher131

17:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless an arbitrator requests it, I'm not sure unblocking is a good idea. Miskin is free to participate in the case while blocked, either by adding a statement to his talkpage which can be copied to the Arbitration page or by emailing ArbCom. WjBscribe 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe an unblock would be appropriate in this situation. Please see my statement in the arbitration case, including a motion which I have addressed to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed to Miskin that I will unblock his account, provided that he only edits the arbitration pages that he is involved in, if he edits other pages, I will immediately reblock the account - the block is punitive if he agree's to the condition. I will unblock the account; firstly, if Miskin agree's to this, and secondally, if there is no clear community outrage at me doing this. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Miskin upon condition he only edits arbitration pages related to his case, any other edits will result in his immediate reblock. I have asked NYB to forward an email to ArbCom explaining my reasoning. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, though after May 19 (18:10 UTC to be specific) he should be free to edit generally once again, since the existing block will have reached expiry. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and I explained this to him. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As the last blocking admin, I have no problem with this. It's a de facto block anyway - Alison ☺ 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the RFAR, I have no problem with it. If he's under ArbCom scrutiny, he'll have to be on his best behavior won't he?

^{Denny Crane.}

18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ دختران به خانه باز گردند! (ROOZ)
2. ^ Iranian student leader: Ayatollahs will run if Iran attacked