Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive43

Aug 31st-sept 14

Please help! This user is being fond of claiming I am the person who vandalized

Erm, that wasn't Mike Garcia that posted that. It was some anon.

t

02:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The IP is AOL so it keeps changing, which is probably the problem. You IP is being shared by many people so the message was intended for someone else. Getting a user account will solve this problem. This link is Broken 02:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It was absolutely Mike Garcia. Listen to the language he uses, "vandalized Hephaestos' user page lately". Why would an innocent person completely unfamiliar with the situation say lately? The entire posting sounds like Mike and it is Mike and I'm getting sick of him. Func( t, c, @, ) 19:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, he will freely admit that he frequently vandalized the page before he was unbanned. Guanaco 02:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia, aka User:Michael, has repeatedly vandalized Hephaestos' and my User pages. Why should he stop now just because he changed his name? Zoe 05:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Guys, please break it up! I am really, really not the person who has vandalized

talk

22:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Baloney. You were positively offensive in the number of times you vandalized both his and my pages. Zoe 08:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep a watch. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB (talk · contribs) has been blocked by three users before he managed to do much harm, but he comes in waves. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, there are a few of his droppings still at the Quechua Wikipedia: [1]. Could some admin over there clean this up, please? (Or if somebody knows whom to tell about it, do so?) Thanks. Lupo 14:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should let the devs clean this one up. --Golbez 15:43, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Alford (= "DotSix") is editing pages that he is not allowed to edit in violation of his injunction. Example: [2]

17:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't anyone listen to me when I say "Remove him"? Blocked 48 hours on general principle of making a legal threat. --Golbez 17:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've moved this entry bodily from

WP:ANI seems to get more attention, too, and I'd certainly like to know if anybody dispproves of my blocks of Sophie. Also I rather expect yet another incident when her latest block expires (as in, another block). Bishonen | talk

23:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

213.237.21.6 (signing "Sophie Petterka") did not participate at all in the discussion but fill the discussion page with garbage and personal attacks every day. I suggest to block this user. --YBM 13:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

26/08: The same a few hours ago : 6 editing blanking most of the current discussion + Goldwin-like personnal attack and other psychotic garbage. --YBM 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

All right, I checked out that talk page. "Sophie"'s edits are so extreme that in a way they're hard to take seriously, but they're also outrageous. Look at this one, blanking and replacing a long post of YBM's, i. e. it's written as if from YBM (not that it's exactly likely to deceive anybody). And, oh, look, here's a legal threat. I'm blocking 213.237.21.6 for 24 hours right now. Yes, without warning, so desysop me. Actually I hope Sophie takes a mere 24-hour block as a warning, because if she doesn't I see a permanent ban in my chrystal ball. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked for 24 hours (it's a dynamic IP address, so it makes no sense to block for too long). If that user starts doing it again, ask for help on

WP:AIV. --cesarb

01:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OTOH, "Sophie" has been using it for a week. Bishonen | talk 02:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As YBM did (and since he won't be able to announce it himself today), I would like you to have a look on the discussion page concerned: altough you had warned her, "Sophie" goes on debiting nonsenses, slanderous words and personal attacks.--Max.Epiphysique 12:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I have looked at the page, and written a warning on User talk:213.237.21.6. I will re-block if there's more yelling and so on, but right now the IP hasn't edited for many hours. If anybody notices "Sophie" coming in from a different IP and editing abusively, please let me know, or, in case you're an admin, please just block her. Bishonen | talk 14:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll follow the advice you've sent to me, with the likely support of the sane contributor of the discussion page. Meanwhile, "Sophie" is vandalizing again the page. As predicted she is now accussing me to have "INFILTERED WIKI WEBSITE AND DELEETED MY BLOG AND BANISHED ME FROM IT ILLEGALLY BY STEALING THE IDENTITY OF AN ADMINISTRATOR" (sigh) --81.64.153.216 02:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC) [this is YBM].

Update: Most of Sophie's anger has been transferred to me for the moment. She's very upset—she was that even before being blocked—and I do believe her interaction style is making it impossible for editors of the article to use the talk page constructively. They seem to have left. :-( Here's a passage from one of Sophie's long posts to me:

"If you were following what he had done from afar, and didn't blocked me after he had contacted you, but from your own judgement, so it proves that you have friendship with YBM, or you will have warned him or blocked him immediatly and even the days before.

What you are confessing here is that you knew what he was doing you knew it was forbidden and you let him do it and continue to do it day after day, and awaited together WITH him that I became angry enough to do or say something that you could use against me to block me, as you had arranged it with YBM."

Of course she was angry at having been blocked, nobody's forced to like the admin who does that to them, and she's struggling with a foreign language. Still, it's a little ludicrous. I intend to block her for a week, after several warnings, and will offer to unblock early if she shows any willingness to compromise. (I realize it's a dynamic IP, but it doesn't seem very nimble.) I just don't want her owning that talk page.

Bogdanov Affair has been protected for quite some time, and discussion on the talk page needs to get a chance. (She has never edited any other page.) Bishonen | talk

01:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sophie contacted me by email, apparently claiming that she was blocked from all wikis (I do not know how that can be true, but she also seems very unfamiliar with Wikipedia). From what I have gathered so far, her behaviour has indeed been quite unacceptable. I will try to explain the exact reasons to her, because at the moment she is just infuriated by what she considers an injustice. For the record, it should be noted that YBM's first messages to her on

Talk:Bogdanov Affair

have been "Please, Sophie go play your silly and lying game in the kindergarten, and learn how to indent", "Given the obvious mental illness of "Sophie SMJP", it is probably useless to insist on the fact every single word of this bunch of words is a lie, and Sophie a crank." and "in your ill mind you confuse every people who ever laughed at you - quite a few !".

YBM carefully forgot to mention his own personal attacks, such as this one, or edits comments containing "reverting psychotic garbage" or "→garbage - special subsection for Sophie, noone care, noone read the psycho", or his complete removal of all of Sophie’s contributions under the quite ironic comment of "removing personal attacks in compliance with Wikipedia policy" (note that when Sophie did the same he reverted, calling it vandalism). Though it does not excuse anything of her behaviour, I am not surprised Sophie lost her temper, being pushed like that. Maybe YBM (who is well known for his Usenet flamebaits) deserves a friendly warning, too. Sam Hocevar 20:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like it, maybe you could issue it, Sam, since you've read further back in the talk page history than I have? I would love to see interventions from other experienced users on that talk page altogether, because the contributors are pretty much all new. They seem to be here to edit and discuss that page exclusively, and they're anything but seasoned Wikipedians (though User:rbj is a notable exception). Sophie's not the only one having trouble with how things work, with NPOV, the protection policy, and such. Incidentally, if you notice Sophie complaining about my wiki e-mail function (sometimes that it's not turned on, sometimes that I lyingly pretend not to have received her messages), I don't know what the problem is there—I suppose there could be a technical glitch. I've never received an e-mail from Sophie. My wikimail has been activated the entire time, and other messages are getting through fine. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I warned them, and since I do not have a personal stance on the Bogdanov affair I told both that I would be glad to act as a mediator, if necessary. I’ll be watching the page and both users. I also suggested Sophie to register an account, since that’s probably the reason why her email to you was not sent. Sam Hocevar 01:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, right. It still seems anomalous, though, as e-mails from her have reached several other admins (you, for instance). Maybe she does use an account some of the time, or maybe the wiki e-mail function's just buggy. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I still cannot know for sure, because her email was sent directly, not through the Wikipedia site. I believe she complained to an admin on the French Wikipedia for what happened here, and he gave her my address. Sam Hocevar 09:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

...and I don't use the term lightly.

Admin

:

Elizabeth of Bohemia: A user unilaterally moved the page with raising it with anyone. An admin reinstated it and asked him to go through the usual channels in proposing the controversial naming. Instead he then went to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

to report her, against whom he had been making increasingly wild allegations for weeks, for supposedly abusing her powers in having restored the page to the least controversial location and having asked him to move propose its move the normal process everyone else uses

reverted it, and left this lovely little message on my Talk page:

Look, you asshole, it is official Wikipedia policy that all edits of a banned user on all pages should be deleted without discussion, irrespective of what they say. It is also Wikipedia policy that users should not reinstate them and should not be reinserted under another user. BTW Official Wikipedia Policy pages are defined as "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Try reading the rules of Wikipedia before making a complete dick of yourself.

There will now follow, if he stays true to form, a 500-word defensive screed about how he's right (he's ALWAYS right, you see), everyone else is wrong, and anyone who disagrees is a "vandal".

How, exactly, did this guy get to be an admin? --Calton | Talk 02:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone can check whether Jtdirl has kept the promise he gave when adminned: [3] 217.140.193.123 08:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Is he an admin? I thought that was Jtkiefer? --

khaosworks (talk • contribs

) 02:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Both. [4]. --fvw* 02:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me, so I don't know why my name was mentioned.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}

----- 02:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're obviously his sockpuppet, just as

khaosworks (talk • contribs

) 02:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, he is an admin. The short tempered responses and behavior (reversions) by themselves are bad enough (if all of what Calton said is true). Edit waring on lamest edit wars is soo sad. Perhaps it should be delted just to prevent such fights. Are you going to open an RFC? This link is Broken 02:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I'm not quite clear why this is here, I'm not sure an RfC wouldn't be appropriate, but just listing it here isn't really going to achieve much I think. As for deleting the edit wars page, I agree it's not a good page to keep around, but the community, stupid as it is (not a personal attack, collective attacks are allowed, right?), has decided to keep it, so there's not much we're going to be able to do about that for the time being. --fvw* 02:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear why this is here It's called a "heads-up", a wider dissemination of information intended to reach admins who don't normally patrol

WP:LAME or my Talk page. It's notification of the remarkably petty behavior of someone who, entrusted to be an admin, should know better, and I think little peer pressure is more appropriate than whacking him on the head with a blunt instrument like RfC. Using an RfC for this would be, well, lame. --Calton | Talk

02:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Unless you're asking for administrator intervention, this is a matter for the entire community. If you don't want to use an RfC, we have several pleasant village pumps for your perusal. --fvw* 02:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Foolish me, I thought that a page called "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" might be just the place to post a notice about an incident involving an administrator, in order to notify other administrators about the incident. Incidentally, what part of "peer pressure" was unclear? Since his peers are administrators, notice of an administrator incident should be placed where administrators might notice it and apply peer pressure, which incidentally seems perfectly in line with page entitled "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Clear enough? --Calton | Talk 12:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

That would be even lamer. I'm just boggling at the behaviour now. Once I get over the sheer mindbending inanity surreality of it I may reconsider, but at the moment, I don't think so. It's just so... petty. --

khaosworks (talk • contribs

) 02:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You know, if I was more paranoid, I'd think that Jtdirl was edit warring on lamest edit wars just to bolster his argument that it should be edited, when the PfD just failed. But no. That would be even more bizarre. --

khaosworks (talk • contribs

) 02:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody else has done so I'd just like to note the irony of having an edit war on The Lamest Edit War.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}

----- 02:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it happens now and then. This present one is at least the fifth one. Actually, Jtdirl warred also an earlier one (or two?) Arrigo 02:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Urgh. Now Jtdirl has used the vandal rollback to revert Fvw on

t

03:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl has long had the habit of reacting quite aggressively to any edit he disagrees with. I have cautioned him about this in the past, but he does not seem to have heeded this advice. For those above who are wondering how he became a sysop, it is because he was promoted before the current system was in place. Originally requests for adminship were simply posted to the mailing list, and it was quite rare for someone to be rejected. There was a fair bit of debate over his nomination, which can be read in the May 2003 Wikien-L archives. - SimonP 03:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

No. Fvw deleted an entry I wrote in which I mentioned how I had had to lock my talkpage, yet again, to protect it from a stalker. While you lot are babbling to yourselves I'm having hazzle from a Wikistalker who has been vandalising my userpage, posting personal allegations on Wikipedia pages about me, vandalising articles which, when I defend from attack I get garbage written about me on the lame edit war page. The same asshole has driven one user off Wikipedia, abused another on his webpage, used 24 sockpuppets and is banned, yet you lot make a song and dance when his vandalism is, as required by policy, removed from pages. That same son-of-a-bitch, while posting allegations about me on and off Wikipedia, has now begun writing letters to Irish newspapers. If he has no problem signing his name to things, fine. Since he is so open, people can find out on my page, in a cut and paste from a letter of his already linked on Wikipedia by another user, who precisely the stalker really is. And I really don't give a damn whether you are offended or not — you try put up with a stalker on Wikipedia for months, and see how much you like it. You try getting the ArbCom to actually do something about him. (It took Jimbo to intervene in the end to get him banned.) I've had to lock my talk page (again) to stop the supposedly banned user from editing it. At this stage keep going with all your childish babbling here. Its not your pages that are being vandalised, not you that is having lies spread about and not you that is being stalked. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time to deop him. Agriculture 05:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Does it? Does it really? I can't imagine the deliberative processes that would lead anyone to think that. Skyring, who was banned by Jimbo (to the universal relief of everyone who had ever encountered him), has stalked Jtdirl for months. He's not making that up–I blocked at least one Skyring sock myself and have often reverted his vandalism. What Skyring has done to Jtdirl is quite likely a prosecutable crime in many countries. If Skyring is really writing to newspapers (and I've no reason to doubt Jtdirl on this one), then what we are witnessing here is an incredibly serious situation in which one (former) Wikipedian is attempting to ruin another in the real world. This isn't some game, or some silly revert war. I'm troubled that Jtdirl is so agitated, yes–but I'm far more troubled by the sequence of events which led to this and the churlishness of those Wikipedians who seem regard the whole affair a trifle. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that Skyring was himself driven to extreme (and not necessarily justifiable) lengths by his treatment here: all his edits were reverted by Jtdirl, even when they were of uncontroversial quality, and he was eventually banned for an entire year, no matter how reasonable he tried to be, a penalty we normally reserve for the worst of editors. As I see it you have a case here where both parties involved went way overboard about the whole situation. It seems wrong to pin all the blame on just one side. Everyking 23:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Note - I just reverted (and blocked) a new user whose first action was to come here and detail every user I've blocked in last month or three. I did this because I suspect the user to be yet another Skyring sockpuppet (see User:GuaranteedTrue). Mackensen (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And another one. I highly encourage consultation of the arbcom case. If need be, I'd be happy to figure out when I reverted (or blocked) Skyring. Certainly I ran across him often enough--especially when he was inserting nonsense into Australian governemnt articles. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That's three different Skyring sockpuppets. I'll now clarify matters so that he'll hopefully leave well enough alone. Skyring is banned on Jimbo's orders. By policy and convention, anything that Skyring adds to Wikipedia must be reverted on sight. This is a long-standing principle. Every time Skyring comes on Wikipedia and mucks around with articles on Australian government, insults Jtdirl, or makes a fuss on a policy page, he's vandalizing Wikipedia. It was made explicitly clear by the community–through individual users, the Arbitration Committee, and eventually Jimbo himself–that Skyring is not welcome until/unless he gets his act together. If Skyring wants specific examples, I'll note that I've blocked three of his sockpuppets in the last two or so hours alone. In response to Everyking, Skyring and Jtdirl were both reprimanded by the Arbcom, but in accordance with their misdeeds. Skyring capped incivility and stalking with POV-pushing and factual inaccurracy–things most of us frown on. Talk page archives show that people were patient with Skyring until it became apparent that he was unwilling to work with the community. Mackensen (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know if he has really left the project? If not I think some sort of further action needs to be taken about this. It sounds fairly severe. Everyking 08:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Posting other people's home addresses or other RL contact information on Wikipedia without their permission should simply be a banning offense, no questions asked. Anyone who does it, thereby throws away their access forever -- simple as that. Doesn't matter if they're an admin, a developer, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself: using the wiki to harass or threaten others in this way for any purpose needs to directly and necessarily lead to a ban.

Can anyone suggest any reason this shouldn't be done? Any reason that a person who uses the wiki to threaten other people IRL should be permitted to continue editing? 'Cause I sure don't. --FOo 20:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a case in front of the arbcom about that: User:ArmchairVexillologistDon published another editor's name during a content dispute, and kept on doing it, not just once. I agree that it should attract an instant, indefinite ban. The only thing I'd say here in Jtdirls' defense is that being trolled by Skyring must be a formidably depressing experience, and I agree with Ann that it's a shame more couldn't have been done to support him. I feel bad myself about it, because I didn't do anything, except post the occasional comment here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Once Deb is brought down, then it'll be time for Skyring to take Adam Carr and myself out. I await this with an especial trepidation. El_C 21:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If he starts it on anyone else, I would like to be part of fending him off, so please let me know. My problem was I got confused by all the IP addresses and the prostestations of innocence. I gave the benefit of the doubt, which with hindsight was stupid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, the discussion on this topic makes it quite clear that few understand what a pervasive menace Skyring is. Jtdirl's actions only make sense in the context of months of stalking and harrassment. That it ever went this far is shameful. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I wonder whether anyone has documented the harassment so we can at least be wise after the fact, which is better than nothing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pool

Contd. from my comment above:Let's not forget nixi. I wasn't, being sarcastic above, just to make that crystal clear. Skyring is intelligent, creative, and of a highly determined mindset. I, for one, do not underestimate him, and I'm not sure if I could maintain Jtdirl's constitution for so long, I don't want to know. Three sockpuppet today alone: One, Two, and Third one rings familliar, perhaps, a homage (?) to this mailing list post by myself (specifically, this diff). So who is next, then? Maybe we should start a pool. Anyone? El_C 23:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and throw my hat in the ring–I'm sure he's most displeased that I came to Jtdirl's defense. We've collaborated for two years, off and on--how could I have acted otherwise? I'm a tad concerned that the community doesn't realize what a nuisance Skyring is. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he'll come after me, as I only briefly had dealings with him over the Queen issue, though I felt the heat of his displeasure at being contradicted. However, I'm prepared to throw my hat in the ring too in the sense of joining forces, so that's three of us so far to defend whoever's picked on next, and Jtdirl if he returns. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl has protected his talk page citing persistant vandalism, though in my view all that has happened is two people warned him against making personal attacks. I unprotected and stated this, but he rolled back my edit to the protected page list and re-protected. I don't much fancy getting into a protection war, so could some other, preferably thusfar uninvolved, admin have a look at if this is within protection policy? Thanks. --fvw* 03:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

If you had bothered to look at the edit history of my page you'd see that it was nothing to do with you but to do with two sockpuppets of a user banned for a year of Wikistalking me, but who has still been able to run 23 sockpuppets here in the last month. Next time try reading before making allegations. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the two editors that (first?) warned Jtdirl were were NudgeNudge (talk · contribs) and SayNoMore (talk · contribs). Both are accounts created today, with six edits and one edit (the note to Jtdirl) respectively. I wouldn't be surprised if they were Skyring socks (a sock check from David Gerard might be of use) but they could also be random troublemakers.

That said, receiving a few 'helpful' remarks from anon IPs or new accounts doesn't strike me as warranting a page protection for vandalism. It's a talk page, not an article, and the socks or vandals will get bored and go away. It's also a bit troubling that Jtdirl removed legitimate criticism and comments from a number of editors in good standing (Khaosworks, Fvw, Calton) at the same time as he removed the socks' comments and protected the page.

Protecting his own talk page after posting the real name and address of another editor–even a banned one–also is just not on. Repeatedly reposting that information after it has been removed is, as Dmcdevit notes above, beyond the pale. This has the makings of a

wheel war, unless everyone involved steps back and takes a bit of a break. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 03:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The page is unprotected (and jtdirl appears to have indicated he's leaving the project). No need for further intervention, thanks. --fvw* 03:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Skyring has now stooped to contacting individual users by private e-mail (through the "e-mail this user" link) giving them "proof" of Jtdirl's real identity. (Or to be more precise, he did it with me this morning; I wouldn't be surprised if he has done it with others, but I don't actually know.) I can't comment on what happened in the last ten hours — I was asleep when much of this was going on — but I think it's a pity that Wikipedia wasn't able to give more support to a victim of stalking and harrassment before this whole thing blew up. I am not defending Jtdirl, just pointing out that when people are subjected to what he was subjected to, the likelihood increases that they'll do things they shouldn't do. I think there was definitely provocation in this case. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You make it sound pretty sinister, Ann! Could you just confirm for your readers that the "proof" was this, as quoted from the previous section a few lines above: Everyone can check whether Jtdirl has kept the promise he gave when adminned: [5] 217.140.193.123 08:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

On following this link, one finds a submission to the WikiEN-l mailing list which is jtdirl acknowledging his nomination for admin status, containing the "From" line: "james duffy jtdirl at hotmail.com". You had previously speculated that there was no link between the two, and that this was the way Jim wanted it.

Let's stick to the facts, please! CarefulEyes 18:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if he has done it with others. No surprise, then, to hear that he did it with me, too. It was to my home address, so I didn't get it until an hour ago:

G'day, Skyring here!

Could you take a look at [[6]], please?

I don't want my name and address published on Wikipedia, especially not by someone who continually abuses me.

Yours aye,

Peter

The link seems to have been deleted, so I have no idea what it's about or what idiocy Skyring was trying to rope me into, but given his plentiful supply of sockpuppets, wonder why he was trying to talk people into doing his dirty work. --Calton | Talk 12:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to worry. I checked: Mark deleted some parts of earlier revisions to erase any mention of Skyring's putative address from archives. Quite natural (and justified) that the Skyring did not like its publication, and now Mark, an uninvolved admin, has taken care of that. Btw, in my opinion, Jtdirl's reactions towards alleged stalking etc are itself harmful - Jtdirl could live much better if he just ignored such. Guess Skyring and Jtdrl deserve each other. Arrigo 14:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's quite fair, Arrigo. It's disorienting to have a troll after you, and what they do is try to spot your weakness and home in on it. Jtdrl's response to the harassment was all too human. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Meh, but it's to be expected. Arrigo's been harrassing Deb for weeks. He also had the uncommon courtesey to drop an unfriendly note on Jtdirl's talk page. Whether Skyring liked the publication or not is irrelevant, of course–he was banned for a reason. "Alleged stalking" is a rather monstrous way of putting it–only someone utterly unfamiliar with the case or a pathological liar could see it that way. Mackensen (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well said. Assuming goodfaith, I am of course inclined to consider it a product of the former. El_C 21:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the offending material from the page history using a partial undelete. I don't want anyone to interpret my actions there as support for either party in this dispute. And I certainly don't want to contribute to Jtdirl leaving Wikipedia; as far as I know Jtdirl has been a valuable user. - Mark 03:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I still don't get why it's such a big deal who jtdirl actually is. He's entitled to a certain amount of anonymitity here on Wikipedia. That's why we have usernames, not actual names. I don't care if he is James Duffy, George Bush, or Pope Pius XII. He remains jtdirl, a loyal Wikipedia editor who was stalked off by a banned, disruptive, downright nasty troll. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 17:30, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

A couple days ago, this user popped up on my watchlist when he moved

06:58, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I consider this a prime example of "so don't do that" and am reverting them all. --fvw* 07:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Please check the location of your pet articles though, as it was rather a convoluted web. --fvw* 07:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the recent

Chernobyl accident? --Carnildo

07:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, he did manage to find a lot of controversially named articles. Maybe he scoured

WP:RM? --fvw*

08:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Fvw, for cleaning up after him. Much obliged. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

How can a user with so few posts have moving privillages so soon after registering? isn't there some kind of waiting period before people can move pages?--152.163.96.61 00:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Did you refer the user to the Naming conventions? - 82.172.23.66 17:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous user using IP address 68.10.113.7 (also 137.246.197.36 and 66.93.239.163) continually reverts content on the Open gaming page, frequently marking his edits misleadingly ('fixing typos', mis-identifying other edits as 'vandalism', etc) [7]. Attempts to communicate and request further dialogue on user IP talk page and edit comments are ignored[8]. Can anything be done about this? -Axon (talk|contribs) 09:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You could request page protection

here. --fvw*

09:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Axon, I've left a warning on the talk pages. Please let me know if it continues. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:58, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ta, will do. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a fairly longstanding edit war: the author of the "October Open Gaming License" has been trying to minimize or eliminate its appearance on that page for at least a year now. --Carnildo 18:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, if this is the same user, when he couldn't get the content removed before he then resorted to "meat puppetting" for which he was subsquently blocked. His attempts to anonymously revert changes every few months seem to be a new tactic to remove the content "by stealth". I would also note that since his admin warning he has once again reverted content without discussion[9]. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Can some action be taken at the Misandry article please. We have one abusive user and a possible sockpuppet introducing POV, making misleading edit summaries and talk comments, with multiple reverts; could either the page be protected temporarily or some action be taken against the user. This sort of behaviour is "sub-vandalism", and presumably is bad-faith -- should it be treated as outright vandalism? Thanks

00:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Protected for now. Please discuss the merit of some changes on the talk page. Radiant_>|< 08:21, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

_ _

text justifying it.
_ _ Clearly my personality is an important part of the impasse that includes his replacement of our whole preceding discussion and another parting statement, and any RFC (such as he suggests) should not involve me, let alone be initiated by me.
_ _ I have, however, compiled the entire dialogue including the two msgs already mentioned (with annotations & lks as to where copied from), in order to save others the downloading of overwhelmingly irrelevant pages -- especially my still out-of-control talk page.
--Jerzy•t 00:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not Jerzy's personality but the somewhat bizarre approach he takes in questioning my actions as an admin. His tone is formalistic, the formatting stifling and his answers verbose and mechanical. I have given adequate reasons for the deletion (which was reversed at any rate). I would be most disappointed if Jerzy continues to harrass me and other users in this fashion, and find an out-of-control talk page a very poor excuse. I am not the first user to respond negatively to his inquisitive approach; this and this are examples. JFW | T@lk 01:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks as though

as a joycean reference to Queen Victoria. Though banned from Wikipedia for a year for stalking, Skyring has so far used up to 30 sockpuppets in 1 month in his stalking campaigns. This one appears to be his latest, and focuses on Mackensen because Mackensen expressed his contempt for Skyring's antics in blunt language following jtdirl's decision to leave Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia have any plans to deal with Skyring or is he going to be allowed to drive more people away through campaigns of harrassment, stalking and libel?

[10]

It would also be interesting to know if other users who criticised Skyring's antics have had other strange messages from IPs and new users since they left their messages about him recently.

83.71.15.181 02:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The really unfortunate thing about this situation seems to be little that can be done about skyring beyong blocking the socks as they display characteristic behaviour. At rate he's going with socks his ban on ediing won't get lifted.--

02:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Given his continuing behaviour, should it be lifted at all, at any point? I'm inclined now to think he should be banned ad infinitum.--

Talk

05:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

One thing we can all do is add Mackensen's user page to our watchlist. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with year-long bans is they give a person no incentive to respect the ban. It's too far off; nobody cares about whether they'll be able to edit again next September or not. Now, if you give a person a week or a month, then they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and just sit quietly and wait. But with a year you're going to feel like you've got nothing to lose, so you might as well make it an all-out war. Everyking 04:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-September/027998.html

I'm honestly completely confounded by the whole issue and the more I read on it the more confused I get... it would be nice if there was a summary someplace

T | @ | C

03:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, you should start by reading

Government of Australia articles, and promptly went to stalking and harassing other editors he disagreed with. Zzyzx11 (Talk)

04:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, Skyring is not listed on

the list of banned users yet. So I'll add him to it. Zzyzx11 (Talk)

04:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe

T | @ | C

04:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where he'd fit on that page, Tern was blocked partially at my request since I didn't have admin powers to block yet, but I don't think he was a big enough disruption to be considered banned by the community. Maybe another category should be added to that list for cases like that.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}

----- 20:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Also in the interest of transparency of actions I'd like to note that I recently edited turns user talk page while it was locked to add the

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}

----- 20:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, we'd forgotten to list him on AER; now added (see

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested#Skyring

).

James F. (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

12.219.245.60 (talk · contribs) keeps adding somewhat unrelated external links to certain articles. Could an adiminstrator please take a look? --Ixfd64 03:50, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

I received an email this evening from Uriah923 (talk · contribs · block log); it looks like it may have been sent some hours ago, so for all I know this has been dealt with. Anyway, I thought I'd post it here in hopes someone knows what is going on here and can deal with it appropriately:

I was recently blocked by Dmcdevit and this is in violation of the Wikipedia blocking policy. First, we are currently engaged in multiple disputes and the policy specifies that "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." Second, I have not committed any of the violations listed in the policy.

You have helped me in a previous similar matter by being able to approach the situation. I hope you can do so now.

Jmabel | Talk 05:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, I was about to go to bed. Quick synopsis up to this point. I was in the process of reverting lots of external links to OmniNerd when Uriah showed up on my watchlist reverting back. So I blocked. It should have been a short shock block to get him to discuss, not revert back, but in frustration I did 48 hours. Taxman unblocked him only minutes later, and I have apologized for that aspect. There is now extensive discusion at that user's talk page, and mine, and

t

05:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Good morning! I've thrown in my two cents worth at

khaosworks (talk • contribs

) 06:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

HEHEHH maybe time to take

T | @ | C

06:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

:( *sigh* Wel, the block was actually only a momentary part of this. There's real discussion going on. Anyone can join.

t

22:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please do join in the discussion

15:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

No Legal Threats

[11] (preceding

09:50, 3 September 2005)

A statement the one linked to above shows we need a project to coordinate and promote standards of decency on Wikipedia. Oh, wait, never mind. -- Norvy (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

How on Earth does he come to the conclusion that someone can be jailed for misbehaving on WP? ~~ N (t/c) 17:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Our regular contributor Psy guy (talk · contribs) noticed that someone had created the account Psyguy (talk · contribs) with a confusingly similar name. The latter account has no edits to its credit, so I blocked it preemptively and left a polite explanatory notice on its User and User Talk pages.

I'm wondering if it's possible to find its date of creation; I'm curious about whether or not it's a 'sleeper' account set up for later WoW-style vandalism. It could also be a harmless coincidence, of course. Any other thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect harmless coincidence. It's an obvious-enough-sounding name that I can imagine two people independently choosing it. That said, there's also not much reason not to block it if it's never been used. Isomorphic 17:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Could I get a fellow admin to protect

17:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- llywrch 18:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. The page appears to be protected (it has a "remove protection" button in place of "protect this page) but Levzur was able to edit it, and I was able to revert his edit without seeing the usual "YOU ARE EDITING A PROTECTED PAGE" warning. What's going on? Isomorphic 23:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That one's got me before until I realised that it's possible to protect pages for nmoves only. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. So how do I (or preferably someone with no involvement on the page) change it to a real page protection? Isomorphic 23:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It should work this time; I even logged out to verify that a non-Admin could not edit it. Sorry for the confusion, but it's been a while since I had to protect a page, & it apparently is not as simple as I remembered it to be. -- llywrch 23:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If it has been a while since you last protected a page, you probably got hit by the fact that the "confirm protection" checkbox doesn't exist anymore. You probably are still used to checking the box below the input without even looking. A lot of admins had the same problem around the time of the 1.5 upgrade. --cesarb 14:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be violating his temporary injunction on Talk:Canada (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Canada|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SlimVirgin blocked him for this a few days ago for this, but there's been no action since. ~~ N (t/c) 20:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him for 48 hours per the temporary injunction against him. --Golbez 20:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my RFA against him. This should mean the injunction is no longer in effect. Homey 22:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Much like the law, I'm not sure if that applies. That would work if it were an RfC, but this is an RfA. Either way, until the Arbcom says as such, it applies. --Golbez 22:05, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

If there's no longer a need for arbitration, there shouldn't be a need for an injunction either. Isomorphic 23:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That may be the case, but until the Arbcom lifts the injunction (if the Arbcom lifts the injunction) ArmchairVexillologistDon is required to respect it. --Canderson7 23:23, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

HOTR has unblocked him. I hope this can be settled peacefully. ~~ N (t/c) 23:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Lots of silliness in last hour or so from various IP's - strongly suggest admin protection --

21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the most offending IP and vprotected it. --Golbez 21:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:AypeeESME and User:BrewCoffee, which I believe to be sockpuppets of User:Emico circumventing his ArbCom ban on editing Iglesia ni Cristo articles. —Theo (Talk) 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

22:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The logs show it (and a bunch of other articles) were moved back. But take a look at that account's older contributions; some of them are downright strange (he created his user talk page fully formed, complete with discussions with other users!) --cesarb 23:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

After some looking:

• The account has all the "look and smell" of an impostor account (the user and talk pages are direct copies of the mark's pages).
• Most edits consisted of adding a "new messages" box with a link to the blockip page, pointing to the other account.
• The account went silent for a while.
• The edit immediately before the vandalism spree was to an AOL IP user talk page (testing if it works?).
• Said AOL IP edited both user talk pages (the impostor's and the real user's).

Given all that, I indefinitely blocked the account as an impostor, and believe the AOL IP should be watched for a while.

--cesarb 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on. I've blocked Curps for 48 hours I'm watching the edits at the moment. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Pakaran says s/he has changed the password, and I think Ed Poor mopped up most of it. Strange account all round.-Splash 23:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Whose password? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

On IRC, Pakaran said they'd changed User:Barneybumble's password (or at least, so I understood) and commented they wouldn't be logging back in. Ed Poor said he couldn't fix the account without developer access. I don't know precisely what that means. -Splash 23:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This account was apparently an attempt to impersonate User:Barneygumble.--Pharos 23:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. Barneybumble's account appears compromised so you blocked Curps ?? FreplySpang (talk) 23:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I can easily explain that. I'm stupid! (I've undone the block) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Carry on. :) FreplySpang (talk) 23:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

And, by the way, we really need a better pagemove throttle. I propose that no user without account flags be able to move more than 1 article per second. --cesarb 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd support not more than one every 10 seconds, even. How many legitimate tasks (other than reverting page move vandalism) require more than 6 page moves per minute? Isomorphic 23:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Mass-renaming pages (for instance, from (movie) to (film)). But then, that can be done by a bot (with a flag...) or an admin (which of course has an account flag). I believe 1 per second would slow down a lot of the vandalism while having a low enough chance of false positives (even more if the only result of a false positive is a "slow down, cowboy!" message and having to retry). --cesarb 23:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Theresa, I can't really complain, I blocked User:Who some time ago for the same reason (I didn't look closely and mistook his undoing of Willy vandalism for the vandalism itself).

For what it's worth, my autoblock bot was the first to block Barneybumble... I really think it's a practical necessity despite some folks' misgivings. Until we get pagemove throttle or some other permanent solution. -- Curps 23:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Something very interesting here. Check out this timeline.

Barneybumble commits petty vandalism on August 11 and gets blocked. Weeks later he gets unblocked by Golbez, and just a few short hours later the unblock is detected by a test edit and a pagemove vandalism spree is launched immediately. For sure Willy's using a bot (as if the 75 pagemoves/minute weren't enough of a giveaway).

• 22:46, 3 September 2005 Curps blocked "User:Barneybumble" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)

• User:Barneybumble contributions
  • 22:46, 3 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m List of sports pairs (List of sports pairs moved to List of sports pairs *No, fuck you, this account has a really dumb password, what kind of dumbass uses 123456 as a password I'll never know)
  • 22:45, 3 September 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:152.163.100.138

• 17:49, 3 September 2005 Golbez unblocked User:Barneybumble (unblocking to prevent collateral damage to AOL; it's been a month)
• 15:19, 11 August 2005 Golbez blocked "User:Barneybumble" with an expiry time of indefinite (Spamming articles with a "you've got mail" link that leads to the block page for Barneygumble.)

-- Curps 23:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

For your information: Jesus On Wheels (talk • contribs) has been blocked a few times for being mistaken as Willy on Wheels, even though this account's contributions so far have been legitimate. This user has asked us on his/her user page that even though the account will most likely lead to more blocks, (s)he would still like to keep the username, and thus is asking us not to mistake him/her for Willy on Wheels again. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

WonderBread (

) 00:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be up to some weird page moves too.--

nixie

01:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It's like a subtle Willy crossed with an abusive anti-Zap sock. BLOCK NOW FOR THE SAKE OF JEBUS. ~~ N (t/c) 01:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is really freaky. He's creating a lot of useless redirects that need to be deleted. What's The Point(tm)? ~~ N (t/c) 01:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 hour, but I really do not care about the block length. Feel free to temp unblock and reblock for as long as you think it should be blocked. --cesarb 01:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Indefinitely. No useful contribs AFAICS. ~~ N (t/c) 01:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have just done that. That account's pattern of edits before the present day strongly suggest it's the well-known annoyance who goes by the nickname of "Willy on Wheels". --cesarb 01:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More like a WoW wannabe, but I agree with an indefinate block.--

nixie

01:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note to account patrol: it's probably a good idea to check for accounts matching "Bread". --cesarb 01:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Also see User talk:WonderBread. -Splash 01:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Too funny. His knowledge of what we are talking about here only shows we're right. --cesarb 01:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

well, this page is not exactly hidden. Naturally WoW is watching the cries of desparation uttered here, with glee. No, the only solution is "martial law" style technical solutions (like pagemove throttles), and, of course, finding Willy (physically, and/or legally). Wikipedia may, of course, have to enter a prolongued state of "martial law" anyway on 1 October, if

dab (ᛏ)

08:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

SPUI (talk · contribs · block log) (See contribs)

Just got done reverting many changes by this user, in which the user puts an image an on the page, with the edit message (I have brought Toby here because he is lonely.). User did it to another person's user page(s) though, which makes it seem like borderline vandalism. On one of the pages the user spammed, the user put the message "kindly fuck off." in response to another user's criticism of a page in the previous edit... so I suspect the user only spammed pages he didn't like...- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kentucky_Cardinal&diff=21937409&oldid=19890688.

01:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It's SPUI. Just ask him to stop. --cesarb 01:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

01:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, SPUI is a long time, good contributor. But once in a while, he sometimes loses it and gets into one of those silly phases... then he gets back to normal. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like he's implementing the
  WP:TOBY proposal, which basically calls for people to put the Toby image on any pages they object to for any reason, so that other people won't see those pages any more (through a requested software feature that hides all pages containing that image, and makes it impossible to remove the image once in place). In other words, a censorship policy. Maybe some people should go to that proposal's talk page and explain why it's not a good idea. Radiant_>|<
  08:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

On a related note: TOBY (talk · contribs) (thanks Nickptar). --cesarb 16:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The last two PM vandals edited

02:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Freakishly enough, EagleEyedScout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved my RFA. Personal grudge for reporting his likely previous sock (#User:WonderBread)? ~~ N (t/c) 02:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've just gone Curps and blocked all the sockpuppets which matched that pattern (only edits on that date, edited that page, have a user and a user talk page created by themselves). If you think I'm wrong, revert, but I'll say "I said so" if I turned out to have been right. --cesarb 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nice work catching the pattern. — Dan | Talk 02:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm this --> <-- close to starting a petition for the developers to implement page move throttling (if you want to do more than 1 move in 2 seconds, you should stop and think what you are doing). I'm sure such a petition would have a unusually high amount of signatures. --cesarb 03:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. A zillion times yes.. This has gone on long enough! ~~ N (t/c) 03:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

See bugzilla:1454 for complaints. Dragons flight 03:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Some of the recent ones started with !, I believe, so as to show up on the first page of Special:Listusers (the rest, of course, was obscene and/or personal attack). I propose blocking all users with that pattern, although the vast majority can probably be usernameblocked already. Just another thing to check for. ~~ N (t/c) 03:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already username-blocked basically all offensive accounts that start with "!". I'll do another complete scan tonight. --MarkSweep✍ 03:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• As long as you don't mind accounts ending in a "!" :) Radiant_>|< 08:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • What if Radiant! is WoW and he's just been playing along all this time so he could get admin rights, and then he's going to go on a rampage and be unstoppable since he can unblock himself too. Can we please get a a developer here quickly to de-sysop and block him, or better yet erase all trace that Radiant! ever existed? Soon! :)
    t
    08:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh noes! You're onto me! But now I shall call upon by cabal connections to replace your orange juice with artificially-colored milk! Muahaha! Radiant_>|< 16:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • And so Radiant! is revealed. He ends every sentence in his last post with a '!' — a sure sign if any were needed. He can almost certainly be blocked for a lengthy period for trying to demonstrate experimentally the point that it is ok for every sentence to end with a '!'. -Splash 16:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• No, guys, seriously, Willy is trying to stay one step ahead of us. The only way we can stop him from this junk is to trace him and contact his ISP when we nail him. Jimbo has given the ok for "drastic action", so maybe it's time for us to counterattack? Titoxd 03:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg - most recently used to vandalize Hurricane Katrina. It's inlined at Penis, though - perhaps a much smaller version should be inlined at penis, with a link to the big one. ~~ N (t/c) 03:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you wouls struggle to get agreement on Talk:Penis.Geni 07:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The vandal in question has used several nonrelated IP addresses, it is quite probable that he/she is using an anonomizer or IP spoofing. -

Loren

07:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

or broken naming conventions, most of the moves seems have been intended to be helpful, even aligned with talk page discussions. You might think that because this user contribs show him or her almost never editting pages, that this must be leaving a lot of double redirects and other problems behind, but you'd be wrong. Checking several of the pages showed that after the move an anon showed up to fix links (several different IPs were used). So, it appears that someone created an account just to do a series of more or less helpful page moves while otherwise editting anonymously.

Aside from getting this person to be wary of breaking naming conventions and/or stepping on the toes of WP:RM, there is not really a problem here. However, in the Willy climate of page move wariness, I thought it important to call attention to this account since it seems to exist almost exclusively to move pages, and probably bears some watching. Dragons flight 09:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

their user page history is odd.Geni 09:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is quite unusual for a genuine new user to be so focused on page moves. Perhaps this is a role account? I agree this bears watching. Jonathunder 16:11, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

As I understand it, anons can't move pages, so it might simply be that this person wishes to edit anonymously, but must login to make page moves from time to time. I agree with Geni, however, there was a very persistent vandal attacking the user's page, which seems weird given the very little page-editing this account does. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken repeatedly adds his accusations to my userpage. Has been warned [12], but has continued. The addition itself is ridiculous: Francis Schonken wants repeatedly add an allegation that my username is a sockpuppet of an IP address. (By definition, IP address is not a username, thus it cannot have sockpuppets - or vice versa). Besides, sockpuppet is not anything directly forbidden. Additions of the sockpuppet allegation are imo personal attacks, and Schonken has obviously very deliberately chosen the place (the userpage) where to put them. As Schonken seems very obstinate in his drive (up to the point that Schonken does not do almost anything constructive in Wikipedia), and he clearly does not heed warnings, it is up to admins to consider whether he deserves e.g blocking. Arrigo 09:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Every one of Istina (talk · contribs)'s edits has been vandalism from the day they first started editing on August 31. I just caught several unreverted vandalisms from that day. Has been warned, I will block on the next vandalism. Zoe 07:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

It was brought to my attention sone time back that you have a Wikipedia page for me. Thank you very much and it is quite accurate, I would say. Someone has done a fair bit of research. However, over the past week someone has deliberately placed a sentence saying that "some say he has Nazi sympathies". Despite removing this, and despite a note being added to the discussion page, the poster has continued to reinsert it.

I regard this as positively libellous and disgraceful. I have never had any Nazi sympathies nor have I ever been associated with anyone or any group which had. Your pages are supposed to represent fact rather that weirdo opinion.

The thing is, if I posted on someone's Wikipedia entry "that some suspect him of being a paedophile" how would this go down? What is the substantial difference. A deliberate smear is just that - a smear, designed to get people thinking in that direction.

I would appreciate it if you could block the person doing this.

I am not entirely IT literate and your endless pages of instructions simply confuse me utterly.

Thanks.

GREGORY LAUDER-FROST

If a claim fails to be propperly

original research. I am not familliar with this particular claim, nor the article in question, just as a general observation. El_C

10:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick followup to Mister Lauder-Frost's querry: the last nazi sympathies edit was entered one week ago. Will keep an eye on it. El_C 22:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watchlist and will revert any unsupported allegations that appear there in future. Demiurge 08:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

the "nazi" diffs: [13] [14]; interestingly, the comment on the talkpage is signed "S. Gladstone".

13:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Please ban this user as soon as possible. He/she is repeatedly editing System of a Down related articles (Mezmerize and Hypnotize) by removing information that he/she is fond claiming that it's incorrect; it's not. He/she is also one of those IP address users who have edited on them a long time ago:

• 66.36.144.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.36.136.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.36.148.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.36.133.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.36.130.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.36.152.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.36.141.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

And the question is: Does this guy ever stop? No. Especially when he/she continues to ask me to site a source behind my back by threatening to break the 3RR. My point is "I really don't care what he/she wants me to do". --

15:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How hard-headed this guy is beging! I agree that the user does deserve a ban. 205.188.116.5 16:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Resorting to your usual sock-puppets, Mike? Pasboudin 16:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Those were actually your IPs, Pasboudin from a long time ago when you edited System of a Down related articles (Mezmerize and Hypnotize). They sound like you and it was you! -- Mike Garcia 16:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not denying it, it was me. I have an account now. Pasboudin 16:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

See, that's why you should not post, Pasboudin. -- Mike Garcia 16:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia has been just been blocked for 24 hours for his violation of the 3RR rule [15]. The above post by "Mike Garcia" was made by User:152.163.100.5 Pasboudin 16:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia is evading his 24-hour block with one of his famous sock-puppets, AOL IP User:205.188.116.10, at System of a Down. Requesting help please! Pasboudin 23:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, who you talkin' to, jag-off? I ain't Mike Garcia! I thought he told you you shouldn't post! Just do what as he says, leave. 205.188.116.5 23:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[16] [17]

Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that we now have a Mandy Moore-obsessed vandal, as several IPs keep inserting text from Mandy Moore into either totally unrelated articles or creating new articles with titles that are totally unrelated to her. I suspect that this may be another long term vandal that we have previously encountered before like MilkMan, because some of the pages that were created by this Mandy Moore-obsessed vandal include:

• EAT SHIT EDITORS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• I BLANKED YOU IN THE ASS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FUCK MILKMAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think he's stopped now. It must have been past his bedtime. Or else I blocked every address he could edit from. Zoe 07:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. I guess I spoke too soon.  :( Zoe 07:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have either stopped or decreased considerably. I haven't caught any of that for a while now. Everyking 07:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Also: I don't think Zoe should be blocking these IP addresses. He seems to discard them and use new ones every few minutes, so that doesn't seem useful and may disrupt others' editing. Everyking 07:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, and she's blocked IPs for months and years. Could someone take a look at that? (bedtime)

t

07:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

In cases like this I believe it's best to not give the vandal "a name" by all of us using the same block comment (i.e. "Mandy Moore vandal"). When he sees the same block-comment from many different admins I think it only helps to encourage him to continue and become a wikipedia celebrety. "I am the famous Mandy More vandal!!!111!". I've used the slightly degrading "Mandy More obsessed kid" myself, but whatever helps him realize that what he's doing is simply just stupid and childish and not cool at all. Shanes 08:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want to unblock him, go ahead, but I wash my hands of the whole thing. Zoe 08:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the point on vandal-naming. Many of the lessons on dealing with trolls also apply here: some of these vandals crave attention, and the usual recommendation is to not give them the satisfaction of seeing their exploits highlighted in any way. Especially vandals who switch IPs/accounts frequently should be blocked only after a considerable delay (unless, of course, they start to actively vandalize), and with a neutral, generic block summary. Immediate blocking only serves to encourage them to continue playing hide-and-seek/whack-a-mole. --MarkSweep✍ 08:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

<shaking head> So we should allow obsessive vandals like this to have their heads and attack as many articles as they feel like doing? For how long? Half an hour? An hour? All day? Zoe 08:29, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the IP blocking doesn't seem to be effective at all, and could very well cause collateral damage, especially when you block for extreme lengths of time. But if it actually worked I certainly wouldn't object to it. Everyking 09:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. Obviously, if someone is actively vandalizing they can and should be blocked. What I was trying to say is, if someone is merely creating sleeper accounts (like you-know-who) without (yet) actively vandalizing, then there is no urgent need to block them right away. That will only encourage them to create more accounts. --MarkSweep✍ 09:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

See

08:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

One important step forward would be to get the arbitration case moving again and to include AI's recent editing behavior in the evidence. --MarkSweep✍ 09:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73 blocked me 2 days ago and violated the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Please see here for details. Thx. --Witkacy 11:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who's unfamiliar with what's being referred to, please refer to the huge red-outlined area at the top of Talk:Gdańsk to see what Theresa is referring to by the Gdańsk compromise. Tomer ^TALK 11:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy appears to have inadvertently left off some of the discussion thread from his talk page, particularly my response containing my reasoning for supporting the block: [18]. Because I thought that the block might be controversial, I posted a report of it at Wikipedia:Account suspensions; please see Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Witkacy.

I note that in Witkacy's absence, the edit war ceased and the other editors at Georg Forster were able to hammer out an equitable compromise on the article's talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris also asked to block an other user (involved in the same dispute) [19] banning of all opponents in a dispute, seems a strategy of Chris...--Witkacy 12:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy again removed lots of double naming against community consensus (more than 2/3rd support for double naming). I have blocked him again for disrupting Wikipedia. I have also asked User:TenOfAllTrades to look into the issue again. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Space Cadet unintentionally violated the rule just as I've done, Witkacy, which I pointed out on the 3RR of Space Cadet too. A double-standard-beset Witkacy had asked to block me just as Chris later asked to block the self-proclaimed "lawyer" of yours, Space Cadet. Why didn't you mention it? Why do you never tell the whole truth? That constant not-telling-the-whole-truth even made Shauri angry although she is a reasonable editor and not known for quickly getting angry or angry at all. Your fault if you get banned for intentionally violating the Gdansk/Danzig naming rule again and again like a berserk but were you trying to discuss? No. "Problem editor" is a complete understatement when referring to you by the way. It's like Shauri advised you: you're like a football fan whose team has lost and crying about it doesn't help anything. At grammar school a book for the subject German had to be chosen - 9 votes for 'Faust', 8 for an easier book called something like 'Steinkreise'. Guess what book was chosen? Those who voted for 'Steinkreise' complained but they gave in seconds of a few minutes later because they were not unreasonable and pig-headed. You? You'd go through hell only to violate the Gdansk/Danzig ruling and only because of A NAME! When Chris warned you not to violate the ruling again or you'll be blocked (just as the ruling's notice suggests). What did you do? You deleted his warning, libelled him on his talk page and continued your senseless fight which Merovingian judged as "the most ridiculous disagreement on the Internet, ever". What option did you leave Chris other than blocking you? You LONGED for it, you deserved it, you got it. Cry another day. And while you learn to avoid bias (I hope) next time, don't forget about headlines.

NightBeAsT

15:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the decision by Witkacy (talk · contribs) to return to Georg Forster (not to mention at least a dozen other articles) and once again remove the German city names from the article constituted poor judgement about which he has been frequently warned before. Repeated attempts to reignite the Gdanzig naming conflict and spread it to other articles are to be discouraged. I'd appreciate a third opinion on this, however, as Witkacy seems to believe I am some sort of puppet of Chris 73.

On a positive note, I would like to thank User:Lysy for his persistently reasonable attitude and efforts to mediate many of the discussions on this topic. I wish all the participants in the debate were so calm and rational. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

207.200.131.41 (talk · contribs · block log) wrote a pretty nasty personal attack at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz. I deleted that page; feel free to undelete if you think I shouldn't have. It seems to have some relationship with the discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. --cesarb 20:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to report this – please move it if not – but I'm wondering about Christians (talk · contribs). The contributions seem to be just adding links to articles, and the user talk page seems to be an example of using Wikipedia space for personal ends. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 07:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Ta bu shi da yu has deleted his userpages, with the comment "Gone. I no longer exist", apparently over the GNAA FAC debate plus the infobox conflict here. See also Talk:John Vanbrugh. Without wanting to seem callous when somebody's upset, I note that you're supposed to ask somebody else to do it, and to create a redirect to avoid the red links all over the place, see the userpage speedy criteria. Bishonen | talk 07:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• What can be be speedy deleted: User and talk pages on request of the user, where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the page. A redirect (to the user's new name, or to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians) should be created to avoid red links and confusion.

I said it with RickK and I'll say it now. Ta bu's talk page is needed to retain useful discussion as he's been a very active user in the past. Deleting it would make all the discussions it would include inavailable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's already been taken care of, see WP:AN.--

09:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing requested permanent protection of his userpage last night[20]. I checked it out and there was an edit war there[21], so I temp protected it. I just looked again, and now I see 3rr was also violated, but I'm really doubting that a block would do much good to solve this. It'd probably just make them more mad. This is all over the Stalker heading, which says:

In the light of his rejection of my offer of mediation and his abusive admission that he is stalking me, not to mention other abuse, I feel that I'm entirely justified in concluding that User:Leonig Mig exhibits no good faith. Accordingly, I will not be responding to his posts on my talk page (or elsewhere), nor his demands that I justify my edits to him (nor, indeed, to any such posts made by people acting as his proxy).

Obviously that's not very nice, but should it be removed? What do you all think about it? Leonig Mig left a message on my talk page stating his opinion[22], I replied on his to say that protection is not an endorsement of a particular version of a page, that edit wars aren't cool, that I'll ask for other opinions, and that if he's actually tried dispute resolution, that maybe he should try rfar.[23]

What do you think? --

) 18:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

if he's actually tried dispute resolution He hasn't; and he's rejected my offer of mediation. Have you read the abuse I cite? Andy Mabbett 21:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Yes, I've read it, but that's only one side of the story :) --

talk

) 21:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now you've read his side, you should be able to find mine, on the relevant talk pages and edit histories. BTW, my request was not for permanent protection, but indefinite. Andy Mabbett 21:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but indefinite still isn't a good idea. ;) --

talk

) 22:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected the page, as per a suggestion by Talrias on IRC. I'm assuming good faith that Leonig Mig will stop fighting over it in this way, and I intend to block him for 24ish hours if he abuses my trust. --

talk

)

In my opinion, Andy Mabbett has repeatedly harrassed other users, of which this is just the latest example. User:Nick Boulevard is another of his targets. Andy treats other editors in a way that appears to upset him when he receives similar treatment and he seems unable to see the parallels. He has a tendency to make unexplained reversions, repeated reversions at a rate of just 3 per day, terse responses to requests for explanation, snide or derisive talk page comments and edit summaries. Two editors have privately confided that they do not wish to participate in an RFC about him because they are frightened of his response. Nick Boulevard has hinted on several talk pages that he suspects Andy of harrassing him anonymously outside Wikipedia (although I may have misinterpreted these comments) and one of the two private correspondents has indicated that they fear something similar happening to them if Andy sees them participate in an RFC. On this specific issue, Leonig Mig has explained his distress to Andy about Andy's behaviour. He has asked Andy to stop specific behaviours. He has inflicted the offensive behaviours on Andy to make his points. He has asked Andy to remove the hurtful insinuations that Andy has kept on his user page. Andy was unsympathetic to any of these approaches. Leonig Mig then started the futile process of removing the distressing text from Andy's user page (when he knew Andy to be a serial reverter). I have twice asked for other admins to support me in my dealings with Andy. There has been no visible response to either request. I conclude that I am being oversensitive to his behaviour and it is one of the reasons that I have reduced my wikiactivity over the past fortnight. I know that Andy has been harrassed unfairly on usenet over matters unrelated to Wikipedia but I see this as no excuse for his behaviour here. —Theo (Talk) 00:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew it was that bad. The making exactly three reverts per day part especially bothers me. --

talk

) 17:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Theo's allegations against me are a nauseating tissue of hearsay and lies; include a breach of confidence; and are against policy and unbecoming of someone in the position of an admin. As to me being a "serial reverter" of my own user page..! Andy Mabbett 09:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Current charitable causes has been placed up for VFD. Raul654 has removed the VFD notice from the page because the page is linked from the site notice. I can sympathize with his desire to keep such notices off a page linked from every page in Wikipedia, however the admin who added the VFD was well aware of the implications. Furthermore, Raul had two possible ways to achieve his goal. He could have removed the sitenotice, or he could have removed the VFD notice. Considering that the VFD is currently 2:1 (i.e. 75%) in favor of delete, Raul made the wrong decision. The site notice has been both supported and opposed by Wikimedia board members, so the only guidance available is from the community. It is clear that a substantial portion (and likely a substantial majority) of the community opposes this notice. Please re-add the VFD tag in conformance with our VFD policy. --Gmaxwell 01:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Done, but I'm only doing it once. I don't want to get into an edit war with very high-profile members of the community. JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite saddened by that message. Do not be afraid to stand up for what you believe in, and do not be intimidated by other users, no matter how "senior" they present themselves - no-one's voice is any more or less important than anyone else's. (Although not wanting to engage in edit wars is a very noble thing.) Dan100 (Talk) 08:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, the Mediawiki:Sitenotice currently does not include the link to the page. However, the site notice currently on the top of my page now does have the link. I've purged, and it's still there? Is this a bug due to a Mediawiki message edit war? Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Weird, not sure. Looking at the sitenotice history, there hasn't been a link to the page for two hours... JYolkowski // talk 02:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Just usernameblocked the following. Seems Mindspillage has attracted a fan club. Might want to watch out for these types of bot-made accounts at the new user-creation log. If bots are making accounts at fast rates, this might become a great problem.

• Mindspillage sucks (don't worry this is a bot test) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mindspillage eats babies!! (more bot tests) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• This is a fucking username to test the fuck-detecting bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mindspillage is naked but only to test the bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I believe this not a fanclub but related to the new feature that lists newly-created accounts. A bot is being worked on that will flag up usernames suggestive of impending vandalism. — Trilobite 02:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make the names explain exactly what I was doing. :-) (Except for the last one; that was some joker who wanted not only to test the bot but mess with me as well. He has been suitably dealt with! :-)) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest that anyone else who wishes to create these sort of test accounts should block them as soon as possible after you have done with the test. Or at the very least, make a note on the user page and/or talk page using your regular account. It will be hard to tell in the future which ones are legitimate test accounts and which ones will be an attempt by a vandal to get by... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark has been causing problem at Terrorism and (since the page was protected) Talk:Terrorism for many weeks. He was recently blocked for personal attacks and in response, blanked his talk page with the edit summary [24] "This place is a joke. It's too bad, because it had possibilities before all you fucking Jews came along. The funny thing is, I never had anything against you before this. Now I see what people mean."

I'm not Jewish myself, but I'm extremely offended and do not believe Zephram has any chance of making a positive contribution to Wikipedia. This is so far beyond unacceptable behavior that I'm requesting for a permanent ban by community consensus. I will not enact such a ban since I've been involved with him in the past. Carbonite | Talk 03:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Not having followed this user's contributions in detail I'll leave others to discuss the question of a long-term block. For the remark you quoted, however, on the back of other behavior that had already landed him a block, I've extended it to 48 hours pending discussion. I'm inclined to agree that he doesn't have much of a future here. — Trilobite 03:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Legal threats, antisemitic comments, obstruction, disruption, etc.

Not much to discuss. El_C

07:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd oppose anything like that—you need to take it to the ArbCom if he's such a problem. "Banned by the community" is too fuzzy unless we can have a poll on it. Everyking 12:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't be serious. What possible contributions could he make to Wikipedia at this point? Now, instead of having to assume good faith, we have confirmed bad faith. That's fine if the ArbCom would also like to ban him, but this is not a user that belongs on Wikipedia. The community as a whole should make that crystal clear. Instead of having a poll, I'd like to hear from anyone who thinks that Zephram should continue to edit on Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 13:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything that it said above. But let me just discuss punishment. He has not vandalized other pages or other Users, unlike others who normally hold his views. So for his terrible comment on his talk page, the 48 hour ban seems appropriate. For the terrorism edits, I think a ban on that page is appropriate as he has never made a productive edit as far as I can see. But it seems that he ought to be given the opportunity to attempt to make productive edits on some other article (granted, he might not be able to or interested, but we should not just assume). --Noitall 13:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The "fucking Jews" comments is worse than just the insult. It reveals what motivates Zephram's edits, at least pages such as Terrorism. Editing Wikipedia is not a right and we don't have to accept editors that are blatantly antisemitic. We also need to judge whether other editors will be driven away (from certain articles or off Wikipedia entirely) should Zephram remain. In my opinion, the answer is a resounding yes. Carbonite | Talk 13:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark seems to be trolling. He has made no useful contributions that I'm aware of. His only edits to Terrorism were to introduce original research, namely his own (incredibly silly) views on how terrorism ought to be defined, which were opposed by every editor on the page, now protected because of him. He has engaged in a revert war using sockpuppet accounts and open proxies, then claimed consensus for his edits because, as he put it, he was being supported by readers all over the planet. He now spends his time on the talk page trying to start polls to decide various issues, but if anyone takes him seriously, he changes the subject to e.g. the difference between science and religion, followed by outraged protestations of innocence if anyone calls him disruptive. It's very similar to what the feces troll did (e.g. User:Eyeon) for anyone familiar with that one. An indefinite block would be a mercy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. (Oh, more grist for the Jayjg-SlimVirgin-Jpgordon conspiracy theory.) I've still paid no attention to the actual ingredients in the content dispute; I've just been watching his behaviour on that talk page, and the acts of bad faith demonstrated by this editor are escalating. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

...has created three accounts I've seen in the last couple minutes (MilkManiac (talk · contribs), MilkMan and Cereal (talk · contribs), and one I forget the name of) . I've blocked all of them, but be on the lookout. Meelar (talk) 04:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE:See User talk:MilkMan Has A New Route. I have not blocked this account--I'm supposed to be writing a paper anyway. I'll leave this to people here. Meelar (talk) 05:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

This user

11:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely for now. Please unblock if you disagree. His first edit was completely inappropriate, and directed equally against Linuxbeak and Taxman (thus it could also be a sockpuppet of MARMOT, not that it matters). --MarkSweep✍ 12:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what this person’s problem is, but they keep editing your Saint Philomena page. This user seems to have the unfortunate notion that Saint Philomena has been removed as a Saint.

This is not possible. Once the Catholic Church Canonizes a Saint, they are always a Canonized Saint. No one has the power to remove them. She was removed from the Liturgical Calendar in 1961, and yes, there is a petition drive to request she be added back on, now in the hands of the Vatican, but this user’s notion that some are trying to revive her is erroneous.

Signed User: filumenae

What has this user done that you feel warrants a block? There needs to be more than just disagreeing with you. Has there been a violation of the

3RR? If it's just a content dispute with no violations of policy involved all you can do is work it out on the article talk page. Everyking

13:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Having looked now, I see Ihcoyc only reverted twice, so we can't block. Also I should point out that this article is not in line with any kind of Wikipedia standard. It needs a full rewrite to be made compatible with

NPOV and also to improve the format and style (needs an intro, for instance). Everyking

13:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I see the problem now: you copied all that from another website over our previously existing article, which looked OK to me, so I reverted to that. Please don't copy material from other websites unless it's in the public domain. Everyking 13:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

My Nick is Larzan, and i'm being wrongly accused by User: Radiant! to be a sockpuppet of the flying spaghetti monster, whatever a sockpuppet may be.

I am not able to respond to that, because this user has not provided an email address, i dont know what he wants from me, i can only assume that he is opposed to the page of the flying spaghetti monster, for which i voted on the related site. I thought wikipedia is a place of free speech, and now i am thrown out just because i told you my opinion?!?!

I'm outrageous, that cant be! I can only assume that this Radiant is abusing his permissions, or is just trigger happy. In either way, I would like my account back!!!!!!!

Ok, i looked up sockpuppet. What do you want from me?! i have an account on the german wikipedia under the same name, but that can hardly be a sockpuppet situation, so please release my account and lecture this Radiant person to be a bit more thorough with his research before he blocks a user.

Thank you for your help, Larzan

blocklist entry

13:59, 8 September 2005, Radiant! blocked #37025 (expires 13:59, 9 September 2005) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Larzan". The reason given for Larzan's block is: "Flying Spaghetti sockpuppet".)

added: I have never been warned about anything even though i provided my email address, noone notified me that i am being accused, no one apparently checked my contributions to verify the accusations, is this how wikipedia is supposed to work?!

Ha! They did the same thing to me, and then a few administrators emailed me amd asked me to provide info. proving I wasn't another user! I was to say the least offended. I never edited and spoke up about something on a page one day and they apparently found it a convenient way to argue with another user there, by calling me a sockpuppet. I watched the page after that just to see what would happen next and it seems to me some of the "rules" are arbitrary.--EKBK 18:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've contacted Radiant!, and your case will be reviewed. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, because Radiant! is busy, I've unblocked Larzan, given that Radiant! had unblocked another one of the Flying Spaghetti Monster sockpuppets in the past; I'm also

assuming good faith. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk

22:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank You for taking the time to review my case, i had to spend 2 and a half hours finding out how i might be able to get back on wikipedia, i'm sorry for the harsh words in which i presented my case, but, i was very frustrated how sth. like that could happen.
But i am glad that Wikipedia is indeed a place which i took it for, a place for the people who want to help and are in good faith.
Thanks! --Larzan 13:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Repeated violations of

19:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I gave him a fairly stern warning, but that hasn't worked for anyone else so far and he's had plenty of opportunities. Honestly, a permanent block wouldn't bother me in the slightest, if others think it's applicable. --Scimitar ^parley 19:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • He vandalized my user page recently and once I reverted it, he had a major problem with me reverting. The vandalism consisted of replacing my Barnstar ribbon bars with that goddamn Barnstar-eating bear. [25] He did it to other users, but not sure what their reactions were. 22:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Zoe has placed an indefinite block on this account. Maybe a trifle harsh, but I certainly plan to do nothing about it. --Scimitar ^parley 23:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Vehement abuse; worse abuse, real-life threat. This has been going on for some weeks. Andy Mabbett 20:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So write an RfAr. I see no threat on the link you provided. Zoe 20:46, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think this—"I even considered looking up his address and going round to his house, and ... well anyway."—was what was meant by threat. Everyking 22:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

To put things in perspective, Andy has been stalking and harrassing Leonig Mig for months. I do not condone all of Leonig Mig's comments to/about Andy, but I understand his frustration given Andy's repeated refusal to acknowledge Leonig Mig's distress. —Theo (Talk) 00:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I've stopped editing the wikipedia. It's the only way of capping my blood pressure. Can someone mediate- tell this editor he cannot keep policing my edits. Leonig Mig 19:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Andy has been stalking and harrassing Leonig Mig for months: Theo, that's a bare- faced lie. Kindly do not repeat it. Andy Mabbett 08:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Andy has been stalking and harrassing me since June of 2005. He has made the wikipedia unusable for me. Leonig Mig 17:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Willy appears to be on a sleeper-account creation spree at the moment. We've caught two new users in the past couple of minutes. Could you keep an eye on special:log/newusers to check. I'm off to bed in a cuople of minutes and although Everyking and Evercat also appear to be patroling, more eyes are always welcome. Thryduulf 00:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The following was recently posted on

00:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

---

It has been reported that Alex Duensing, adjunct professor of English at the

official policies.

The homework for the next class is to come up with a word, write the definition, and post it to Wikipedia, a community encyclopedia on the Internet that allows anyone to write an entry on any topic. It's the perfect medium for a reality-questioner like Duensing. Once a word is there and defined, he argues, who can say it's not real? — Linsky, Max (2005-09-07). "For unconventional USF teacher Alex Duensing, life is what you make of it". Weekly Planet.

WikiLex (AfD discussion), one such identified dictionary article on a made up word, has been listed for deletion.

Kiyama (AfD discussion), another found by searching the Special:Newpages for ". . 131.247", which is the IP range for USF.

Searched Newpages from 00:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC) back to 03:24, 3 September 2005 (two found, listed above).

The full list of applicable IPs is at [26]. -Splash 00:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Has someone already contacted Duensing and asked him to stop? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:School and university projects#University of South Florida an email has been sent, threatening a university-wide IP block if this continues. At least two users have rsponded to the Weekly Planet article linked above. DES ^(talk) 19:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I have just reverted userpage blanking for this user. It appears that he did it himself, and the restored userpage notice states to post here if activity is noted. Uh...so here it is :)--inks 02:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for general knowledge, according to the notice

JesseW, the juggling janitor

06:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The only edits that account has made lately is removing the notice. Seems to me a block is only necessary if he tries to edit articles or user talk pages or so forth again. Odds are good that he knows he wouldn;t get away with it on that IP without erasing those comments identifying him, and if he did try, investigation back to those notices would get him banned. As a practical solution for right now I'd think just it's fine as is and it'd be esay enough to take care of it once a substantial edit somewhere happens. DreamGuy 18:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

He blocked me again. [27] --Witkacy 09:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Correction, I would have blocked you yesterday as I stated on your talk page, but mistyped your name (User:User:Witkacy). Hence you were not blocked. But since you continue going against consensus, I have blocked you now again. Details can be found on your talk page (unless you deleted the comments). For comments by other users, see the topic with the same title above. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

On returning from his last block Witkacy (talk · contribs) immediately engaged in the same behaviour that resulted in his last two blocks: removing German city names from articles that had both Polish and German names. No attempt at discussion was seen, and those were the only type of edits he made before being blocked again. I note that a number of other editors–representing both sides of the Gdanskig debates–have managed to behave with rationality and civility; compromises at several articles have been worked out through the use of discussion pages rather than edit warring.

If other editors behaving equally badly are drawn to my attention, I will warn them and block if necessary. I presume Chris 73 is willing to do the same. I have no interest in taking sides, beyond sheltering editors who engage in constructive discussion from the actions of edit warriors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

A large number of user accounts (Gaurav Khurana; Harman19; Hugo l. iran; Ktserpes; BhupeshPANDEY; Bganeshkumar; Amitchouhan; Anchorite*; Anshum; Love3sixty; Luccha; Urbanshaman; V ahuja; Wargenix; Tserpes; Takashi11; Moa nalo; Mouhammadreza; Sottocolle; Zemadmax) have all been created in rapid succession. Update: more accounts have now been created in rapid succession: Hyppnoss; J Featonby; Malbertus; Rtspace; Seifried. Could this be a prelude to vandalism, or is this is a whole class of students all creating new accounts at once as part of a class exercise, or just a chance fluctuation in the background rate of user account creation? -- The Anome 10:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Try a carefully worded welcome message to all of them. Susvolans ⇔ 12:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Given the high rate accounts are being created since newuserslog was enabled, I'd say it's not that unlikely to be just a chance fluctuation. --cesarb 15:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Assume good faith. We cannot really determine the fluctuation rates before the newuserslog was enabled. Nor can we determine yet if these new accounts are indeed for vandalism, are a part of a class exercise, or because of the increased publicity of Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keeping
  Rx StrangeLove
  19:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  AFAIK most accounts on Wikipedia have either no edits or a single edit. It's not that unusual. --cesarb 19:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  Hello everybody. I just want to let you know that it was probably a chance fluctuation. Since my name is listed above and well, I'm not some sort of wiki-vandal. Zemadmax 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  I second that! I was just googling my username and fell into that post. I know very well that when I registered it wasn't to destroy something or to harass someone. Nor I picked this specific time to register for a particular reason.tserpes 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody have a talk with this person concerning personal attacks? Zoe 19:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I've warned him and Masterofthesky, as well as removing the comments.--Scimitar ^parley 23:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And he reverted your deletion, calling it interference. I have given him a final warning. Zoe 06:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • He reverted the warnings and reverted to the attacks. I have blocked him for 24 hours, and have warned him that if he reverts the Talk page again, I will protect it and extend his block. Zoe 19:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

~~AIDS (

half an hour ago:

This is a message from Love Virus. In exactly 1 hour, wikipedia will experience the most extensive attack since it came into existence. The administrators will have to work all day just to prevent the encyclopaedia from disappearing. Oh, and I tested the new code. That's 600 edits/minute/per installation. Enjoy.

So perhaps people should be on the lookout half an hour from now. Both ~~AIDS and ~AIDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created at the same time) are now blocked. Dragons flight 23:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ignore it. This user, who is probably Willy, seems to feed off the discussion of his actions. The more we talk about it, the more he vandalizes. He has also made similar threats in the past, none of which have materialized. Love Virus has quite clearly demonstrated that he does not have the wherewithal to run a bot. It is, however, almost exactly a week since Curps block bot and other measures went into effect, so I wouldn't be surprised if Willy is spending the next hour industriously loading as many Firefox windows as possible to do some page moving or other vandalism. While this is aggravating, he is putting far more effort into his attacks than it takes us to revert them, so it doesn't represent much of a threat. - SimonP 23:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

You don't honestly believe that, do you? Not only is it simpler for him to do it than for us to revert it (It doesn't take an hour - He merely needs middle-click "random page" 50 times), but it's quicker. We are expending far, far more effort into fixing what he does than he puts into doing it. --Golbez 23:34, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Try it. With Wikipedia operating at its usual speed it takes at least five minutes to set up group of thirty pages to be moved. To set up 600 it would take at least an hour. With the new tools these attacks are being fairly quickly reverted. It took three minutes for all of BBB's 17 moves to reverted, 6 minutes for VB.NET's 27 edits, and about 15 for 99 Willys's 127 moves. If we add in the time and effort he spends creating accounts and waiting for them to mature, his vandalism almost certainly takes more time to do than revert. - SimonP 00:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

What new tools? --Golbez 01:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The ability to rollback page moves, the page move log, CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter, and just recently Curps' bot and the new users log. - SimonP 01:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

And, as expected, the half hour passed and nothing happened. --cesarb 00:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well the recent block list is somewhat entertaining. The new user log is already turning out to be useful. Dragons flight 00:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's not Willy, it's MARMOT. Look... he's done this before. We're going to deal with him once and for all. For more information, please hop on IRC. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I came across the following just by glancing at the new user log:

Love Virus v1.3 (talk · contribs)

Rdsmith4 has no brains. (talk · contribs)

Rdsmith4 has a 75,000 km long PENISPENISPENIS! (talk · contribs)

Rdsmitt4 (talk · contribs)

Rdsmith4- (talk · contribs)

Rdsmith4 and his gay partner (talk · contribs)

99BottlesOfMilkOnTheWikipedia (talk · contribs)

MilkcomesfromyPENIS (talk · contribs)

MilkTheMilkieMan (talk · contribs)

(The three 'milk' ones appeared in rapid succession, which--aside from the one in the middle--was what makes them suspicious; I think Willy used a 99-bottles type name recently, too.) Aquillion 00:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

This page would seem to be a fine place to report them. I happen to have blocked all of these already, but thanks anyway for pointing them out. — Dan | Talk 00:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hrm, oops. In the future I'll try and remember to check the blocklog before reporting them. Aquillion 00:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If the people on newuser patrol use the templates like {{

t

02:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• For future reference, I made this category, awhile back for a quick reference of the different templates and blocked categories. Category:Wikipedia user intervention. Hope it's helpful for those who do RC patrol. ∞Who?¿? 07:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Some more ones that didn't seem to be blocked, at least not when I checked:

Hamster Sandwich on Wheels (talk · contribs)

SlimVirginsDoggieGonnaDie (talk · contribs)

SlimVirginEatsDoggieCunt (talk · contribs)

SlimVirginIsAFatWhore (talk · contribs)

Fatwhore (talk · contribs)

--Aquillion 09:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Another thing you can do is add one of the templates like {{

Usernameblock}} recommend block, and the admins doing RCp will usually block them when they see the changed userpage. ∞Who?¿?

20:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That seems a little roundabout, so I've created {{should block}} and Category:Wikipedia:Usernames that should be blocked. ~~ N (t/c) 20:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well yea :) but when I was scouring through 1000's of usernames and/or logs, I was doing quite a few, and they were usually blocked soon after. I only added {{
  Usernameblock}} to the very obvious ones, or previously blocked. But that new template is a good idea, I should have thought of it D'oh!. ∞Who?¿?
  01:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI. I can't block them myself. User:No I'm Not Banned. -MilkMan V, User:MilkMan IV, MilkMan III. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be worried that adding the "has been blocked" template to a user's page might sometimes actually delay their being blocked, at least if nobody catches your edit summary on RCp, since an admin going rapidly over the newuser log or somesuch might just glance at their userpage, see the message saying they've been blocked, and assume that someone else already handled it. Aquillion 01:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

All three have been blocked by Phrozaic. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

There have been some changes to this page in the very recent past and the editting is moving faster than the discussion. It could use some more eyeballs (mmmm... eyeballs).

09:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Need someone to brighten your day? You guessed it, it's Willy!

I just banned the one, Mikegodwin on Wheels (talk · contribs), and Violetriga caught GraemeL on Wheels (talk · contribs).

So it looks like Willy is ready for another bout of constant name-swapping. Be on the lookout.

I swear, we need to hard-code in an autoban for anyone using "on Wheels" as part of their username. Garrett^Talk 09:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, by letting him have these user names he's easy to identify, and also he would of course just use something different in his names instead. Everyking 12:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: WTF? I'm getting a no such user error when I try to block Hamster Sandwich on Wheels (talk · contribs) and Caerwine on Wheels (talk · contribs). Is this just me? Does this work for someone else? Garrett^Talk 10:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could tell us exactly what you are clicking/entering. But looking at Special:Ipblocklist, it looks like you were both successful. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Phroziac Has A Vagina And A 75000km PENISPENIS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ~~ N (t/c) 16:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• LOL , I guess with all that time to kill the vandals have to come up with "creative" names
  T | @ | C
  17:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• I've been laughing about that for quite a while now. Too bad I didn't get to block them though, I would have used the reason "thanks" or "*slaps you with the penis*". Oh, and don't forget that within seconds it grew 25,000km. :) --
  talk
  ) 17:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm.... 25,000km / 5 seconds... that's 5,000 km/sec. Multiply that by 60, you've got yourself a penis that grows at a rate of 300,000km/hour. Damn! You could poke an eye out with that thing! *ducks* Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, even though he was already blocked, you could still block him anyway. Users could be blocked by more than one administrator at once. :) --Ixfd64 19:35, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
    • One presumes Linuxbeak has just defined "Willy on Wheels". [[smoddy]] 18:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

This user was blocked less than two minutes after account creation as a possible Willy sockpuppet. What happened to assume good faith? Meals on Wheels is a U.S. Government program; the user could have named himself after that. If it's been a week or so and there have still been no contributions, then MAYBE we can start suspecting bad faith. --SPUI (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

we need to think about our approach here. What is the point of blocking random accounts if the vandal just creates another one? We need the option to temp-ban the IP behind the account, without clogging up the blocklist with hundreds of single-edit accounts. I take it that Willy is using open proxies, otherwise he could not be back as quickly with new accounts (his IP would be banned). Admins need

• either, access to IPs, so we can rangeblock Willy's ISP, even when he's only editing logged in
• or, ar least, the ability to block the IP behind an account, and if possible, the ability to check if that IP is an open proxy, or if the IP is a major ISP, so we can decide on the length of the block.

I'm serious. Enough with this "IPs are privacy" nonsense. Not knowing vandal IPs seriously impedes our ability to fight logged-in vandals. Admins need to see IPs of vandals, or let the developers look after Willy.

17:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, we should still assume good faith. Don't judge a book by its cover. If he is really Willy, then Curps' block-bot should get him pretty quickly. --Ixfd64 19:30, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
• I agree dab. Maybe not all admins need IP abilities, but certainly many more. Got an idea of a good place to bring that up? I think that proposal would float pretty well. - Taxman ^Talk 23:34, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

What's holding up final resolution on this case? Zoe 20:41, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

probaly arbcom fatue. when are the next lot of elections due?Geni 21:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

December. See

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk

21:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Uncommonly nasty vandalism

Recently I encountered what is probably the nastiest vandalism I have seen in nearly 2 years at Wikipedia. It came from 2 IP addresses:

• 210.0.200.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.112.194.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The edit summaries were vicious, obscene personal insults to a good Wikipedia contributor. This was the kind of thing obviously intended to drive someone out of a community. Before they were stopped, each of these IPs did multiple vandalisms: various articles, equally nasty edit summaries.

This is one of the few times I think it would be worth someone going in and removing edit summaries. After all, if we don't do that, these will be visible to anyone looking through the histories of these articles. And we will be suggesting that there is a way to permanently attach obscene, personal attacks to articles of wide interest. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

He's been at it since at least the start of September and from a lot more ips than that. See the history of

Cryptic (talk)

06:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has been going on for some days. The vandal shows up and vandalizes five or six articles in rapid succession at about 4:00 UTC, is blocked, and returns the next day. He seems to use open proxies, several of which have been indefinitely blocked; if someone would care to portscan the above two, I'd bet they're open as well. — Dan | Talk 06:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Since any user can now view the edit summaries of deleted pages, even selected deleting those revisions would not help. See

Brion has objected to that in the past since they are meant to provide a permanent record. Angela.

10:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Non-admins should see the deletion log and not the page history. I agree with Brion that edit summaries should be a permanent record. dbenbenn | talk 03:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

... and I agree thoroughly with dbenbenn on both counts. — Dan | Talk 04:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up, but doesn't that approach provide an easy means to make libel a permanent part of our site? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the offensive edit summary. -- Tim Starling 03:59, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

If nothing else I'd appreciate it if someone checked all those IP addresses the vandal used for open proxies, or show me how to do it. Thank you. Gamaliel 07:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Both have already been checked, found as being open proxies, and blocked indefinitely. Check the block logs. --cesarb 19:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to put this. Ive seen a user page which looks like it could be a problem. User:Tlkirby writes " In time, one will be able to read my entire life on this online encyclopedia", and has a template on his page which Ive seen already on an artical for a band thats on afd, Xascdv. Perhaps an admin needs to have a word with him? BL Lacertae 07:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

He may mean that he's going to write about himself on his user page. If not, his article will be deleted, no big deal. Everyking 07:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully he means that now... His user page is actually a userification of an article (Thomas Kirby). Alai 07:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like the template you are seeing on both
  Help:Starting a new page. Zzyzx11 (Talk)
  13:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Imdaking

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this problem, or if I'm going to have to go through the Wikipedia Dispute procedures instead. I and other editors are having some problems with User:Imdaking. See, for example, this post to User talk:Paul Klenk.

Since he first started editing on the Wikipedia, Imdaking has been uploading images, first claiming {{

).

Even then, he just ignored my messages and continued his copyright violations. One of them, for example, was an unwikified and un-cleaned-up Google translation of a Mexican website. Recently he left this message on my talk page (see

WP:3RR

, (which he did the other day with four reverts).

I consider the crossing out of my signatures the same as "capping" a graffiti tag. At a minimum, that is a severe insult, and could even be considered a challenge or a threat. Although it rarely goes to violence, still there have been taggers killed over crossing out tags, and so I consider it an oblique threat. I've politely asked him not to do it, but he has made it very clear that he will continue to revert it ("don't bother, it will only be reverted again." see User talk:Imdaking/Complaints - page history).

There is a rule about not modifying another editor's comments on talk pages, but there is not a specific rule about modifying another user's signature, I still consider it a serious breach of

.

In addition, there are more insults and cursing (see [28]): "shut da fuc up.::Imdaking::", "you too, youre retarded! .::Imdaking::". Also note the link in his edit summary to Missusing the Wikipedia policies.

Specific Wikipedia:Blocking policy that I think applies include:

• Disruption:
  • changing other users' signed comments
  • No personal attacks
  • Wikipedia:Civility:
  • Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Key policies: "Don't infringe copyrights."; "Respect other contributors."
  • Wikipedia:Profanity
  • Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "No insults"; "Avoid ad-hominem attacks"; "Don't threaten people"
  • Wikipedia:Wikiquette
    : "Don't ignore questions."
  • Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes: "...removing text from your User Talk page"; "...hide criticism"
• Personal attacks which place users in danger
• Excessive reverts
  WP:3RR
• Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space
  "Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere."

He has already been warned (see User talk:Imdaking/Complaints#Civility, plus see the edit summaries in the Complaint page history). For my own part, I will admit two cases of incivility myself. After he posted this message on my talk page, "You wouldnt want me to post on your pages that you suffer from a disease, do you?", part of my reply was "Do you want to continue to trade insults...". I also used Imdaluser in an edit summary (see luser). BlankVerse ∅ 09:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend going to the dispute resolution process, perhaps trying mediation first, and then an RfC if necessary. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 12:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

How would you feel if someone started crossing-out your user name and changing your signature to Wackguy instaed of Flcelloguy, and then made it very clear that they would continue to do that? I think that I've made a strong case for a temp block. (Quite frankly, I was very tempted to do exactly that to your signature to prove my

WP:POINT

, but knew better and restrained myself.)

I'd also like to request, in the spirit of

Remove personal attacks, that an admin roll back User talk:Imdaking/Complaints to a version without the strikeouts and cursing and then protect the page. BlankVerse ∅

16:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no supporter of

WP:RPA, in general, but if you feel that way about it, I definitely will revert and lock the page as you request. Done. People shouldn't be using that page anyway. Please post messages, including warnings, to the user on his user talk page as usual. (Incidentally, I didn't claim below that the Imdaking account started editing on the same day that Ronald20 quit; please read my post again if you received that impression.) Bishonen | talk

20:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, alright, all I'm saying is that if you want to take it further,

WP:AN/I isn't the right place to take a dispute; after all, we don't have any powers to do anything, and if you want to get community input, that would fall under RfCs. Oh well, good luck! Wackguy | A note? | Desk

22:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Just wanted to mention that if you do go to the ArbCom, I would support that decision. And yes, I crossed out and changed my signature, just to illustrate

WP:POINT

. (I can do it to my own signature, right? :-))

I would recommend showing him the door, actually

I actually wouldn't do all those steps in this case, Flcelloguy; that's how good editors get worn out. I haven't had anything to do with Imdaking myself, but I'm reading his contributions now, and I'm thinking more along the lines of straight to an RFAr. Although he's only been around a few weeks (or, well, a couple of months, if you count User:Ronald20, see below), he has already been warned many times, and many people have tried to help him learn to edit more constructively: the only result is that they get into his bad books, and are henceforth subject to his taunts on their pages. As far as I've read yet, Imdaking's contributions are of three kinds:

1. Uploading of copyright images.
2. Creation of articles by pasting copyright text.
3. Harrassment and personal attacks on userpages.

Maybe I'll come across a useful edit any minute now, but I somehow doubt it. Note also the very similar contributions of these other incarnations of Imdaking (as demonstrated beyond doubt by edit patterns):

, an editor with many warnings about copyvios on his talk page, and with a similar interest in pages about TV shows and public transport, who suddenly stopped editing on August 25, the same day that the Chriss P. and Unike accounts were created. Unless somebody can show me something tending to actually help build an encyclopedia coming from this guy, under any account, I'd like to see him go directly to an RFAr. I'll help write it up, if desired. Mediation is surely moot: there is no "dispute", there is only disruption. Paul Klenk and others have tried (first mildly, then more tersely) to explain to him how to avoid copyvios. This has no other effect than annoying Imdaking intensely: when the complaints about copyrighted images on his Talk started to multiply, he simply created a special Complaints talk page and warned all comers from posting any more complaints on his regular Talk. His reply to criticisms on this innovative and fast-growing page is usually nothing, occasionally the kind of childish taunt BlankVerse describes above ("shut da fuc up"). Seems to me the community has made a good-faith effort to integrate this troublesome newbie, while he has never in turn shown an atom of willingness to contribute constructively. Just show him the door, please. Bishonen | talk 13:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, all. BlankVerse asked me to weigh in on this and between him and User:Wiki brah happily trouncing all over this site, it's no wonder that I'm stressed (which, of course, is "desserts" spelled backwards, but I digress).

I'm going through a somewhat stressful real-life period. Wikipedia is a pleasant hobby. Hobbies are supposed to help you relax. Uh-uh. These ridiculous threats and personal attacks from this user are too much. Add to that Wiki brah happily skipping on his merry, so-called "mentally challenged" way over such idiotic yet useless subjects as "anal sex in Brazil," "fetishes in Brazil" and that timeless classic, "anal sex in New York" and I am convinced we've been civil long enough. Time for some action, IMO. - Lucky 6.9 16:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that I've made the case for at least a temp block of User:Imdaking. I'm willing to do mediation after that if Imdaking wants to and there is a mediator who is willing to help.

I first came across User:Imdaking because of some pages that were on my watchlist because I had been tracking User:Ronald20's edits. I highly doubt they are the same editor. Imdaking first started on 22 August 2005 (although he edited well enough that I doubt that he was a complete Wikipedia novice). Ronald20 quit editing on 25 August 2005, so there is a small overlap. Ronald20 also stuck to very simple language and very short edits and NEVER communicated on talk pages. Ronald20 said that he was from El Salvador, and some edits also suggest that, and that he was going to a school in the LA Unified district. Indaking says that he is a college student and appears to have some connection to Talpa de Allende, a small Mexican town in Jalisco, central Mexico. Ronald20's anon edits were from o1.com and lausd.org, while Imdaking's anon edits are from dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net. The only thing they share in common are a few edits to a couple of Los Angeles bus transportation articles and the occasional uploading of company logos.

I do wonder, however, if there is any connection between User:Imdaking, User:Wiki brah, and User:LILVOKA. BlankVerse ∅ 16:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits this guy has made, I've never seen more personal attacks from any user. I blocked him for 48 hours to stem the tide of his nonsense so that we can more easily regroup and decide what to do. That LILVOKA character has me wondering as well. He left a note on Paul Klenk's talk page as well. I've asked him politely not to fan the fires. - Lucky 6.9 16:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well done. No good faith editor who chooses to spend their time here, contributing, writing articles, should have to put up with attacks like that. –Hajor 17:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Block Imdaking, please, and his sock puppets

Imdaking has been harrassing me off and on for a month, after I reworked a copyvio article for him.

• Putting my name on a "List of Annoying People" on his page.
• Nasty comments on my page.
• Using sockpuppets Unike and Chriss P. during the initial encounter with me. Imdaking has edited using 68.123.204.81, self-admitted (I am certain about this), and possibly other IPs I have made note of. (A very out-to-lunch admin blocked me when I correctly tagged Imdaking's sock puppet pages. This admin has never, ever answered any of my questions about this incident and has refused to communicate with me about anything. I will make sure he is notified about this.)
• Promising not to use those puppets, but he has used them since then. It is possible he is not keeping track of who he is when he signs in and out.
• Retaliating for helping me to clean up his terrible work, even after I cleaned up his copyvios.
• Telling me not to touch "his" work.
• Singling me out for image violations, moments after his history indicates a dash to clean up his own work (which he then denied).
• Deleting photos from an article when he know I already had GFDL licensing, and was merely having difficulty putting the information up. I asked him to help and he was no help whatsoever. His deletions were probably not kosher, either.
• Baiting other gullible admins into taking his side.
• Continuing and joining in on Wiki brah's recent harrassment and insults aimed at me.
• Nominating himself for Adminship, requiring quick assistance from Dragon something to have him remove the nomination.

I was on to Imdaking the first day I came back after two years of not editing. I have racked up a lot of contributions since then, and realize my initial instincts about him were right.

Please get rid of this creep. He is nothing but trouble. paul klenk 18:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

He's now trying to circumvent a lousy 48-hour block by leaving "unsigned comments" via his neighbor's IP, which is now blocked as well. If someone is willing to block this guy for good, I think that few tears will be shed. Just my two cents'. - Lucky 6.9 00:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless he's just using another of his dynamic IP's, like the two I mention above, 68-126-115-13 and 68-123-204-81 (dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net)? No tears, but we may not add many laugh lines either by trying to keep a guy with nimble dynamic IP's out. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Irvine, California, eh? Two-hour drive from here. Wonder how he'd like it if the very large and very Italian Lucky 6.9 showed up on his doorstep...?  :) Seriously, I'd never really do something like that, so please spare me and my user page from an onslaught of protests. BUT...all joking aside, it does seem like a valid request of the sysops to contact pacbell.net and ask them to shut down this guy for TOS violations. - Lucky 6.9 00:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:BOLD (a hallowed bluelink) in your defence. -Splash

00:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT Wait, what aren't I talking about here? El_C

01:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sock check requested

I've entereda request for an IP comparison of Imdaking, Wiki brah, and LILVOKA on David Gerard's talkpage. (As for Unike, Chriss P., 68.123.204.81, and 68.126.115.13 being operated by Imdaking, I know they are, no proof is needed beyond the edit patterns.) Bishonen | talk 15:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Bish, I think that LilVOKA's interest in everything hip hop is the most likely explanation of his friendship with Imdaking.

Folks, let me point out that the very first contact I had with Imdaking, not only was he sock-puppeting, he was logging out and leaving anonymous "Warnings" on my talk page, in very official-sounding language. I was tagging his three known and confirmed pages with sock-puppet tags, completely within procedure. I had read up on it and had even asked for help understanding the rules. These tags were being removed with lightning speed, including by Jtkiefer. He and Imdaking were leaving warnings on my page, and I assumed Jtkiefer was one of Imda's socks. I then incorrectly tagged Jtkiefer as his sock. (I couldn't believe at that time that someone could be so stupid as to 1] ignore my well documented tags, 2] stand up for Imdaking, and 3] blame me for this.) I'm telling you this to put things in perspective. Very quickly later, Ryan Delaney, an admin, gave me one, maybe two warnings, calling what I was doing vandalism. Again, as he didn't identify himself as an admin, and I couldn't imagine anyone being so stupid as to not see what Imdaking was doing, I continued reverting what they were deleting. That is when Ryan blocked me for 12 hours.

You may not think 12 hours is serious, but when you are new and are being harrassed, it really p*sses you off, pardon my French. Ryan has not once replied to any of my repeated messages to him about that incident so we could sort out what happened. He completely ignored me. I have seen Wiki brah and Imdaking get better treatment from admins than I did that day.

At that time, Imdaking was a very new username. It is clear that he has been here far longer. No one who writes and edits so poorly, could also understand the rules enough to do what he is doing. He is here for two things: 1] Use WP as a plaything, and 2] Game the system's attempts to block him from doing it. Sorry -- I forgot to sign. Will do that... now: paul klenk 22:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Klenk (talk • contribs) 16:56, September 12, 2005

Admins don't really have any more power over users, other then the extra features, which they can use to uphold community consensus and to keep people in check through policies, and that we are supposed to be smart. So, I don't think mentioning he was an admin was really relevant. Maybe after the first few warnings you should have discussed it with one or two of the warners? --

talk

) 04:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't get involved, and I don't have much interest in responding to this but: I do think it would be a sad state of affairs if admins always had to identify themselves as such, as if people should not have to follow guidelines, apply common sense, and be civil unless administrators are lording over them all the time. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

203.62.10.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user has a history of vandalism stretching back for more than a year. The account has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism. It appears to belong to "Asia Pacific Network Information Centre", Milton, Queensland. Is there any way we can permanently block this ID? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

210.10.116.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is another long-time vandal from APNIC. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: APNIC is the one who distributes IPs for the Asia Pacific Region, not an ISP.

khaosworks (talk • contribs

) 06:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You're probably looking these up at ARIN and getting the result of APNIC. But APNIC is not an ISP, it's one of the five regional Internet registries, like ARIN. ARIN refers you to APNIC (or the appropriate regional registry) if you look it up at ARIN. To find out who these IPs are, you need to look them up in at APNIC's "whois": the first, 203.62.10.3, is ACT Department of Education, Manning Clark House, Tuggeranong (I know, big surprise, vandals from a school....). The second, 210.10.116.67 is AAPT Limited, 180-188 Burnley St, Richmond VIC 3121. - Nunh-huh 06:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

So I guess that means we can't permanetly block them, then, I guess. Sigh. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The APPT one would be problematic to block, since it's dynamic, but the school one may be static. If you can determine that the vandals are coming from one particular IP in the school's range, then that one can be blocked. I've been doing that to one particular computer in a school in Singapore, for example, since that computer seems to be the one being used for vandalism. --

khaosworks (talk • contribs

) 08:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps a polite note to the school alerting them of the use their students are making of their computers at school might result at least in an annoying lecture to said students.... - Nunh-huh 22:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked Radman1 (talk · contribs · block log) for one hour for repeatedly abusing me despite a request that he stop. I am sure this will result in a firestorm of controversy, but I will not put up with his nonsense. If he continues to do it, I will block him for a longer period of time. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, can you say more about what he was saying and the context? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

He keeps following me around on AfD pages calling me by a name which is not my User name. The entire tone of his comments is highly condescending. The name itself is not offensive in and of itself, but the refusal to use my proper User name and the reversion of my edit to remove it, after I had requested that he desist, caused me to block him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:21, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

see this edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, if you were in a content dispute with him at the time, which includes a VfD, you shouldn't block him, unless it's vandalism or clear disruption. How often did he call you that or any other name? Would you consider unblocking him? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't block him for the content dispute, I would not do that. I blocked him for his repeated comments to me. It has happened three or four other times. This is only the most recent one. I will only unblock him if he promises to stop being condescending and to either use my User name or not speak to me at all. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that by looking at the page history and at the brief exchange between Zoe and Radman on

06:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I wouldn't have done it, but his attitude has gone over the edge with me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I've looked at the page and the history and I'm not seeing anything that would justify a block. Could we have some diffs please showing the personal attacks? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what more to tell you. The link above is what I'm referring to. I asked him to use my User name, not to call me by the name he repeatedly uses for me, and he refused. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

And do you really think that "There there... you poor thing" is acceptable? User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently in the tiny kingdom of Zoe-stan, failing to address the queen by her proper title and lineage results in a small 1-hour naptime. A shame, because it will eventually drive away radman1, a fervent contributor to the community.--Jscott 06:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I heard Zoe once shot a man for snorin' too loud! --Jscott 06:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the context, and I'm sorry if I'm being a pain here, but you can't block someone you're in a content dispute with because he called you beau, or said "there, there, you poor thing." We're not allowed to block for personal attacks anyway, not in and of themselves. They have to reach the level of disruption before we can block i.e. they have to be pretty serious attacks. But if you're in a content dispute with that person, you're not supposed to do even that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am not in a content dispute with him, Valentina. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Who's Valentina? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Who is John Galt? Tomer ^TALK

07:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe definitely shouldn't have made the block herself, and I think RadMan ought to be unblocked, but I think the circumstances surrounding it are understandable enough. I think if RadMan can be convinced to remove his own edit and that both users promise to stay away from each other on AfD for a day or two, this problem will largely go away.

T/C

06:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd unblock him, and take a nap or something. Ask another admin to watch him etc.. I've looked at the edit history and I can't find anything there that comes close to a block. MAYBY malicous, difficult to gauge, may just be immature joking or something (either way its not really nice or acceptable but just blocking may even make it worse).

T | @ | C

06:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Intentionally trying to tick another editor off by calling him or her condescending names despite being warned seems disruptive enough to me to justify a block. It's especially problematic when it evokes condescending sexist rhetoric. That said, it's probably a better idea to ask another admin to block if you're the user being harassed, as many will instinctively favor the blocked party. That would probably involve another warning/name-calling cycle, though. - Nunh-huh 06:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

probably not remember it has to be dissruption of wikipedia not just of one user or area.Geni 09:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The block will be over shortly, so whether to unblock him is a moot point now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Looks like the bullet wound has healed nicely, so why the cop shot him is a moot point now." --Jscott 07:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, do I know you? Have we ever spoken? User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:08, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is that a pre-requisite for commenting on your actions?--Jscott 07:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You are not commenting. You are trolling. If you have something worthwhile to comment about, please do, but your sniping is not useful. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I will comment that as this little exchange proves, you have quite a problem with your version of what motivations are and what the motivations are on the side of the party. In fact, one would indicate that your methodology is "Classify and Crucify", based on tiny little crimes working from a penal code buried inside your own head and nowhere else. Your fellow admins are scratching their heads and you are taking on all comers. Just as a good con-man will only take his victims for a small amount, thereby ensuring nobody loses so much it's worth tracking down the lost funds, your sticking with one-hour punishments ensures a sense of power and authority with not too much time for a consensus to build on the fairness of your actions. Carry on. --Jscott 07:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I doubt RadMan will think that its moot. I sure wouldn't. I think the first step in conflict resolution here would be to ask him to explain his motivation in making those edits.

T/C

07:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If he does it again, I will block him again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, you should not block him again. If he continues to call you by a name you don't appreciate, please contact another admin to deal with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Radman1.5

Sigh [29], [30]. I don't really want to go back any further. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:07, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

These are not grounds for a block. They're not even personal attacks, and being opposed by him during a VfD counts as being involved in a content dispute with him. I also don't appreciate the "sigh" attitude. You posted here for input, and were politely asked for more information, which has had to be dragged out of you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for being so cooperative and understanding, Valentina. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:18, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you're having a bad day and put your behavior down to that. You've blocked someone without grounds, you're now (it appears) deliberately doing to me what you blocked Radman for, and you've accused someone of trolling because he criticized you. This is behavior unbecoming, to put it mildly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gee, Valentina, if you think there's nothing wrong with somebody calling you by the wrong name, then you shouldn't be upset when I do it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:27, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly appreciate it, but you'll notice I haven't blocked you for it either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty I have here is that, if Zoe wasn't an admin, she wouldn't have had the ability to block Radman. This is not just a self-evident distinction; being the object of the alleged abuse, Zoe is an interested party, and thus using her admin powers in this respect is a conflict of interest. What she should have done is call on another admin to assess the situation and take whatever steps they deemed fit. Now it just looks like bullying, and fodder for any RfC.

My view, for what its worth, was that although Radman's name calling was juvenile, it didn't deserve blocking. --

) 07:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

A user has personally targeted another user with juvenile remarks, was repeatedly asked to stop, and was then blocked for the incredibly short time of one hour. That sounds entirely reasonable to me, and I admire Zoe's restraint in keeping the block to only one hour. I don't see anything inappropriate here besides Radman's behavior. Gamaliel 07:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Zoe probably did the right thing here. Civility is policy and Radman was being grossly uncivil. If he thinks he can be uncivil to an administrator, likelihood is he thinks he can do the same thing to other editors, so a brief one-hour nose-tweak, escalating to a longer block if he doesn't get the message, is in order. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony, the nose-tweak shouldn't be imposed by the admin he's done it to, and please review Zoe's atttitude here to having the block questioned. I see it as out of order. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that she shouldn't perform the block; she performed it and then submitted it for review here. She's the target of the uncivil behavior, she asked him to stop and he responded with a flippant remark (05:50 UTC), then went on to make a very personal remark about some other person (05:56 UTC). He was then blocked for one hour, and looking at his recent behavior I think this was quite reasonable. Zoe and I are of completely different opinions on some fundamental matters but I completely agree with her action here. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Come on, Tony, calling someone "shallow" is a very personal remark? Look, I'm not defending incivility, but Zoe was involved in a content dispute with Radman; I don't accept that opposing someone on VfD isn't a content dispute. She blocked him, then posted here for comment. She then seemed to resent being asked for information, and was rude to people on this page who were asking for more details. If you dislike incivility (and you're right to), you shouldn't defend it no matter where it's coming from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, calling someone shallow is highly personal and violates

civility; I don't think there can be any serious dispute on that. Moreover I see no evidence that Zoe and Radman1 were engaged in a content dispute--that would have changed things. The incident involving Zoe and Radman1 occurred on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Vogel, Jennifer Barnhardt, Eric Jacobson. I quite agree that Zoe has once or twice acted in an uncivil manner on this thread, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether the original block was in order. --Tony Sidaway^Talk

13:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I too will stick my head where it doesn't belong. While I appreciate that nobody wants to be banned for childish behaviour, why should we tolerate it or encourage it? I find it hard to belive that Radman was unaware that his actions were undesireable, or that he did not intend to be provocative. Zoe may be exasperated to the point where her (I hope Zoe is a her, if not, my apologies) writing is terse, but how much of that is due to Radmans behaviour? While it would perhaps be "better" in terms of neutrality if some other admin were to do it, it is a formality at best, as I can't imagine it would be hard to find someone else willing to do so?--inks 08:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would have been close to impossible to find an admin to block Radman, without warning, for calling someone a "beaut" and "you poor thing." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe did warn him on his talk page, plus Nunh-huh and Gamaliel who are both administrators (I think) seem to agree with her sentiments, so even "close to impossible" might be a bit strong :) --inks 08:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

People's, please! Have (no) fear, OiHA is here. So, what didn't happen? El_C 09:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone was very rude to me, is what happened. Where were you? {{

cry}} SlimVirgin ^(talk)

09:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The beloved President and founder of our esteemed association (and I'm using the word our extremely loosely!) is impolite, rude, uncivil, untactful, whiney, etc., but he does have a tail, and prone to licking, my dear Valentina! Actually, he has a tendency to run, than abruptly stop to inexplicably lick, then running, again. I think I told you that already, but I suspect other readers can greatly benefit from this shocking info. El_C 09:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that you're here, you could try defending me. Otherwise, where's the benefit in being your sockpuppet? Valentina ^(talk) 09:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? You did not find the above to be a poignant defence?! I am outraged, and slightly thirsty! El_C 10:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, I think finding an admin to block someone for that would be pretty easy. In fact, I have in mind a couple people who I expect would be eager to do it. But on the other hand, blocking someone for ranting off-site, I would have thought it would have been tough to find someone who'd block for that...so don't mind me, I've been wrong before. Everyking 09:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL!! You never miss a trick, do you, James. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

With the subtlety of a sledge hammer! El_C 09:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I too will jump into the discussion. Personally, I just find the remarks of Radman incredibly juvenile. Do the comments institute a violation of

WP:NPA? Probably. Was it a blockable offense? Maybe. Was Zoe incredibly annoyed? Yes. But the fact is that any admin, regardless of the situation, who is involved in a content dispute should not block. I, personally, probably wouldn't have blocked, but someone on IRC would have listened to a request for a blocking covering a short period of time. However, an hour-block is not that big of a deal. SlimVirgin, in my opinion, is in the right here. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza}

21:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Just like Bratsche, I will give my 'two cents here. I agree with Bratsche that the comments were immature, and probably were a violation of

WP:NPA. However, I do agree that when in doubt, find another non-involved admin to block. Personally, I wouldn't have blocked, but have asked another administrator to take a look at the situation and talk to Radman about it. If the problem persisted after warnings, then the other admin could block for disruption. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk

22:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Shouldn't this discussion be moved back to the left sometime soon? :-)

Who is Valentina? SlimVirgin? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to give my two cents here: while it may have been advisable to find someone else to do the block, I thoroughly endorse Zoe's actions here. This is unacceptable, and I'd have happily blocked him myself if I'd known. Ambi 12:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ambi. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Nicodemus75 2.0

So, in that vein I'm asking for a block. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

01:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused here. Only two of the links are not from you, Aaron, and none of them really shows anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Aaron Brenneman

In similar vein, I am asking this user to be blocked for his inappropriate use of the word Nigger in the following link to knowingly and intentionally insult my race as a person of African descent - simply because he objected my use of the word "deletionist". I further find the snide manner in which this racial-epithet was hurled at me to be the height of racist insensitivity by stating "they use it", who are they exactly? Us niggers??? Beyond this, to compare being called a nigger ( a word which clearly has a long-history of racially-motivated derision) to being called a deletionist (a term coined within the Wiki environment for those who wish to delete an article) is simply beyond all pales of racial insensitivity. I s'pose us ignorant niggers should all keep us mouths shut fo' Massa Aaron cuz he dun have a point ta be makin' when he dun call us's niggas.

Using a fellacious comparison in an AfD debate as an artifice to insult another editor's race certainly is just cause for a ban. [36] unsigned by User:Nicodemus75

I don't see the use of that word in the link you provided. Am I just missing it, or is this the wrong link? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And please

sign your posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

02:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The word "nigger" is in one of the diffs Aaron provided above, but it's not directed at anyone. I suggest you both go and have a cup of tea or something. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "they even call each other that" is a racial insult to most African-Americans...it certainly isn't acceptable.--MONGO 04:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the link should have been [37] the objection I had was that this bogus comparison between "deletionist" and "nigger" was merely an artful way of using a racial epithet that is *not* clearly directed. That is the very point of it's use in the discussion (if you stop and think about it, what other possible reason is there for a such a non-sequitor insertion in an AfD about deleting a school article????). Irrespective of whether or not you feel that his comment was directed or not, it's use in the context of the AfD in question is extremely offensive to people of African descent - suggesting that a rcail epithet used throughout history to deride and abuse an entire race is somehow equivalent with a legitimate term created for and used in Wiki projects, see: deletionist. If using such a term is considered a personal attack, what is next? Aaron makes personal attacks on a regular basis against those who disagree with him. Fellaciously using "nigger" in the AfD as a comparison is nothing more than an artifice to encite response and make an attack by proxy on someone's racial origins. Quite possibly the most offensive part of his comment is(as I stated above) "Heck, they even call each other that!" (emphasis mine) What is being implied here by the term "they"? "they" being the "niggers" in question? I don't really understand how this cannot be characterized as not being an attack, even if you don't think he was surreptitously using this obvious non-sequitor as a proxy for hurling a racial epithet at someone with whom he is engaged in a debate. ie. Don't call me a deletionist because it is just as offensive as when I say "nigger". --Nicodemus75 03:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC) (also, I did sign the original request, I am not sure why my sig didn't show up).

I see that SlimVirgin has this situation firmly in hand, but I too, suggest that you both walk away for an hour or so to cool down. Don't take this badly, but this is a pretty dumb fight. I suspect you'll both see that if you get some perspective on it. --

T/C

02:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

How is this any different from Radman Vs. Zoe? I asked several times for someone to desist with something I considered a personal attack. They not only failed to stop they stepped up the level of attack to include not only the "deletionist" label (I actually objected) to but use of my name (which I didn't). I gathered (from the above discussion) that the consensus was that this kind of venom was to be discouraged? (Oh, and I think it's dumb too.)

02:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I personally didn't think that Zoe's action last night was proper, only understandable given the circumstances, and I suspect that a lot of other editors agree with me. The best thing to do here is cool down, not block people. I could make a strong case that you were both being disruptive at AfD, but I chose to ask you to take your discussion elsewhere, instead of just blocking you both arbitrarily.

T/C

02:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I am bloody well stunned by this comment. You could have blocked me? Don't bother to block me. If the standard is to be that that sort of behavior is acceptable (unless directed at an admin, of course) it won't be necessary.

brenneman^(t)(c)

03:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Re-reading my comment above, I realize that it was a poor piece of writing. Aaron, don't be stunned by my badly worded analogy. All I was trying to say (clumsily) was that neither situation merits blocking. If you've looked at my talk page archives or my block log, you can see that I very rarely advocate blocks for anything outside of cut-and-dried vandalism.

T/C

03:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with SlimVirgin that you fellows both really need to go have a cup of tea or something. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  Any reason Zoe couldn't have just had a cup of tea? Different rules for admins? -- Grace Note

• I strongly agree. This was a discussion that got overheated, and I think the better solution is for both of you to calm down, take some deep breaths, and move on. Nicodemus, please remember that
  assuming good faith means especially assuming it of those whom we disagree with. Aaron, you chose your words poorly because you were angry. Go make some tea and sit in some sunshine, if you can find it. Nandesuka
  04:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I apologise without prevarication for "They even call each other that" as I assumed my sarcasm would shine through. But calm down? With all due respect, no thanks. If the sheer nastiness that was directed at me is just fine around here, then I've got no desire to stay. We should be
  nice to each other. I was all behind Zoe for slapping Radman down, and was pleased to see her supported. But it is easy to say "I'd have helped out" when the dirty work is done, isn't it? When someone says "hey, that's an attack, please stop" you guys are supposed to help. Not one word to N75 to tell him to be nice. Instead it's all "have a cup of tea".
  144.53.251.2
  04:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, here we are back to the claim that "deletionist" was being used as an insult. Originally it wasn't, then you objected and then Nicodemus did seem to use it with evident intent to annoy. But there are two sides to this: if you insist that people shouldn't use common shorthands like deletionist and inclusionist because you consider them to be insults, you're going to get some strong (and, I hope, mostly polite) opposition from people who find them useful. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone specifically calls themself a deletionist, I find it offensive to call someone else that. It's like using the term "liberal" as an insult. It isn't the term itself that's wrong, it's that the person who uses it intends it as an insult. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a straw man if there ever was. Are you implying along with Aaron that it is by extension, "not offensive" to call someone a "nigger" because people of African descent may refer to each other in that way? I am sorry, but this position is fellacious at best. I am sure that you will now reply "oh it doesn't apply to things like racial epithets", what a nonsensical, subjective standard you are erecting about terms. Is "those who frequently vote to delete" offensive if someone doesn't like to be called that? Is "those that always vote to delete" offensive? Is "those that vote to delete this article" offensive? There is all sorts of shorthand to refer to people on Wiki who hold various and sundry positions. If this standard is actually going to be applied by admins, I am going to start complaining every time anyone uses a term or phrase of this sort and claim I am offended. By this standard, it is offensive to be labelled as "voting to include an article", since I do not "specifically calls [myself]" that. I am not saying this to make a point, but rather that it is inherently offensive to have some Wiki-only "labels" whether they be terms or phrases categorized as offensive by admins, and others not so.--Nicodemus75 06:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Where did I ever even mention the word "nigger"? *I* was talking about the words "deletionist" and "liberal", and I repeat: using the term "deletionist" as an insult is an insult, regardless of the definition. It's the intention of using the word that matters. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. Ambi 05:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I also got labelled as a deletionist in those discussions as well as patronising retorts instead of real discussion. I thought it was just lazyness to parse the arguments but now I wonder if it was specifically designed to bait. Unfortunately Aaron took it hook line and sinker.

David D. (Talk)

06:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

David, I have yet to see a single keep vote from you in the AfDs on schools (correct me if you have voted keep on any schools please). Don't like being called a "deletionist"? Fine. You are one of "those who vote to delete". All better?--Nicodemus75 06:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a good reason. The ones I consider keepers normally have so many keep votes they do not require further support. I think I have voted on three schools at most. Certainly no more than five. Conversely, I have created and improved many articles relating to schools. If I was a deletionist would I be putting time into the project? Life is not as simple as deleters vs keepers. There are other paths and ideas to consider, some involve compromise but in a project like this it is the only way forward.

David D. (Talk)

06:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that's okay. Most of us would never use the terms deletionist or inclusionist as an insult, but should it ever become a potential problem we can use our commonsense, as in this case. As for using the term liberal as an insult, perhaps there may be some on the extreme right or left who would do that, but in my country at least it remains a very useful term. Let's not get carried away because of the Coulters and Limbaughs of this world. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony is absolutely correct. An apology is in order for my deliberate use of the term after Aaron objected. Even if those of us wishing to use the shorthand replace it everytime with "those who vote to delete", then that phrase will become "offensive". Be reasonable - the terms "deletionist" or "inclusionist" are not the same as "nigger" at all.--Nicodemus75 06:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you that the terms are not the same at all. With regard to the term 'deletionsist' you should realise that just because some do not vote to keep everything does not make them by default deletionists. I was surprised to be coined as such too. I don't think people should take offense but it does get annoying since it is often an easy accusation to make rather than actually addressing the disputed issues.

David D. (Talk)

06:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You should realize that just because someone uses "deletionist" as shorthand, and doesn't appreciate racial slurs such as "nigger", and highly charged statements such as "even they use it" doesn't make someone an "idiot" User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman--Nicodemus75 07:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The idiocy all came before that post by Aaron. Re-read the conversation.

David D. (Talk)

07:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What has that got to do with it? You and Aaron have accused me of not being civil, yet I have never used words such as "idiot" or "nigger". I would like to know exactly who the "idiots" are that you allude are driving Aaron away? I think it is patently obvious this refers to me. If not, the "idiots" in question must be the admins who "drove Aaron away". Either way, referring to other editors as "idiots" is without question, a personal attack. Perhaps you should be blocked.--Nicodemus75 08:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

David D. (Talk)

08:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've signed back in to {{d}} my subpages, but here are my parting shots:

• I thought it was clear (to any who looked) that I was in no was applying that label. The comment was immediately followed by "That's sarcasm, by the way", as well as a brief explanation of why labels are inappropiate. I've placed a note on the page apologising. [38]
• I was going to put the same note on N75's page, but hey, he's obviously watching this one.
• How the hell was I supposed to know N75 be so sensitive? I used a word in a sentence and he's bloody crying about it. I asked him three times not to call me names directly and he persisted. With a great deal of malice. It's stupid I know, but he actually hurt my feelings.
• Almost everybody else can get stuffed. Part of your job as admins is to sort crap like this out, and you've done a pretty shitty job.

06:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You got your feelings hurt and that isn't right. I didn't see the personal attacks against you, but if they did happen, it is a normal reaction to defend yourself. I don't question this...it is the manner in which you did this that I question. Now I qualify my statement with the acknowledgement that I certainly can be offensive at times so I won't lecture here. However, I can't think of too many things that equate with the word you used and the manner in which you used it. That's all I have to say on the matter.--MONGO 09:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

calling someone a "nigger" is not right because it is a personal attack think about it Yuckfoo 17:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC

15:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Block him for 24 hours for the 3RR violation—that's clear; disruption is fuzzy. However, I do believe there is a problem with POV pushing from this user and he should probably go before the ArbCom for it. Everyking 15:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't do

16:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

How can fuzzy be good? The 3RR is good because it's clear and simple: here TDC clearly, uncontroversially made 4 reverts within 24 hours, so that's a block. But disruption is entirely subjective. When there are two options, I say go with the one that's most clear and easiest to justify. Everyking 04:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Fuzzy is good–in moderation–because it discourages rules-lawyering and gaming the system. As long as Tony can clearly articulate why he imposed the block (serious violations of

WP:CIV on top of the 3RR violation and apparent overuse of reversion in general) then a block for disruption would seem reasonable. As Everyking noted, the user's behaviour is probably arbitrable, but perhaps TDC will take the hint without us having to go that route. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 11:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if I had merely blocked him for 3RR he would have said to himself "I miscalculated and a hostile sysop took advantage of it." Now he knows that there are problems with his general behavior towards other editors, and his overuse of reverts as a means of attempting to gain control over the state of certain articles. And he knows that if he keeps it up after the block there will be a longer block. And possibly a review to see if arbitration would be worthwhile in his case. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for another 48 hours. This may seem harsh, but his four edits after the block ended were quite disheartening, showing that he had learned nothing: one edit on a talk page, and three article reverts within the space of four minutes. My view is that he has used reverts excessively, as a way of fighting political wars rather than editing articles, and so he must let other people do reverts, if they're necessary at all. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I really think this is well beyond the scope of what an admin should be doing. A case like this should go to the ArbCom. Everyking 10:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm missing something....I don't see the 3 reverts in 4 minutes...at least nothere--MONGO 11:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, one of the "editors" he is reverting against is almost surely a sockpuppet as I see by this history. Lastly, TDC seems to have edited 4 different articles, not one and that doesn't qualify as a 3RR anyway. I can see the stance on POV pushing, but I'm not sure I agree with this block completely...regardless of his "history".--MONGO 11:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I confused MONGO who appears to think this was a

case. Here's his contribution history:

• TDC (talk · contribs)

By my reading, every single one of TDC's last 25 article edits have been reverts. This is not editing, it's warfare.

13:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A very similar case has happened previously with

WP:3RR

does not give the right to revert three times, but only says that more than three times are not tolerated), I gave him a 48 hour block. His first action afterward was to continue his reverting exactly as before, for which I blocked him for 4 days for exactly the same reasons, aggravated by recidivism and provocation (I did this after particular consultation of other admins).

After this second block, TDC issued a policy of refraining of such incidents in the future, a policy which he more or less held until the recent edits, where he increasingly took back his older habits.

In this light, I do not think that Tony Sidaway's way in improper at all. Rama 13:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

OKay, I'm not asking anything be taken into consideration aside from the fact that those last 4 reverts were indeed to combat a sockpuppet account. Had I been in the same circumstances as TDC, I wouldn't have seen that going into 4 different articles to revert a sockpuppet who had been edit warring against me, would have been in any way a violation...even with precidents of past behavior.--MONGO 19:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well actually going around revert warring is frowned upon. The sock puppet, if that's what he is (as I see no attempt to pretend to be different editors I hesitate to use the term) several times in edit summaries asked TDC to go to the talk page, Talk: Vietnam veterans against the War.

NO, I was talking about this as the person TDC was reverting appears to have opened this account to combat him: [39].--MONGO 03:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the short and not particularly coherent reply above. As luck would have it the system because extremely sluggish and then the database was locked before I could tweak my reply for coherence (or even sign it!)

I do agree that this sock is part of the problem. However blocking TDC seems to have had a salutary effect on just about all the articles he had been revert warring on. There are one or two other revert warriors around on those articles, but there is no longer anything like as much warring. The articles in question don't seem to have suffered greatly in the absence of TDC's reverts, whereas before I blocked him one of them was protected for three weeks because of his adamant insistence on removing an item of content. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I trust your judgement Tony, just wanted to point things out, which you were probably already aware of and you may be more aware of TDC's edits than I am. I just saw that it seemed since he was at times in conflict with a sockpuppet, that he, at least, was up front with his edits, and more justified to his version. That's all I have to say on the matter.--MONGO 14

42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am baffled by this user's edits to the year articles. For one, he makes tens of piecemeal edits, each without a summary. Some seem useful, like removing births and deaths of people without articles, but other edits seem to be removing information, such as removing the mention of KFC from Harland Sanders description, removing Chelsea Clinton from the births section, or just removing wikilinks in general. Have there been new criteria for notability proposed for the year articles? In either case, the user has not been responsive to notices on his talk page, and continues to make sweeping changes like this without any edit summaries whatsoever. I have already revert 1980 three times now, and to do so again would violate 3RR (as these edits are not simple vandalism). Can other people keep an eye on this? If I'm out of line here (like if a tighter policy for the formatting of year articles has been stated), please let me know. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

He/she needs to be required to explain their edits. If they continue to make these changes without explanation, then I would endorse a brief block (maybe 15 minutes) with a link to their Talk page, explaining that they need to explain their edits if they wish to continue making them. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

User:4.188.98.84. Apparently this user has a long history of inserting false information into the Charlie Dog article and to creating false articles which linked to it. These hoax articles have been deleted. The user came back and inserted his false information into the article again, and I reverted, and asked him to provide proof of the information he has repeatedly added. Instead of supplying proof, he threatened to "do something bad" if his edits are not allowed to stand. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oh no, not
  Disco Dog featuring Charlie again! Zzyzx11 (Talk)
  00:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User Imdaking immediately attacking after a 48-hour block

User User:Imdaking just get off a (less than) 48-hour block. His first two actions after coming back were to 1] remove his "I HAVE BEEN BLOCKED" message, and then 2] attack me at User talk:Wikipedianinthehouse. I had tried unsuccessfully to work with him in private, but he immediately broke our agreement with this last message.

Much of his history is discussed above. Please take whatever action you feel is appropriate. Thank you. paul klenk 20:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what else he does. Right now, the attack at

khaosworks (talk • contribs

) 02:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)