Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive86

I think this is a clear BLP issue - Johnc1 (talk · contribs) is posting unsourced criticisms of Smith (Principle Chief of the Cherokees) - using fairly strong language ("Dictator" and worse) which, IMO, may put us at risk for defamation. I have already communicated with the editor on this issue, but it doesn't seem to have had much of an effect on him. There are other issues with the article (a large amount of text has been added from the Cherokee article); in the course of reverting Johnc1 I removed it, but that's a content issue to be sorted out by involved editors. I would appreciate some other people having a look at the situation. Guettarda 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He has re-added his unsourced edits and a link to his personal site. I removed the link to his site, but not reverted his edits, including his claim that Smith is a DICTATOR (caps his) because I think I'm at three reverts and would appreciate someone else looking at this. Johnc1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at four reverts, but as I have been involved (I wrote the original article also) I feel someone else should block him. Would another admin take a look, to block him, either for 3RR or inserting unsourced attacks on a living person (elected leader), and revert the article? I feel it might be inappropriate for me to do so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The site at | John's Website is run by United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians members. They have about a dozen folks they are mobilizing to vandalize that article. Just to let you know to expect vandalism and postings from several ranges from these folks. They have three active folks behaving as meatpuppets to vandalize the article. I tried to reason with them today (I doubt you folks speak Cherokee but I do and tried to restrain them) to no avail. The UKB Chief is apparently using this group for POV pushing to hide the embarrassments of the prosecutions and other materials. Just to to be a little bird and let you know what's up here. They are Cherokee so they won't stop. You need to go to indefinite blocks are it will just continue. 67.169.249.44 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that, based upon edits at http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.169.249.44 and at http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php?title=Comanche&diff=7369695&oldid=7369694 it is likely that 67.169.249.44 is a sockpuppet for Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/User:Gadugi/User:Waya sahoni/User:PeyoteMan.

[foo@bar ~/] $ host  67.169.249.44
44.249.169.67.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer c-67-169-249-44.hsd1.ut.comcast.net.

-- talks_to_birds 06:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I edit on several Native American Wiki's and while editing this site at | WikiGadugi I noticed that while I am logged in as "Hotch" on the website, I am able at the same time to create articles without the normal warnings and blocking for a user who is not logged into the Wikipedia site while I was logged into both sites at the same time. I also noticed that I can edit articles with Sysop privileges on Wikipedia and Admin due to some issue with the cookies since I have a Sysop/Bearucrat status on the other Wiki. I don't know if this website has some code doing this, but it looks like a bug in Wikimedia rather than something malicious. I did not perform any admin actions on this site (Wikipedia), but the extra tabs for protect and other areas seemed to appear. It happens when I am logged into both sites, so it looks like a bug in the MediaWiki Software. PeyoteMan 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

They may appear but do they work is the key point. There are a number of ways to get the tabs to appear. Try protecting your userpage.Geni 07:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they do not work here. I click and nothing happens. Looks like a cosmetic issue of some sort. Probably should report it though to the programers. PeyoteMan 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. Sounds like a browser side issue.Geni 08:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What happens if you clear your cache? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

After I clear the Cache (did this already) I am no longer able to create pages without logging in. PeyoteMan 08:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am able to create pages without being logged in if I logout from Wikipedia, however. That's a bug. PeyoteMan 07:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but this kind of suggests that it might be possible to reverse-engineer cookies (ie, decipher the cookie encoding) used by Wikipedia, potentially allowing logging in as any arbitrary user, which if some troll organization like Bantown managed to pull off would result in all manner of hilarity ensuing. One anon on Slashdot claimed to have pulled this off something like this for myspace.com [1]. Who knows. The very slow pace of software development and bugfixing of Wikimedia bodes ill for the future... the vandals are getting wilier while the software we critically depend on is basically standing still. -- Curps 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We need more information, including a coherent bug report, if we're to even understand, let alone fix this issue. Curps seems ill-advised about the actual pace of development of MediaWiki; bugs are fixed and functions added on a regular basis and there is a team of active committers. Rob Church (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments needed about disruption block

I'd appreciate comments at

Given that this user has violated 3RR many many many times, I don't have a problem with the long block. (I am, indeed, concerned by your overly-broad definition of vandalism. "Removing tags" is only vandalism if it is vandalism. Do you really justifiably think that the other editors reverts were a deliberate bad faith attempt to harm the integrity of the encyclopedia? If so, try it again with

t

04:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem...sorry for intruding (I'm not an admin). But, what I see here is a classic example of a behavior I've been witnessing for some time. Example: you write a text on a subject. Someone incessantly vandalizes it. So, there is a problem. A mess goes to the public wiki "courtroom". But-if frequently ends in condemning, one way or another, those who tried to save the text from vandalization by reverting it. So, vandals get a tacit approval for vandalisation. A

kafkaesque ending. That's what I see is in user Molobo's case. Mir Harven

07:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Molobo ... again

This is copied in from

• 1st revert: 12:41, March 29, 2006
• 2nd revert: 12:32, March 29, 2006
• 3rd revert: 12:15, March 29, 2006
• 4th revert: 12:06, March 29, 2006
• 5th revert: 10:48, March 29, 2006

Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Molobo is a well known revert warrior, having been blocked for a 3RR about 9 times before, 4 times alone in this month. See also above for 3RR accusation on Otto Bismarck-- Chris 73 | Talk 13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No 3RR, simply restored a tag for disputed section. Remember that removing tags is considered vandalism. Removing simple vandalism isn't 3RR.--Molobo 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don' think removing a tag is simple vandalism, but I leave this up to another admin to decide -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also you are mistaken as they are two different contents here that have been related.. Had I restored tag over 3 times or info over 3times I agree that could be considered violation of 3RR however this isn't the case. Also you are mistaken-I was blocked on 3 times for 3RR, one of which was sadly for restoration of my comments on discussion page that were being deleted and which sadly is considered 3RR also. --Molobo 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You reverted content three times, then added a tag, and reverte the tag removal two times, hence 5 reverts. The number of reverts is per page, not per paragraph or disputed text. YOU of all people should know that, you do know that, and yet you try to get away with this excuse every time again. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the text that I believe states that removing tags is vandalism. In this case the tag was removed without any comment to my statement on proper discussion page where I explained why the tag was added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Improper use of dispute tags. Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. --Molobo 13:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC) The number of reverts is per page, not per paragraph or disputed text. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3RR For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded:

• self-reverts
• correction of simple vandalism

Removing a tag without any explanation and without adressing the issue on discussion page seemed to me like simple vandalism. --Molobo 13:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear pan Molobo, the things you do may be classified as tag vandalism. I believe we need a separate policy on those who, without contributing anything helpful, add tons of tags on any article they cast their eyes on. Please stop vandalizing existing articles and write some new ones at last. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather sick of people trying to pretend that they are reverting "simple vandalism" as an excuse for their edit warring. Molobo has form and get 1 week for this William M. Connolley 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that removing a dispute (or similar) tag without providing an explanation for one's action, or when the issue is actively disputed at the article's talk page, is vandalism and can be reverted as many times as necessary. Those tags serve an important purpose, and those who remove them before the issues are resolved are simply pushing their POV and censoring all critique of it (no matter if deserved or not). I believe that in this particluar case Molobo is innocent, and it is his opponents, who removed the tag, who should be punnished. I most vehemntly oppose this block.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprized that your previous wheel warring - when you repeatedly unblocked Molobo after he violated 3RR - did not learn you anything. Actually, such disruptive editors as Molobo who are permanently one revert away from violating 3RR on scores of articles should be blocked for three reverts only. That their trolling is particularly nasty is no excuse for looking down on them. Unfortunately, Molobo has become such a problem and threat to the Wikicommunity only because he is encouraged by such Polish editors as Piotrus who joins his rabid reverting more often then not. Just a few days ago, Molobo was unblocked on Piotr's petition and instantly proceeded to turn dozens articles into a mess. Enough is enough. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo didn't quote the whole section. Wikipedia:Vandalism goes on saying "Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus." I fail to see that just because a very small proportion somewhere in a unimportant place deserves a totally dispute tag on German Empire, only because Molobo noticed he was not about to "win" the edit war. There was no dispute on the talk page and the text he quickly posted was only to justify the tag. Sciurinæ 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, inappropriately adding "disputed tags" is also vandalism and users are required to explain why they added it - marking the articles that one just doesn't agree with is not enough. I do think that this block is excessive though - I thought the maximum bar is 24 hours (

WP:ANI. While a longer block may have been deserved in Molobo's case, purely due to the fact that he's been revert warring on so many articles and evidently causing much disruption (and having been blocked so many times before), this is also taking into account the fact that it takes two or more to revert war. We could have reasonably expected Molobo to realise that more users are reverting against him than for him, IMO that is a sufficient reason for him to give up and discuss on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user in question. I think the block should be shortened but not to something less than 24 hours. --Latinus

17:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, I'm afraid you are deluded here. You have not enough experience with Molobo if you expect him to give up reverting by his own volition. What will he do then? Is there any other purpose for his edits other than revert warring? He is always one revert away from 3RR on scores of articles. To a disinterested observer, he seems like a reverting bot run by Piotrus and Halibutt in order to spread their nationalist propaganda. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just like in real life: if you break the law, you're punished. If you do it again, the punishment increases. It worked somehow in Space Cadet's case (if Space Cadet really is not a number of other accounts). Molobo is not an autist but a university student so his being a "vigilante" as he puts it can become a matter of the past if he realises it is not the way he'd better be walking. I think it becomes more and more obvious that the only solution is the ArbCom. Until then conventional methods will solve it. Sciurinæ 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I blocked I'd better defend my action. I don't think removing tags can be called reverting vandalism (note: it currently says so explicitly in the 3RR header, but only cos I just inserted it; if you consider that disputable, remove it and we'll talk it over). The 1 week was what Inshaneee (sp?) gave then removed; it appeared to me to be the natural progression. I would consider a shorter block; especially if you consider this a bit doubtful. The 24h limit is long dead, though - check the logs. Also note that I removed another Molobo report from this page as now-irrelevant - if anyone is thinking of unblocking, best to check that out. And finally - he current state of his talk page doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his NPOV state William M. Connolley 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, if Molobo breaks 3RR again, the block should be extended to one month. Currently, half a dozen editors have to stop adding new stuff to Wikipedia in order to revert Molobo's pointless reverts, usually encouraged by Piotrus. All things considered, he is the worst troll to haunt Eastern Europe-related topics since Bonaparte was permabanned earlier this year. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah Bonapare, his most active days were before my time, but I do remember those mysterious open proxies that kept turning up and trying to present the

Meglenites as an oppressed Romanian minority in Greece. Kept everyone busy... --Latinus

18:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocks which are solely for 3RR violations are barred by policy from exceeding 24 hours. However, I would argue (and others appear to be practicing as well) that editors who violate 3RR repeatedly can be blocked longer for general disruption, rather than requiring that the ArbCom be called in every time we have a highly problematic revert-warrior. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am really disappointed to see so much vehemence and ill will directed towards Molobo. Through he has been known for breaking the 3RR occcasionally, so are his opponents. Ghirla, who seems to be enjoying this incident so much (and labels Molobo as a troll in every second post), should be reminded of his recent RfC (and yes, Molobo also had an RfC, although IMHO he came out of it much better (that being a purely personal opinion, of course). Now, back to the case at hand: as the talk page shows Molobo did engage in discussion with his opponents, and although using a smaller tag like {{dubious}} might have been more appopriate than using {{totallydisputed}}, I think his opponents (which in that particular case number two - not a 'very large number') are as guilty of failure to talk as he is. A case can be made that removal of tags is breaking the 3RR (although I would not support it) - but let it rest. There is, however, no justification for blocking a creative (if sometimes to wild) user like Molobo for a week. I certainly don't see that Molobo is a 'general disruption' any more than Girlandajo is (please comapare their RfC if you need proof) and I will not support support such a ban on such flimsy ground. If one wants to bring this to an RfArb, then please do - hopefully this will finally put an end to anti-Molobo crusade by certain users (or prove me wrong - I am not saying I am perfect and unbiased here - but I am really fed up with some people 'throwing proverbial rocks' when they are no better).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I too deplore the ill-will. Back to your case: Molobo is not being blocked for failure to talk, but for (repeatedly) breaking 3RR. If anyone else has, report them and they will get the same treatment. The 24h limit is, effectively, a dead duck. There has been no real discussion of this (as far as I can see) but thats how it is: policy has evolved. I've considered raising it explicitly, but always decided to let well enough alone. Now: please address my point re Molobos talk page: it appears to be deliberately imflammatory and does not show good faith (I mean: the pictures, and the multiple to-remembers that are clearly there as messages to others, not to Molobo). Also note his response to the block: I shall return in one week and restore all information about Nazi and Soviet atrocities... which practically promises a return to edit-warring. If you can persuade him to calm down, great, then his block can be reduced. William M. Connolley 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your personal interpretation of facts, to which you are of course entirely entitled, but which cannot be used to overrule our policies if it is disputed (and I am afraid I have to dispute it). I see nothing that goes against our policies in his talk, and as for his reply, it is a well known fact that Molobo contributes to the controversial areas of G/P/R history. This is not the place for content dispute or the analysis of his additions, but he is obviously a content editor, and I see nothing strange in him saying that he will be back to edit the articles he likes. If people think he is not a good content creator, then ArbCom is that way. But using arbitrary blocks without any official policy to support them, just one's view of how the policy has evolved, is not the best way to solve it, not when it is - as you can see from my reply - disputed. I know you are acting in good faith. So am I, and I think - putting all my wiki-experience and reputation in those words - that it is unfair and counterproductive to block Molobo for a week. I have talked to him recently and he told me he will watch his edits more carefully. Therefore I'd like to ask you to change the block on Molobo to 24h - the period clearly supported by the rules.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I can understand that some Polish wikipedians - definitely not all (learn from Alx-pl rather than protect the black sheep) - feel the need to defend him because the anti-German, anti-Russian and Pro-Polish POV pushing coming from him may be the wrong attitude towards Wikipedia but at least he has the right POV. If there's a war crime by Germans against Poles, he's there for you. Whether Germans would die too (example Potulice camp) does not only not matter to him but he is quick to dismiss any source, accusing his opponents of denial. If there's ongoing discussion over Copernicus' nationality, Molobo is there to revert and disturb the discussion. You certainly know of Molobo's forum presence less than a year ago. Has he changed? Has he improved since his RfC? And what do you think: is he going to change? Sure, he will promise anything. It is not an arbitrary interpretation of the rules but one considering the sense of 3RR. It is the same thing with simple vandalism except that vandalism (like adding nonsense words) is often less hurtful to Wikipedia than POV pushing. If the offenders of either keep it this way, their punishments will increase until they've smarted from it till they're smart enough not to do it anymore. That's the way dealt with offenders both in the real world and in Wikipedia. There is nothing constructive in the way Molobo contributes like this and if Molobo starts discussing first before shooting, this will be the last block. Four violations within the month March - the block could have lasted longer. Sciurinæ 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points. If we vote on a policy to make blocking more severe, for example by adding an additional day for each 3RR block in a given month to a consecutive block, I'll support it. But until such a

innocent until proven guilty assumption in that (and other) cases.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk

23:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course he doesn't call other people names - these are easy mistakes. He implies they're vandals or would try to cover up war crimes. I fail to see the arbitrariness in the block: why should it be any different than with normal vandals? Or with other people breaking the 3RR? If the user is new and probably unaware of the rules, the block should last for a short time. Same with teenagers committing a crime. If that user should know better, the usual punishment is 24h. If it is a repeated offender, the verdict will be more severe. I can see it isn't formulated in the rules. But it isn't forbidden in the rules, either, maybe even taken for granted as decision in line with other blocks. If Molobo needs to edit pages urgently, he won't be ignored on the talk page. I made an unsuccessful attempt to discuss with him on the subject of the Kulturkampf. Let him be forced to limit his influence to discussion for once, even though I doubt his discussions had a positive effect on Groeck, Wiglaf or Shauri. After a one-week holiday, which means some more peace in Wikipedia to me, he'll either see things differently or slip right into an RfAr. Sciurinæ 00:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So easy mistakes (offences against PA and CIVIL) are ok and we don't mind them, but more elaborate and disputable 'mind games' are the reason for calling one a troll? His deletion of your post on his talk is dissapointing, although it's a tactic I have seen his opponents use, too. Of course two wrongs do not make one right, and I have sent him a message that he shouldnt' be doing that. But you ignore my point above: if our rules don't allow blocking for a week in this period, then it shouldn't be done. Of course if everybody would agree that such an exceptionto the rules is beneficial, than that's not a problem, wiki-lawyering should be avoided. However here I disagree with a 7-day ban on a contributor I view as mostly positive, and therefore there is no consensus for an extraordinary ban. You say it's possible that the 7 week vacation will 'cool him down'. First, predicting the future is hard: it may or may not. Second, I know that his forced absence from wiki will make the life that much easier for various other POV-pushers and force many of us to waste our time dealing with them. I have conceded above that a 24h block serves as a valid punishment, but a 7 day ban is not fair, not legal, and is also disruptive for content creation (our primary purpose). Please don't make me repeat myself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't call him a troll. To me, Molobo is an efficient contributor but who works into the wrong direction, which makes him - in my eyes - more negative than a poor editor. Ghost in a machine's summary of Molobo's user conduct in the RfC describes it the best IMO. However, there is only one way to discourage someone from doing sth negative and that's what your and my state and probably most states recognised. An increase in the severity of verdicts. It's not wiki-lawyering but common sense. The time span between his blocks this month has widened after each and Space Cadet doesn't seem likely to me to be reported here in the near future. The block isn't hard but too weak. Look what happened to Bonaparte or bigoted and radical people in forums. Molobo prepares and can save content he wants to create in future so his his contents creations aren't at stake. He hasn't had a one-week break (if I remember correctly) since I met him in August. I know I can't predict the future at all, yet I'm positive his restriction to discussion space can only have a good effect unless one week is too short. He's a student of journalism and Social communication, not reverting. If this attempt should prove futile, then I agree with referring the issue to ArbCom. Sciurinæ 01:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But. The rules don't allow blocking for 3RR for over 24h. I agree they should. There are procedures we can follow to change the rules. I'll be happy to help with that. I don't agree Molobo deserves a 7-day block under current rules, and even in my variant of tough rules he wouldn't get a 7-day block (unless he got blocked 6 times this month already). If the rules are bended here, they are more likely to be bended more and more until they break. Molobo should be unblocked after 24h elapse on his block.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Being a 1 step under 3RR in dozens of article in a single day is a general disruption. In disruption blocks the admin's discretion is allowed. This whole thing started off the wrong foot. This behavior discussion belongs to

Anyway, he was running amok lately and a week cool-off he can use to write articles is a good idea. Repeated general dispurtions warrant an admin block within reasonable discretion. The extent of this disruption, encouragement in trolling instead of mentorship from his wikifriends and his past history certainly make the extent of the block reasonable. You may call it a disruption block if more than 24h 3RR is not allowed for what I care. The time span is appropriate. If he wants to post something to talk pages, he is free to email me the text and/or post it at his talk. I will post it for him. Again, I am not for censoring the info of atrocities others committed against the Poles. I am for the proper coverage of them rather than making a mess out of such broad articles as

For one, I am an administrator too and I don't support this block (for longer than 24h). Second, I don't see that

Polish contribution to World War II, just to name the few. Should we block him for 'general disruption' too? Blocking policy states that disruption is controversial reason to block and should be avoided. I repeat again: if you want a block longer than 24h, than go to arbcom, who is definetly more neutral than any of us here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk

04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Pan Prokonsul, as I said many times before, if you don't stop likening one of the most prolific and active wikipedians who contributed about 500 new articles to this project with your pet troll who has not contributed a single article which survived

WP:AfD, I'm afraid we'll have to continue this discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus

. The difference lies in the fact that while I have never violated 3RR, your pet troll breaks the rules on weekly basis.

Please face the facts: Molobo fits to a T to the description contained in

WP:TROLL and will be treated accordingly. Your tag team of Polish POV-pushers has already ousted from Wikipedia such precious contributors (and admins) as User:Wiglaf and User:Shauri

and may claim many more casualties if we let you and Molobo proceed.

I'm still waiting for your apologies for this as for previous attacks, yet I feel from my previous experience with you that to expect an apology from yourself is quite useless. At least have a decency not to mention me on every other talk page you edit. Pestering and intimidation of editors you disagree with and dismissing those with almost 30,000 edits as "vandals" are unlikely to further your cause or Molobo's. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla: you are not helping much. The fact that you are a much more productive contributor than Molobo does not give you the right to call him troll, and me his 'troll master'. Molobo has contributed valuable content, like in the creation of

WP:CABAL, anyone?). And while you have not broken the 3RR, I'd like to point out that the reason for prolonged block Molobo received here was the disruption caused by his many near 3RR violations - something you are just as guilty of (see history of articles I listed above). The fact that you have not added content to the above article does not change the fact that you were engaged in the revert wars there, and did not provide any justification for your reverts other than revert trolling (read: revert of relevant see also link), giving no explanation for reverting of sourced additions, same here, or simple and clear WP:POINT vandalism. It is obvious to me that when it comes to content creation, you are a valuable contributor, but when it comes to any content dispute, your actions are no better then that of Molobo's - they are even worse, because he at least uses talk and provides some references, while you just revert. Of course there are exceptions: I love your argument that Katyn massacre was a CIA forgery :) I can see that arguments brought by others against Molobo have some value, but honestly I can't see what you are trying to prove other than that you are just as disruptive as him.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk

21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Shauri and Wiglaf were two of my dearest friends on here. We've remained in touch outside of WP as well. I know for a FACT that their departures had nothing to do with Molobo. In fact, one of the last things Wiglaf did on here was engage in a spat with Ghirla over the origins of the Varangians. So on the basis of that, one could argue, YOU, Ghirla, had more to do with his leaving than Molobo. It would be just as much a distortion too. Out of respect for them both, I ask that their good names not be dragged into this matter any further. Mine has been mentioned, but I don't mind. I'm still around to defend my comments and elaborate upon them. Unfortunately, what I wrote on Mobo's RFC, has been proven correct over the last several months. The 3RR rule is one of the most abused policies in the Wikiverse. It is too often misused as a blunt weapon or a trap against those with whom you're having editorial/personal differences. But if there is anyone worthy of a long-term ban for violating it, tis Molobo. Sorry, Piotrus, but it will come down to an RFAr I fear. People have been dragged before Arbcomm for far less than Molobo. I only hope, for the sake of fairness, that if they should come to any serious, punative decision against him, it will not be primarily for being a serial 3RR violator.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm as guilty of this here as anyone else, but please note from the top of the page that If you feel the need to leave a comment of more than a couple of lines you are probably using the wrong channel. Can we take the philosophical policy stuff somewhere else and de-clog this page? (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Should it be moved to WP:ANI? I don't mind. Piotrus, by your proposal of no more than 24h block without an ArbCom, Bonaparte should be immediately unblocked. Amount of aggravtion brought my Molobo to a whole bunch of articles is huge. This was a huge disruption. If he wants to write articles, he can write many now and post them all at once in a week. Everything else he was doing is harmful for Wikipedia. And don't try to compare him to your favorite Nemesis. This simply doesn't fly. You should have took it upon yourself to mentor your "valuable contributor" rather than encourage his actions. I was telling you about this all along. For more, see

I've moved it here. William M. Connolley 08:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also involved in an edit war at a different article which is over a tag being added. And yes, tags are subject to 3RR like anything else. If there's not enough support for them that an editor has to break 3RR to keep them on, then they shouldn't be on. That's the entire point of 3RR. I also support progressively longer blocks for persistent violators - as far as I'm concerned such blocks are still preventative rather than punitive, as they should be, because of the valid deterrence effect. I support William's actions 100%. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank people who took time to read this debate through and offer me their advise. Any further comments would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This user was recently blocked for posting various accusations on Wikipedia talk pages and user pages. Looks like he's back with more of the same, accusing me of vandalism/racism. Appropriate action should be taken to stop this. Aucaman^Talk 04:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a response here? Aucaman^Talk 18:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This user has vandalised the article about

I looked at this IP's edits. They were not vandalism; the edits mention some issue with the name of the subject of the article. Vandalism is when an editor replaces text with nonsense, profanity, graffiti, that sort of thing. Check out

talk +

17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but this case is specific. You see, there was a compromise from few months ago when it was decided the name dispute to be described in a proper section (as it is now). A footnote leads to that section. Unfortunatelly, no matter of the footnote, this user (and the others mentioned before) try to put redundant edit in the beggining of the article. That's the whole problem. Bomac 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So you have a content dispute with a user. Anon thinks some stuff should go in the intro, you disagree. I don't think admin actions are how we resolve content disputes. Check out

talk +

18:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

WP:3RR, they will get caught in the auto-block as well. But, really, both of the users that you mention above are reasonable editors who are willing to discuss solutions to content disputes. I have faith that a reasonable discussion could take place if both sides would go easier on the reverting and stay on-topic on the Talk page. Jkelly

18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that someone is obviously using the anon editing in order to avoid the 3RR and force his version. We, ordinary users that don’t want to break 3RR rule are powerless in such situations. I really don’t know what is appropriate to do in case like this.

Bitola

18:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Using a different address doesn't let you bypass 3RR, it only makes it harder to spot the violation. Now, is someone claiming that this IP is a person who violated 3RR? I haven't seen that claim yet. -

talk +

18:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I can see, 62.14.212.229 recently made 5 edits:[4], [5], [6],[7], [8], and then

Bitola

19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If nejtralitet is the same person, then there has been a violation of 3RR as of nejtralitet's first edit. However I don't think these edits fall under the aegis of the

talk +

19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the anon edits from 62.14.212.229 have gone for now, lets see what will happen in the future.

Bitola

13:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You are hardly a nurtral party since you yourself have done what User:Grue was oposeing. At 19:33, 27 March 2006 to be exact.Geni 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geni: May I ask what you were referring to? I haven't participated in the deletion review for userboxes save for a perfunctory note indicating that I'd restored the userbox in question after a number of users had pointed out to me that my T1 speedy was incorrect. Best regards, --

(talk)

20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So you don't know anything about

this?Geni

21:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geni: Yes, of course I do; but I can't see what relationship that has to the issue at play here other than that it involved userboxes. Note after the userboxes were undeleted I did not only not delete them, I accepted the undeletion [10] and again, I reiterate, I haven't been involved in the userbox DRV page so far other than to note that I restored a set of userboxes that I formerly deleted. I hope you can determine by viewing

(talk)

21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you or did you not delete "Template:User antitheist" at 19:33, 27 March 2006 with the reason(Speedy delete. Criterion T1 - divisive/inflammatory)? That tempate has been through DRV. As has Template:User review. You carried out exactly the actions User:Grue was acting against.Geni 21:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted

(talk)

21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

are you claiming you did not delete a userbox that had been through DRV?Geni 22:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Err... no, of course I'm not. Geni, think about it - I affirmed above that I did indeed delete

(talk)

22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You did exactly what grue was oposeing. It is not enough to be neutral. You must also appear neutral.Geni 09:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Several editors appear to have warned this user of his needless leap into a combative and confrontational stance. One's edit summaries and words can reveal one's attitude in a matter of moments, and this holds true here. Reviewing this user's contributions, I'd like to comment on a couple.

[11]: "Speedy deletion can't override a consensus to keep"

I'm of the opinion that this depends upon where the deletion criterion comes from. Since this was a top-down alteration to the

CSD

(and I'm well aware that this is a controversial one), I'd be inclined to state that it can. Nevertheless, that's germane to the reason I'm flagging this edit, which is to draw attention to the snide undertones of cabalism.

[12]: "I will block anyone who redeletes it for wheel-warring and disruption"

Which could be considered wheel warring in itself, and would be disruptive.

[13] : No need to blank the discussion; I'm surprised, since I thought Grue was a consensus-based sort of person

I see no reason this block ought not to be left to run its course; and I see benefits both for the blocked user, for the Wikipedia community, and to a large part, I appeal to common sense. Give it a rest. Rob Church 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am not an admin and I have been participating in the debate (my view is also undelete) however if I may be permitted an observation this edit alone (blanking the entire discussion) deserves at least a short cooling off period.
  Thatcher131
  21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This was a proper closure of DR discussion. DR doesn't have subpages so the only way to close a debate is to blank it. The only thing I did wrong was forgetting to archive the discussion, but since it was restored very fast it was unneccessary. Seems that very few people understand what DR is for and how it is processed, and the discussion in question demonstrates it very well.  Grue  12:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have strong objections to the block, but I think 48 hours crosses the line from preventative to punitive. 24 hours is more than enough for someone to cool down (if they're going to). (Since most people will have had a good night's sleep before it expires.) --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While I personally agree that ignoring an ongoing DRV or TFD discussion is disruptive, a block is way out of order here. Where were the admins blocking Tony Sidaway and MarkSweep when they were taking the iniatiative to speedy delete templates with strong consensus to keep that were undergoing discussion on TFD? --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(Non-admin view) I think Samuel is entirely correct; the function, as I see it, of guidelines such as

WP:CIVIL is not to ensure that untoward behavior does not occur, but, rather, only to ensure that such behavior (gauche though it may be) doesn't interfere substantially with our project. Grue's blanking a discussion page, for example, surely is disruptive, and, in view of a recent pattern, a cooling-off period is perhaps appropriate, lest further disruption should occur. A 48-hour block, IMHO, is excessive though; inasmuch as it prevents Grue from contributing to the project in the (good) sundry ways he does, it seems likely to do the project more harm than good. I readily concede that my view apropos of the purpose of behavior guidelines and the reasons for which to issue blocks/bans (viz., that the only relevant criterion in whether a given admin action, on the whole, is likely to help or harm the overall project, notwithstanding the rather nebulous "help or harm" formulation, toward the improvement of which I have made efforts elsewhere) is likely a minority one (toward which proposition I adduce, for example, the pedophilia wheel warring discussion, in which many concluded that, the procedural issues aside, and even if other users aren't dissuaded from editing because of a user's self-ID as a pedophile, self-ID'd pedophiles oughtn't to be here, irrespective of what they might bring the encyclopedia), but I think here that 24 hours would be a more appropriate timeframe. I should say that I know this isn't the place to begin a new discussion of blocks/bans, but I am so often troubled by certain blocks issued here that I want simply to express that everyone ought to remember that the project must come first (Grue's actions, unlike those of other users who are blocked simply for hate speech which, though it may engender anger in others, is unlikely to dissuade prospective editors from working on or using the encyclopedia, so some timeout is in order). Joe

21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• 48 hours?? For that? We treat vandals better than this! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have decided to unblock him. I see that several think that a block was justified, but few think 48 hours was. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Kelly reblocked Grue because Sjakkalle failed to discuss it with Nicholas. As I left a message on Nicholas' talk page asking him to reconsider, which he hasn't replied to yet, I have lifted the block myself. This message has been copied to Grue's, Kelly's and Nicholas' talk pages so that there is no question of unblocking without discussion. --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)^(talk) 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, it appears that Nicholas *did* reconsider, and unblocked right as you were making this post: [14] -- Mackensen (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My disapproval of Sjakkale's action was based on his unblocking without even notifying the blocking admin. I don't object, in principle, to unblocking Grue, although personally I think Wikipedia would not be harmed in the long run by disinviting Grue. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. So I spent so long making sure my case for unblocking was watertight it became unnecessary. Oh well :-) --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)^(talk) 20:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Blu Aardvark (

Is all he did was call them trolls on his userpage once? The reason is I think a week is quite extreme for a single case unless there have been a lot of priors.

T | @ | C

22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Because following up with attacks of your own are so much better?

T | @ | C

22:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We cannot block for personal attacks (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy) please pull this block.Geni 22:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We can block for disruption and he is disruptive. He's made very little contribution to the encyclopedia since August. [16] Most of the personal attacks on his user page have been there since March 25, so he hadn't just posted them (and even if he had, it would make no difference). All he seems to do is cause trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly so. The personal attacks, while obviously in violation of policy (

WP:NPA), and certainly unwelcome, are rather run-of-the-mill; disappointingly uninspired. However, Blu Aardvark's only purpose here seems to be Wikipedia disruption; as has been pointed out, he hasn't edited fruitfully (at least under this account) for weeks. This kind of disruptive activity is a cry for help; by Blu's own admission he is disaffected and wants to leave Wikipedia. Cyde has assisted him in this. Jayjg ^(talk)

22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Longstanding practice shows we can. That policy is outdated, incorrect and illogical. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy says we can block for excessive personal attacks, and that certainly fits Blu Aardvark. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an outsider, there does appear to be a dreadful double standard there. It looks a lot like you're throwing your weight around because he annoyed you and your friends. For great justice. 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Friends"? I know very little about Cyde Weys; the first time I heard of him was on his

WP:RFA a couple of weeks ago. Jayjg ^(talk)

22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And where is the double standard? There are hundreds of administrators, it is certainly not out of partiality, if that's what you mean. Administrators have the same requirements to be as civil, if not more, than other users, so if you imply that we set a lower bar for ourselves, you are wrong.

Be eudaimonic!

) 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're sure I'm wrong, I'm just commenting on how it looks to an outsider. A bunch of people here sitting around congratulating themselves over how righteous they are to block someone who was rude to one of them. For great justice. 23:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I couldn't let this go without comment. Blu has been rude and uncivil to many editors here over an extended period of time, especially in his goodbye messages. I attempted to remove one of the personal attacks but he replaced it [17] I have no problem with this block.

Rx StrangeLove

23:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also as an outsider, I'd say a "cool down" block of 24-48 hours is appropriate, but a week a month seems a little long. --Deathphoenix ʕ 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

After futher personal attacks on established users [18], I have extended this block to one month. --

^ask?

22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Recommend increasing the length of the block after this latest blatant flaunting of policy and using sock puppets to evade a ban. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A good long wikibreak will be good for Blu. When he returns, he can explain why he psrted with such a virulent personal attack. We cannot block for personal attacks? Oh, but we can. Blue is welcome back next time he turns up, but when he does want to come back, he should be first asked to apologise for parting in such a way. Then he can proceed in normal editing without a suspicion that he feels he can come and go as he pleases, and all bad faith forgotten. --Tony Sidaway 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd concur that the block, and Doc glasgow's extension are correct given Blu Aardvark's recent contrib history and his current making of personal attacks against valued contributors. I'd have said 24-48 hrs block for the user page personal attacks alone, but coupled with a prior history of disruption in terms of incremental blocking a month would not be unreasonable. I'm not sure I'd have likely made it that long had I blocked him myself but, well, I couldn't have said there was any reason why that was inappropriate, if he has indeed become disaffected with Wikipedia and is no longer editing as a productive member of our community. --

Cyde's link is to one diff of Blu's, perhaps if someone concuring with this block could contribute more links to establish a pattern of disruption, we could get past the NPA issue? I would agree that my impressions are that Blu's contributions of late are largely critical commentary, but I don't feel it's always been in bad faith or intentionally disruptive. So to me, this seems an excessive reaction. Still, I haven't researched the issue, so (like many, I'd assume), I'm comparing it to things with Grue up above...who restored a deletion and blanked a DRV discussion in the midst of a quite busy discussion. Before blocks against either user extend past a week, could we discuss things more calmly, here or at RfC/RfAr?

The sky, last I peeked, is still up there. InkSplotch^(talk) 22:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blu has now used two socks, BIu Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Huhwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to attempt to evade this block. --Cyde Weys 23:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Add Teh_Puppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And now he's declaring his intentions to create more sockpuppets to evade the ban and vandalize: "I can change my IP faster than I can change a light bulb. If you'd rather I make bad faith edits, and become a vandal or troll, then keep doing what you are doing."[19] I think an indefinite ban is in order. --Cyde Weys 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just banned Blu Aardvark's IP used to post a threat/rant here for 48 hours,

Add another sock: Howzhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Cyde Weys 23:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, guess it's not my day to play the voice of reason. Still, one last try. Blu, the "if you insist on calling me the bad guy, I'll give you a bad guy" tactic has never worked. It will not reverse any blocks, it will not win any admins to your side, and it will not call down retribution against anyone you consider a troll. If it makes you feel better, well, not much else to say except Wikipedia was never here to make you feel better. Please reconsider your sock attacks, it helps no one to go out in a blaze.

--InkSplotch^(talk) 23:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand you're upset, but I've just looked at the debate over on DRV again, and Blu, it's you you starts slinging the profanity first (among you, Slimvirgin and JayJG). You probably could have continued to clarify your position on those issues if you hadn't let go of your language. Now, those who think you're a troll feel more and more vindicated by your reactions and use of sockpuppets.

If you blame Wikipedia, and I don't for a second think you do, there are many here who won't stop until you're gone. If you blame a few editors for misrepresenting you and your beliefs to discredit you in an argument, your best course of action is to take a 24-48 hour break from things to let everything cool down. When you're ready, mediation might help.

As for the blocks, if Blu agrees to stop posting through socks and seek resolution of his differences with Slimvirgin and JayJG through the official dispute process, would admins here agree to reduce his block down to 48 hours? I think we can all see he's angry, but that he's not out cause real damage.

--InkSplotch^(talk) 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute with Jay or myself. We've had almost nothing to do with him, and in fact the first I heard of him was when he started the personal attacks on me. He's also launched attacks on others, including Raul654, Kelly Martin, Grace Note, and Malber. The sockpuppetry is simply him showing his true colors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry is simply him showing his true colors. is a pretty determanistic phrase for someone you've had little contact with. While his disputes may not be with you, they're cetainly over perceptions of him and his website. I don't think much can redeem his website, and my vote on the DRV reflects that. But if it colors perceptions of him, I feel he has the right to clarify things. I just think he went about it entirely the wrong way tonight.

I'm not asking for a dismissal of charges, just a bit of leiency if he's willing to admit he's been disruptive in his personal attacks, and a chance to seek proper resolution after a reasonable cooling off period. And I'm sorry, I don't see how one month is a resonable period, unless a more comprehensive history of NPA violations can be presented.

--InkSplotch^(talk) 00:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this block. In fact, he says he's leaving, and due to the fact that he's contributed nothing to the encyclopedia and has continued to make vile personal attacks, with sockpuppets, I see no reason he shouldn't be blocked indefinitely.--

Honestly if people are going to come here and act all nice, and ten leave with attacks, and when blocked for attacks say "okay I'll come back and be nasty", you have to wonder whether they ever had any really good intentions in the first place. I used to have some respect for Blu Aardvark. That respect was misplaced. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology to those involved

Allow me to make an apology to those whom I have offended by my actions. Sometimes what I need most in cases like this is a little time away from the computer. There was no excuse for my personal attacks, or the sockpuppets I used to launch more personal attacks. I know that technically, I am blocked, so I shouldn't be leaving this message, but I do ask whoever is watching this page to consider leaving the message here rather than reverting it. I will from this point on respect the block, although I do want to make clear that I disagree with it vehemently. What Cyde should have done was to talk to me and ask me to change my userpage; instead, he changed it for me and blocked me for a week. At the same time, I was trying to clarify accusations that I am an anti-Semite, Nazi sympathyzer [sic], or a even a Nazi myself. Those accusations hurt, regardless of what you think of me or of Wikipedia Review.

Again, I do apologize for my actions, because whether I was right or wrong, I went about things in the wrong way. User:Blu Aardvark, at 72.160.85.198 04:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be so much more convincing if you weren't continuing to make personal attacks off-site and saying it's a shame that you only have one aged sockpuppet left to get around a semi-protected page, which I believe you posted after the above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we aren't seeing eye-to-eye. I don't see stating that I feel that such an edit consists of censorship is a personal attack. I don't think that you should be delinking sites because you don't agree with them. First of all, the whole idea of doing that doesn't seem to make much sense to me - basically, you don't want a search engine to follow it, for whatever reason - maybe it's full of hate speech, or whatever - but when a person copy+pastes the URL in their browser, it's stored in the autocomplete. How is that better? It's less convienent for all parties, and if the site really is THAT bad, it's stored in a person's browser autocomplete until they clear it - if indeed they know how. As for search engine caching, I don't think that's a serious issue. Maybe it would raise the site in search results by one hit, bringing it to, say, page 36 on a relevant internet search. (Seriously, the site isn't that relevant or notable - even a search for "Wikipedia Review" in quotes only turns the site up on the seventh or eight result.) As for the sockpuppet, yes, I do have an additional one, but I do not intend to use that sockpuppet to violate policy (Well, maybe to perform constructive edits if a ridulous ban is kept, but I honestly don't feel that to be abuse). I'd rather not identify it, because, well, that would defeat the purpose of having it around. User:Blu Aardvark, at 72.160.85.198 09:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder

I wonder, what if everbody had just cooled down a bit? Blu called some respected people 'trolls'. He was banned for what, a week? Vandals get treated better that that. It seems to happen quite a few times that the notion of proportionality (law) is abandoned. People on the receiving end of the block perceive this as unjust and then start to fight back. And strangely, we are surprised and blame 'em for it. What if, instead of blocking him, people would just have practiced some Tact^tm and gone to his page to say 'this is uncalled for, maybe you should take some time away from the comp'. Would that have spurred him to an uncontrollable sockpuppet frenzy as well? I wonder. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 08:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal only accounts tend to get blocked indefinitely, dunno but to my mind that's worse than a 1 week block. --pgk^(talk) 09:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK, this situation is probbly beyond repair. And Blu and wikipedia are most likely on the road to parting company for good. But since his above posts indicate a slightly cooler tone, it is probably worth an attempt at going the extra mile. Socks stink, but talk is normally good, so I'm going to unprotect his talk page for now so a conversation becomes possible. Any further socks, or anything that even smells of a personal attack and it should be protected again (and I'll be watching offsite too). But let's see if we can't cool things. --
  ^ask?
  10:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems User:Zadil has mailed several administrators following a block by User:SlimVirgin, from what I've managed to find from this rather vague information, the block seems justified, I'm just posting the message here in case someone more involved would like to add something:

Subject: unfair block

it seems like user SlimVirgin is abusing his privilages in the midst of a discussion.
please, note my follwoing complaints:
1)the above user has blocked me for no apparent valid reason.
2)He has used the block in the midst of a dicussion, and then took the freedom to revert my edit.
3)He has nominiate a new article by me for "speedy deletion" and indeed deleted it without any discussion. I'ts indeed a shame that I can not provide you any link to that article, but it was -in my humble opinion- a very useful article.
4)He has used threats against me and still use in the midst of discussion, a fact I’ve already complaint and was assured by Benon that they better should be ignored. (see my user page)<br 5)He has took to privilage of my block to "vandalise" my user page", a fact which is the most disturbing.

Please, if you can, take the trouble to look my relevant edits and ublock me. It is really unfair to have such
"discussion" on wikipedia. And may I suggest, that an administrator who constantly uses threants and indeed blocks other users in the midst of discussion, should be deprived from such privileges.

-

Already wondered why he picked me to complain to? Both the block and the deletion of

Ruud

23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've had to unblock him because User:Wisden17 contacted me to say he'd been caught up in the block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did Wisden17 not give his IP address? Zadil should be blocked, especially if he continues his current trends. Just zis Guy you know? 08:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wisden17 did give me his IP address, which seemed to be dynamic, so I asked him if he could reboot to get another one, but he didn't seem too happy about doing that, so I unblocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Raith Preston (talk · contribs). Left this (a Zephram-uploaded image) on my talk page. Then began to rvt various articles back to version by prev sockpuppets. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• tick tock boom. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redundant -1 Cyde Weys 16:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redundant -1 Cyde Weys 16:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• And User:Xyloyl and User:Iceni. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Malicious sockpuppet, I daresay. Has constructed vindictive edits and refuses to listen to reason. Requesting an immediate indefinite block.

^{P.S.: April Fools!} -

I've blocked for indefinite. No foolin.--MONGO 05:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redundant -1 Cyde Weys 16:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Xyloyl (talk · contribs). First edits removing entries from list of Zephram sockpuppets. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, with this username, he now has a sockpuppet beginning with every letter of the alphabet (see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Zephram Stark). --JW1805 (Talk) 15:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Someone please block this one, he's still reverting. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Bang. Doc please. Have you ever thought of RfA for yourself? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Now check out Iceni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the madness never ends!!!! --TML1988 15:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Mm-hm. It's really not much different from when he was at least pretending to try to be a useful contributor to Wkpda -- a dogged persistance and self-centeredness that paid no regard to community or collateral effects. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Joshuaz (contributions), who signs himself "JoshuaZ", clearly knows of the existence of User:JoshuaZ and may well have a beef with him. (See this.) -- Hoary 08:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on JoshuaZ's talk page asking him about it. --FloNight ^talk 11:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The user certainly isn't me. I strongly suspect that the user is 67.183.90.139 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (see his talk page especially, he seems to think I'm someone from some "zerohorizon.com" forum.) This may be the same person who is at 67.160.125.47. JoshuaZ 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

While we're here does someone want to explain on his talk page that saying "However, if it makes you feel better" is not a violation of

WP:CIVIL either or alternatively, tell me if I'm wrong here? JoshuaZ

17:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can someone take a look at whatever is going on at the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Funkastophales? The same anon seems to now be claiming that a) the Joshuaz account was not that user (I am strongly skeptical of this) and has furthermore produced screen shots claiming to show someone using this user name at zerohorizon forum to engage in attacks and inflammatory rhetoric. The screen shots also show the individual having a link to my Wikipedia user page in their sig. This is ridiculous for among other reasons, 1) I don't use my user page as a personal webpage by any stretch of the imagination and explicitly frown upon extra material on user pages (and say so on my user page). 2) The user that this individual claims is me also uses vulgar vocab that I think everyone who knows me on Wikipedia would know that I don't use in disputes. Can some impartial admin please get to the bottom of this? My current guess is that User:Benapgar(who i was involved in getting indefinitely banned from Wikipedia) is behind this. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

See also

• Informative +1 Cyde Weys 16:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Edheimer Beer-Drinks (talk · contribs · count) would appear to be a sockpuppet for the north carolina vandal. Edits include blanking WP:NCV and using names associated with the vandal. Kuru ^talk 15:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Informative +1 Cyde Weys 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; that's exactly who it is (I had blocked his IP range for three hours last night because he was making tons of attack accounts). I blocked E B-D and tagged it as NCV. Antandrus (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Users constantly reverting article to their POV version [20] [21] [22] while ignoring (and not continuing participation in) discussion and sources on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. SouthernComfort 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• +1 Underrated Cyde Weys 16:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • +1 Troll --SPUI (talk - RFC) 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? SouthernComfort 17:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See Cyde's new user page. JoshuaZ 17:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. SouthernComfort 17:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. --kingboyk 17:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Absolutely horrible, terrible, and ill-conceived. SouthernComfort 18:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Knock it off, Cyde. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the following account may be Willy on Wheels or a Willy on Wheels imposter (bold accounts have not been blocked yet:

• Facts&moreFacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Earthling37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robot32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Steve1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fargo3455 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Science3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nintendo5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GarageDoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Remohol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richard_F. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shoppers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snowball_Earth_Hypothesis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StarTrek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Troogol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not sure about this one.
• 64.192.107.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 64.194.44.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Proposed to move the Main Page to Main Page on wheels today.
• 64.194.44.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Appart from the similarity in user names they also have the same edit behaviour:

• Have edited Names of large numbers, Other names of large numbers, Jonathan Bowers or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other names of large numbers.
• Has a user page staing something along the lines "Hi, I'm from Florida. Here a lot of oranges grow and there's a lot of sunshine." or "Hello. I've been reading about the snowball Earth hypothesis."
• Edits "dictionary enties" (e.g. articles like
  Fire alarm
  ).
• Votes on a few AfDs.
• Moves several articles to change the capitalization.
• Gets blocked for (possibly) being Willy on Wheels or page move vandalism.

Should they be blocked now or should we wait until they are used for page move vandalism? —

• Block'em. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I've been able to track them all down (see
    Ruud
    00:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bringing related incidents together. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chad "Corntassel" Smith Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:PeyoteMan blocked Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johnc1 at Chad "Corntassel" Smith

• Currently 65.69.154.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly inserting the content from a full newspaper article, of course copyright violation. Multiple warnings without results and needs a block.

This is part of larger attack on this article. Summary of collected incidents.

• Registered user Johnc1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on a one week block for similar editing problems on this page.

• PeyoteMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) block as a sockpuppet reincarnation of Jeff Merkey also targeted this article.

• 67.169.249.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is putting messages on a multiple administrator/editor's user talk pages making assertions about these incidents. [23] Good Samaritan or attention seeking behavior?

• talks_to_birds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also weighing in on the incident. [24]

Not sure how much of this is a single or multiple users? --FloNight ^talk 18:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where to report blocks for approval. (Originally I did in Wikipedia:Account suspensions, but it seems that about nobody looks there anymore. So I am trying here.) Anyway: Uga_booga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) thinks it's fun to upload nonsense images to Wikipedia and replace proper ones with them (and to add a few cases of userpage vandalism for good measure); I have blocked him indefinitely. Seems to be related to Commons user Assdonkey. - Mike Rosoft 19:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow?diff=prev&oldid=46494842
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow?diff=next&oldid=46494842

Doc glasgow (

I do not see personal attacks in either of the difs you provide. Those statements are not aimed at anyone one person. He's only calling you a troll if you are one, no? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV. Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack. Kelly Martin (talk

) 20:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Reverts Doc Glasgow
• Reverts again
• Reverts pgk
• Reverts NicholasTurnbull

I have not edit warred (unlike our friend). I delisted bad faith DRV nominations, archived the debates, and clearly marked up what I was doing. I have answered Bob's points patiently on the talk page of DRV and on my own talk page. As to whether he could be called a troll, I could not possible comment. --

^ask?

21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Though only editor misbehaving here is the one accusing Doc of misbehavior. Jayjg ^(talk)

After a stanious 1 month block after the offences listed on this evidence page, the user had his talk page protected due to consistantly removing admin warnings and directing abuse at admins. The user kept placing the unblock template on his talk page, abusing several admins, and removing their denied unblocks from his talk page. The user eventually had his talk page protected and used a sockpuppet to disrupt the ANI board, logged int he archives. The user has since deleted all the warnings from his talk page when the page was unprotected [25], violating WP Policy, his Abbirition Ruling and his 1 Month Block. Ley Shade 21:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I assumed too much good faith in asking User:Freakofnurture to unprotect the talk page. It has been reprotected. Stifle 22:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We've had some misunderstandings regarding the

All two pages in Delaware were moved to their correct names. Colorado was what, eight? Your claim that this was disruption does not hold up. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We're looking at the entire state highway system of the United States. If we don't do this then the 1,500+ state highway pages will eventually be moved. How does that not disrupt Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How does it disrupt Wikipedia to move them to the correct names? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not the correct names.^{[citation needed]} Also, there is no consensus, and this destroys the power of it. Then people will revert your moves. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

People don't need to get consensus before making ANY EDIT as you seem to think they do. Wikipedia would grind to a crawl if we accepted your idea that everything needs to be discussed before being done. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but to move 300 pages you do need consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Are you ignoring

be bold in updating pages? —Locke Cole • t • c

00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruption? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs

) 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong and wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC) -- To be clear, neither page says you must get consensus before making edits. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM does. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs

) 01:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Two things: 1) it's neither a policy nor a guideline, and 2) it specifically says only disputed moves should be brought there (and generally emphasises moves which cannot be fixed without the assistance of a sysop (where the desired target already exists and is not a redirect)). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course these are disputed moves. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying every move of a highway article is going to be disputed by you? That sounds like disruption to me... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First, you don't unilaterally expand the

WP:BLOCK (specifically, the section titled "When not to block"). —Locke Cole • t • c

00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not in my own favor- we can't move the

State Route 1 (California) pages back, there are some that are stuck there for now. And what am I supposed to do- wait for another sysop to respond while you move all 200 Washington State Route pages? The policy was handed down, I only enforced it. What is more, you were unblocked for 15 minutes by myself. Don;t omit that critical fact. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs

) 00:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This so-called policy applied to move warring, which doesn't apply to Locke Cole's Washington moves. It may however apply to PHenry's reverts. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and don't omit the critical fact that you demanded that I agree not to move any pages before you'd unblock me. Maybe just a little conflict of interest there, eh? And I'd hardly call your position a poor one: just because a few pages are at names you don't prefer, the vast majority are still at the names you prefer. Finally, nothing was "handed down" (and I use the term in quotes because that's not how policy is expanded) that grants you the right to violate

WP:BLOCKs "when not to block". —Locke Cole • t • c

00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the blocking decision: get people to stop moving pages until we can come to a decision. SPUI would not agree to this (diff on RFC page) so we had to implement the blocking measure.

You don't get it: you don't have the authority to create some rule here on AN/I. Further, as an involved party, you don't have the right to enforce blocks as you've done with me. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but we have the ability to interpret rules. And I didn;t do the interpretation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not when you're involved in the dispute you don't. And you certainly can't expand existing policy on a whim and with little outside discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So you would rather that I have reported it to this page or

WP:AIV? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs

) 01:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if reporting it to

WP:AIV would have done any good (it's a content dispute, not vandalism), but yes, reporting it here and asking for assistance is entirely appropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c

01:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically, admins don't check this page that often. What is one supposed to do when someone is mass-moving pages and you can't block? Wait while even more pages are moved? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually, because if there's some problem it can all be undone. (Please see

Deferred gratification). —Locke Cole • t • c

01:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not when we can't revert the pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Who says you can't? I'm not the one making it impossible to revert moves. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 02:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, we don't have the permission to. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A condition arbitrarily imposed. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 02:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to even bring this up, because everyone who speaks up about SPUI seems to end up getting harassed by his clique, but, um... oh, just look. In case anyone's given any thought to User:Rschen7754's request for clarification up there, assuming anyone besides us even cares anymore, someone might want to, um, do something about it. Or not. Whatever. Doesn't matter anymore. --phh 04:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's fixing a number of Rhode Island pages. Good job SPUI! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Well, never mind then. --phh 04:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Against

WP:NC/NH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs

) 04:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhm.. no. As below, it was decided each state should be handled individually. He's doing this. What's the problem now? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)