Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive91

I have a problem. it's best summoned up with the comments I made on talk page. The following is copied from here.

Hi Fang Aili. I'd like to request some support in the spirit of defend each-other. I've been having some problems with an anon user

WP:PAIN but I doubt that will result in any kind of permanent resolution. Thanks, ---J.Smith

07:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I posted this on Fang's talk page before I noticed fang was on a wikipedia. I chatted with the fine people at #wikipedia and they suggested I post here... so here I am. Instead of rewriting my comments I just copied.

What I'd like is some outside opinions and perhaps stronger actions if you think it warrants it. Or, alternatively, if I'm in the wrong here I'd really like to know before I make myself look like any more of a fool. Thanks! ---J.Smith 08:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to block

.

He recently engaged in an edit war at Synarchism, deleting or modifying criticism of LaRouche six times over a couple of days. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I left a note on his talk page warning him that his edits were a violation of the arbcom rulings. [7] [8]

wHe stopped editing the article, but yesterday left a note for another LaRouche activist, BirdsOfFire (talk · contribs), asking him to make the edits instead, [9] which BirdsOfFire did a few hours later, even though he's only an occasional editor (90 edits in four months.) [10] I see Herschelkrustofsky's use of BirdsOfFire, whether as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, as a violation of the ruling and of his probation, and I'd therefore like to block Herschel for three days and reset the ban on LaRouche-related editing. Other input would be much appreciated. I've pasted the pertinent rulings below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest getting an immediate ip check on BirdsOfFire because if it is indeed a sock (as the patterns appear to be the same and the infrequency of the BirdsOfFire edits seem to suggest) then indef. block... I would also suggest bringing this back up to the arbcom if this continues for potential re-evaluation of the ruling to see if an indef. ban might be needed for Herschelkrustofsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegasus1138 (talk • contribs)

• CheckUser confirms both userids are using the same IP ranges. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay and Pegasus. I've blocked BirdsOfFire indefinitely as a sockpuppet and I'm going to block Herschel for three days and reset the ban. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also banned Herschel from editing

Wikipedia:Probation. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

05:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, at this point it may be worth it to ask the arbcom to revisit the ruling since Hershcel has repeatedly violated the ruling and has created numerous sockpuppets to try to get around it, though for the love of me I don't see how anyone can be so obsessed about Lyndon Larouche to purposefully violate 5 or 6 major guidelines at a time trying to POV skew the article about him. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. I don't mind spending time or conceding points to get articles right, but it ticks me off when it turns out that other editors are pulling stunts that make the job more difficult or that take advantage of the system. The aggressive POV pushing by HK and (what have turned out to be) his puppets is an abuse consensus and of our open editing. In previous ArbCom cases HK could argue that he aided the project on topics unrelated (or barely-related) to LaRouche, like classical music, but recently he has only worked on LaRouche-related articles. I don't think that anopther ArbCom case is needed - the previous cases included addtional enforcement procedures that we just need to follow. -Will Beback 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I use one computer only. No one else has access to this computer. It automatically logs on to this screen name, and I never log off this screen name. SlimVirgin's accusations of sockpuppetry are an entirely fraudulent and dishonest vehicle for pushing her POV. As far as IP ranges are concerned, I access the internet from an AOL account in the Los Angeles area; there may well be a few dozen other Wikipedia editors who are using these IP ranges as you read this post.

I don't know what the IP addresses are, but I'm guessing they're the same ones that were identified during LaRouche 2 that seemed to have been used by you and at least one of the other LaRouche accounts. In my view, it's more than a cooincidence that another person using AOL in Los Angeles uses the same two IP ranges, edits the same articles from the same LaRouche POV, and even though he hasn't edited in days is there within hours to revert to your version after you ask him to on his talk page. Of course, that doesn't mean you're necessarily the same person; it could be another member of the LaRouche movement that you use as a back-up, but that counts as sockpuppetry for the purposes of LaRouche 2. I don't see what difference it makes, in terms of your probation, whether you're physically making LaRouche edits or asking someone else to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You have made accusations of sockpuppetry, and yet you "don't know what the IP addresses are"; you're "guessing." I would like Jayjg to come forward and reveal the IP addresses involved, in order to take the guesswork out of this. But then you say that it doesn't really matter, that BirdsOfFire is a "member of the LaRouche movement" anyway. Well, he says he isn't on his talk page, and you routinely brand anyone that gets in your a way a "LaRouche activist." You say that I "asked BirdsOfFire to make the edits instead"; my words on his talk page were "I wanted to call your attention to another article, Synarchism, which the Berlet crowd is attempting to convert into a soapbox." Since we are talking about further admin sanctions against my editing, I think that you ought to have the decency to come up with some real evidence, instead of a bunch of half-truths.--HK 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The article

.)

What counts as an article closely related to LaRouche is up to the administrator, and these edits were about LaRouche. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Likewise, re-setting my ban for yet another year, based on spurious charges of sockpuppetry, should be regarded as an example of SlimVirgin's underhanded Nacht und Nebel tactics at their worst. I will emphasize in closing that SlimVirgin and Will Beback are not disinterested Wikipedia admins, merely trying to bring order and make the trains of Wikipedia run on time. They are both impassioned anti-LaRouche activists. One of SlimVirgin's first interventions into Wikipedia was the creation of the attack article

20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You've tried many times to tar me with the label "anti-LaRouche activist." If that were true, I'd have rushed to the LaRouche pages to delete your pro-LaRouche edits as soon as you were banned, but in fact I've hardly looked at them. My interest is only in making sure you don't introduce even more POV, and that you abide by the terms of the arbcom rulings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a division of labor here; slanting the LaRouche articles in a defamatory way (in violation of

Jeremiah Duggan. Although I know of no Wikipedia policy that says you should recuse yourself from the use of admin powers in controversies where you play such a partisan role, I should think that common decency would dictate that you do so. --HK

23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The 23:45, 3 April 2006 post on this page by

decision. According to the most recent arbcom ruling, if Herschelkrustofsky is disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia by making the personal attacks such as the ones posted above, admins are supposed to note the following:

Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Herschelkrustofsky's probation shall automatically end.

Arbcom rulings are meaningless unless admins enforce them. If Herschelkrustofsky is causing disruption on the administrators' noticeboard, the arbcom instructs admins to block him for up to one year for disregarding his probation. 172 | Talk 02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should propose an enforcement in this case, pursuant to the ArbCom's rulings. -Will Beback 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request a review (by unbiased, third party administrators) of SlimVirgin's actions in blocking me and re-setting the one year ban. BirdsOfFire is not my sockpuppet, and I would like to see some sort of evidence that would justify SlimVirgin's actions, other than her own POV agenda. I would likewise like to request a review of Will Beback's actions in blocking me and re-setting my ban on September 30 of 2005, after he had initiated an edit war at the article American System (economics). I had not added material on LaRouche or his ideas to this article since the time of the first LaRouche Arbcom decision, although other editors (including Will Beback) have subsequently done so. Will Beback professes to hold the singular point of view that the entire school of economic thought known as the American System is a "LaRouche concept" [11]. Will abused his admin powers by misrepresenting my edits to this article; he insisted that a reference to the Centennial Exposition represented "material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche," a fanciful theory which I regard as an entirely illegitimate reading of the ArbCom decision. Since Will re-set my one year ban in September of last year on the basis of this theory, other editors have begun working on this article, and the section which was disputed by Will Beback has been restored, not by myself, but by consensus of those editing the article[12]. --HK 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

HK, you have pushed an unusual POV into several articles recently in a disruptive manner, exactly the behavior for which you have been thrice-chastened by the ArbCom. Lyndon LaRouche has eclectic interests, and so many articles are involved that it would be ineffective to block each individually. Therefore, rather than blocking a small number of articles for a long period, I think that a shorter general ban is more apt. The ArbCom has asked any three admins to agree to parole enforcements, and authorizes bans of up to a year. In this instance I propose a general ban of one month. The community has decided repeatedly that it is not going to promulgate ideosyncratic ideologies on the same basis as common wisdom. -Will Beback 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback is now charging me with having "pushed an unusual POV in a disruptive manner." Even if this accusation were warranted (and made in good faith,) I believe that I would still be within my rights to ask that these accusations be examined by neutral administrators who are not party to the long-standing conflict between myself and SlimVirgin/Will Beback. I contend that these two are attempting to misuse the arbcom rulings as a tactic in POV pushing; if these accusations against me were coming from other admins with no ideological axe to grind, they would carry considerably greater weight. SlimVirgin/Will Beback are attempting to establish a tautology whereby I am designated a "LaRouche editor," therefore any article I edit becomes "LaRouche related" (this is the essential basis for Will Beback's list,) and consequently any edit that I make violates the arbcom rulings, ipso facto. Any editor who agrees with me then becomes a "meat puppet," and may be banned by SlimVirgin without warning or explanation. I hope that there are some admins reading this who can see how harmful to Wikipedia it can be, if these tactics by SlimVirgin/Will Beback go unchallenged. --HK 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You're a self-confessed LaRouche activist, and have been for, as I recall, 30 years or so. You're on indefinite probation and banned from editing LaRouche pages or making pro-LaRouche edits. You have continued to do so from time to time, ignoring that ruling. After repeatedly reverting criticism of LaRouche at Synarchism, I reminded you of the ruling and asked you to stop editing that article. Note: I asked you to stop; I didn't block you. You responded by asking another LaRouche editor (who has made only 62 edits to the encyclopedia, most of them LaRouche-related), and who edits from within the same two IP ranges as you, to revert on your behalf, which he did, though he'd never edited that page before. You must have known this was a violation of the spirit of the ruling, yet you felt confident about doing it, because in fact the LaRouche rulings have not been strictly enforced against you. In addition, the other editor hadn't edited in days, yet was able to revert for you within hours of your request. You were therefore blocked for three days (though it could have been much longer) and had your ban reset. You returned from that block making personal attacks and allegations of corruption, as you do at every available opportunity. Now you're wondering why you're being accused of disruption.

If you really want to settle down and become a decent editor, the simple solution is to stay away from any article (or part thereof) that deals with LaRouche or his ideas, and stop making personal attacks. For some reason, you find that course of action impossible. I would definitely support a longer block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, accusations made against me by SlimVirgin and Will Beback should be evaluated in light of their shared and strongly held POV. Both of them have now sought out opportunities to block me and re-set my one year ban, on grounds which I do not believe can stand up to scrutiny by neutral administrators. However, no other admin has found fault with my editing. I have not received so much as a complaint, let alone a warning, from anyone other than SlimVirgin and Will Beback, since the LaRouche 2 arbcom decision. In the "Nobs01 and others" decision which they cite, there was no finding of fact against me. And, I am not alone in alleging that these two have abused their admin powers to further a POV-pushing agenda. There have been numerous other complaints against these two; see, for example,

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/03. The present accusations against me should be evaluated by neutral third parties. --HK

21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Far from having "sought out opportunities to block" you, this is, I believe, the first time I've done so since the case against you 15 months ago. As for your having "not received so much as a complaint" from anyone other than Will and me, it was in fact 172 who asked me to look at your activities at Synarchism, and apart from Will and me, people who have complained to the arbcom about you, resulting each time in remedies against you, have been Snowspinner, Cberlet, Adam Carr, AndyL, and John Kenney, all good editors. In Nobs01 and others, you were placed on indefinite probation, which sounds to me as though the arbcom is tired of seeing the same behavior from you, so for you to conclude that you have "not received so much as a complaint" from anyone other than Will and me is a little misleading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My reference to complaints was with respect to other admins; the arbcom rulings that pertain to me are administered by administrators, not Wikipedia editors in general. My understanding is that 172 agreed to cease functioning as an admin after the second arbitration case against him. Snowspinner initiated the 2nd LaRouche case, but I have not heard from him since that time, and if you will take a look at my post above, what I wrote was "However, no other admin has found fault with my editing. I have not received so much as a complaint, let alone a warning, from anyone other than SlimVirgin and Will Beback, since the LaRouche 2 arbcom decision." This is in fact the case. --HK 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe your ban has been reset three times: once by Snowspinner [13], once by Will, and now once by me. The reason a small number of admins are dealing with you is that we're the ones who are familar with your editing pattern. As I said above, the full-proof way to avoid attention is to stop making personal attacks and to stay away from pages that deal with Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas. We have over one million articles, so that shouldn't be so hard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The moment I edit any article, it goes on Will's list of "LaRouche-related articles." I don't recall why Snowspinner re-set my ban, but in the case of Will Beback, it was re-set because of an edit dispute at American System (economics) that had nothing to do with LaRouche. Will Beback and 172 have both adopted the tactic of crying "LaRouche!" whenever one or the other disagrees with me (see Talk:Privatization and Talk:Anti-Defamation League.) In your case, you re-set my ban because of an edit made by another editor, who you then claimed, without proof, was my sockpuppet. I would like this whole business reviewed by a neutral third party. If I were as "disruptive" as you and Will Beback claim, I am certain that other admins would have noticed, regardless of whether they were "familiar with my editing patterns." --HK 00:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the list of LaRouche related topics is not the same as your edit contributions. The number of redlinks alone should make that clear. It is no coincidence that virtually all of your edits are to topics related to LaRouche. Adding LaRouche theories to unrelated Wikipedia articles is not permitted, but you have persisted in doing so in an disruptive manner. The linkage between Lyndon LaRouche and the American System is well-known, and the particular theory you were adding can be referenced only from LaRouche sources. You have never shown contrition or admitted any wrongdoing in your three ArbCom cases, and it has become characteristic for you to protest your innocence and claim a conspiracy against you. -Will Beback 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I reset your ban because you asked another pro-LaRouche account to revert to your version of a page, where you had minimized criticism of LaRouche, an edit you'd been told violated the arbcom ruling. You must have known that getting someone else to do it was as bad as doing it yourself.

As I keep saying, the way to ensure that Will has nothing else to add to his page of your LaRouche-related edits is not to make any. Don't edit LaRouche pages, or pages about LaRouche-related ideas, or any sentence or paragraph about LaRouche on an unrelated page. And don't encourage other editors to do it for you. Then you'll be abiding by the terms of the three rulings against you: LaRouche 1, LaRouche 2, and the Nobs01 probation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I insist that the claims by Will Beback and SlimVirgin are disingenuous, and I ask that a neutral third party review the facts of the matter. --HK 06:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am merely pointing out that I, a AFAIK "neutral thrid party" have reviewed "the facts of the matter" and consider SlimVirgin's actions to be justified and correct as I posted on a talk page some days ago. HK seems to have somehow missed this.

JesseW, the juggling janitor

23:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I have. What talk page would that be? --HK 00:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it on User talk:SlimVirgin: you say that "HK makes no credible answer to the claim of sockpupetry except to say 'it didn't happen.'" My response, there as well as here, is to say the following: "Please note that until some evidence of sockpuppetry is presented, there is not much to which I may respond." Allow me to reiterate that I am asking a neutral admin to take a look, also, at the decision by Willmcw/Will Beback, back in September, to re-set my ban, based on the theory that a reference to the Centennial Exposition is somehow "promotion of LaRouche." The instructions at the top of this page indicate that this is an appropriate location to complain about the conduct of admins. Note also that although SlimVirgin has twice claimed in this discussion that I asked BirdsOfFire to revert specific edits, you can see for yourself on his talk page that I said only that I wished to call the article Synarchism to his attention. The idea that he then became my "meatpuppet" is highly speculative and a reflection of SlimVirgin's relentless POV pushing. --HK 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked for a neutral admin to look at the block and resetting of the ban. A neutral admin looked at it, and agrees it was done correctly. Now you're arguing with the neutral admin. It's also disingenuous of you to deny that you posted to the BirdsOfFire account page that the account should revert to your version at Synarchism. Clearly, by saying you wanted to "call it to his attention," you were not asking him to revert against you. The arbcom ruling is clear: any account making the same pattern of edits as you, and judged by admins to be a sockpuppet of yours, should be blocked indefinitely. We don't need technical evidence. But in addition, that account and yours both edit from the same two IP ranges. It's therefore not clear to me what evidence you're asking to see. You know what IP ranges you edit from. So whatever they are, BirdsOfFire edits from the same ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that SlimVirgin and Will Beback have adopted an impermissably broad interpretation of the Arbcom decision known as "Nobs01 and others". This decision names Cognition and myself as "LaRouche editors"[14]; no other parties are named, and SlimVirgin and Will Beback have arrogated to themselves the authority to apply this ruling to other editors, as an excuse to apply administrative sanctions during edit disputes. At

22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BirdsOfFire made 62 edits to articles, at least 45 of which were pro-LaRouche (and some of those on unrelated pages may have been too, but I haven't checked), and he made 27 edits to talk, all of which were pro-LaRouche. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This provides the interested bystander with another glimpse into SlimVirgin's POV agenda. By her reasoning, such things as asking for verifiable sources at LaRouche articles, or posting the POV dispute tag, are classified as "pro-LaRouche edits." These articles are full of speculation and

23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This interested bystander is impressed by SlimVirgin's continuing courtesy and impartiality in the face of constant attacks on her character. Snottygobble 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What the Herschelkrustofsky rulings say

• (Nobs01) Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on
  Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year." [15]
• (LaRouche 2)"Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." [16]
• "Herschelkrustofsky is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way." [17]
• "Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect." [18]
• "If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles ..." [19]
• (LaRouche1) "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as 'promotion' of Lyndon LaRouche." [20]

HK enforcement

HK, aka Herschelkrustofsky (

)

• Previous ArbCom rulings:
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others
  • The previous ArbCom cases put HK on POV parole and Probation, forbid him from using sock puppets, and agreed that any three administrators may agree on editing bans on specific articles and a general ban of up to one year, in addition to other provisions.

• Other pages:
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive17#Removal of NPOV dispute tags
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive35#172
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive7#Complaint about re-insertions of LaRouche original research
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive4#Herschelkrustofsky
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive45#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#User:Herschelkrustofsky (recent)

• Topics from which HK is currently banned:
• "any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche" (" Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article.")
• Chip Berlet
• Political Research Associates
• Dennis King

• HK has engaged recently in disruptive editing and promotion of LaRouche theories in these additional articles, topics about which LaRouche has strong opinions:
• American System (economics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anti-Defamation League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dirigisme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Synarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• HK has engaged in edit warring, promotion of Lyndon LaRouche's theories, possible sock puppet abuse (User:BirdsOfFire), negative personal comments [21], and general disruption of the project, all in violation of specific previous ArbCom enforcements for those same behaviors. I believe some remedial action is required. I propose that the articles he has been disrupting (ADL, American System, Dirigisme, and Synarchism) be added to the list of articles he is banned from, and that he be banned from general editing for two weeks. -Will Beback 08:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin endorsements

(Three required)

1. Will Beback 08:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - Sounds reasonable to me. Pretty gross violation.
3. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Bishonen | talk 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC) — can't count.
5. Thryduulf 12:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC) — only 3 are required but more endorsement can't harm
6. Good work Fred Bauder 13:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

There's no point in my reiterating what I have already said in response to these charges. I only hope that the endorsing admins have read those responses, both on my talk page, and above on this page (in case the earlier discussion on this page may be moved, I have archived it here.) --HK 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE - ARBCOM YOU MUST STEP IN AND STOP THIS HARASSMENT AND DEFAMATION:

• First - Dirigisme has no relation to LaRouche.
• Second - American System is supported by LaRouche but is a historical American philosophy that LaRouche neither invented or added anything credit worthy too. He supports it, and just because he likes this old American idea does not mean it is a LaRouche idea.
• Third - I consider the above actions by the above admins, Harassment of HK - as this user has only engaged in constructive debate and talk on the pages Will Beback talks of. I should know because of the abusive behavior Will Beback has shown to myself and HK since I arrived here in February. Will Beback has been admonished by Arbcom for this type of behavior in the past.
• Fourth - The edits HK has done at American System and Dirigisme have never been to promote LaRouche. Not once have I seen him do this. If there is proof of this show it, don't just accuse. This is not a Inquisitor's court, HK has some rights of innocent until proven guilty here. I have seen nothing but harassment from Slimvirgin, Will Beback and others associated with this small admin group including user 172.
• Fifth - The previous mentioned users and admins have on numerous occasions refer ed to HK as being a member of a 'cult' and other such nonsense and personal attacks. That is hardly the conduct of an Administrator.
• Hence, this is an obvious attempt at further harassment, personal attack, and political vendetta against a user who I have seen only cordial engagement from since I arrived and although I am not a LaRouche supporter by any stretch of the imagination - judging by the civility of HK and the hostility shown by the group that now charges him as if they were re-incarnates from Salem, MASS. during the witch frenzy - I'd caution any user and editor from what they say about HK's affiliations and group he is associated with.
• And, let me make this very clear...this is not the first time per Arbcom rulings that people have brought charges against the abusive behavior of Slimvirgin and Will Beback, among others who always seem to congregate around each other and always seem to sign off with and edit in a very particular fashion that that socks are known of. Can I prove this? No. But it can be looked into and I request it officially. They are charging HK with sock-puppetry despite the fact he uses AOL and can't control what other users of that system do who may have the same IP as himself. I see constant accusations of this and no proof..NO PROOF of it.
• I consider this whole suggestion here that this user who has is so scrutinized (he must surely know of the plight of so many minorities who have been harassed to no end by people who seem by their actions to despise them and hate them) be further blocked, banned as nonsense. It is Will Beback, Slimvirgin and that whole crew, that Arbcom should look into for sock-puppetry, harassment, defamation of character, rudeness, violation on repeated occasion of policy and so forth. Don't trust my word for it, just follow the links. --Northmeister 06:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Is HK actually contributing anything to Wikipedia other than trouble? Fred Bauder 13:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How can he do anything with people scrutinizing his edits as if he were the devil himself? That is the whole point of this stuff. I could see if he were adding links to LaRouche (I would remove them myself in lieu of Arbcom's decisions) or that he was actively placing promotional material for LaRouche in articles (again no proof this occurs). Instead he is harassed for editing and wiki-stalked to every edit he try's to contribute to. This is wrong. The criteria is and should always be whether this user or any user is promoting LaRouche with links, inclusion of theory that has no backup outside of LaRouche, inclusion of promotions of LaRouche directly such as mentioning him by name in some sort of light that is way out of sort etc. I think that captures the spirit of Arbcom rulings. I see none of this from HK. If there is proof of this stuff then let it out. I see only an attempt to expand the definition of Arbcom decisions here to articles that Will Beback in particular has been engaged in in a rather harassing fashion with myself -American System and Dirigisme for example- where HK added his input along with other editors against Will Bebacks tactics and ideas of these things. --Northmeister 14:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• There is a claim he is a disrupting the project as well of negative personal attacks. The example shown by Will Beback however is out of context and was written on the NOR:Talk page after repeated personal attacks and insults from Slimvirgin (again follow the links to see this). He did not make allegations which were false - he provided citations to what he was talking about, and did not personally call any names or any other thing that can be attributed to personal attacks. Whether it is negative or not is the judgement of the reader, as the edits made by Slimvirgin speak for themselves and just recently another editor has come forward to describe the same thing on that talk page where this editor (Slimvirgin) changes policy to suit her needs when in dispute - so it is not out of the blue to state his complaint. If one objectively compares Will Bebacks edit's towards myself (since I arrived), Slimvirgins tactics used against Twrigley (a mediator she caused to leave Wikipedia) and compare them to HK's, one would fine a striking thing about Disruption, inflaming new users, personal insults to mediators, wiki-stalking a user to each edit he makes, personal insults lodged against users because of their edit number, personal attacks against myself etc. If this is to be a fair accounting then one must take into account the behavior of these admins and those associated. That is why Arbcom needs to look at this stuff and Jimbo Wales needs to step in and Wikimedia needs to step in before Wikipedia is hurt by all this harassment, defamation, and selective enforcement of policy. --Northmeister 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from above because of new development)

) 16:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: can someone with a bot simply tag his most recent batch of Three Kingdoms-related articles with {{

verify}}? That way, hopefully someone will check them out later. --Nlu (talk

) 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since then, Darin Fidika has ignored my warning on the talk page and continued to make edits based on fiction as if they were fact. I wrote him another message on the talk page, but I don't expect a response. Thoughts on what to do? Should the edits be treated as vandalism? I'm trying to tag the unverifiable ones with {{fiction}}, but he's doing so at a relatively high speed. --Nlu (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the usertalk page, that's a lot of ignoring, not just of you but other editors as well. And the editing continues unabated. While one doesn't like to block a (presumed) good-faith newbie, sometimes it can be the only way of getting the person's attention. I'd block for three hours if I were you, with a kindly explanatory message saying you'll unblock if they respond. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC).

Darin Fidika did respond to me once. See User talk:Nagle. But he merely suggested another classical Chinese historical novel to read. I don't think he really understands that Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a mixture of history and fantasy. However, he does apparently read his talk page and can be communicated with. --John Nagle 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

He has finally responded (see User talk:Nlu), but appears to continue to have no grasp of the dividing line between fiction and fact. Please see if my response was too harsh, not harsh enough, or just right, and I'd appreciate if someone else gets involved as well. --Nlu (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He refused to stop his behavior and continued, so I blocked him for 48 hours. Please review to see if that is problematic. --Nlu (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He has done this on rathore page. This is vandalism [[22]], [[23]]. Can someone stop him? Dhruv Singh 11:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a repeat complaint by the same disgruntled user whose previous effort of 21/March was answered thus by two other users. ImpuMozhi 14:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I find that User:Dhruv singh and User:Dhruv Singh are two separate accounts!! Each with virtually no activity, I may add, but quite facile around WP even so. Perhaps too many accounts makes for little activity on any, and also results is forgetting passwords -- look at what this user tells us on his userpage. Anyone reading this, do follow the link provided above to read last month's comments by Edwy/Latinus. ImpuMozhi 14:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the two user accounts, both spellings of Dhruv Singh, as abusive Rajput-related socks. --Tony Sidaway 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. ImpuMozhi 19:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I request that IPs from the range 128.239.xxx.xxx be blocked. They are vandalising Star Wars articles with the words "DAGOBYTE" and realising that I am fighting that vandalism have now taken to my user page and talk page. I know requesting a block for over 65,000 addresses isn't good but it is getting frustrating fighting this vandal, especially since I'm powerless to block him. --

21:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking that many addresses is kinda drastic for some childish vandalism. It's usually reverted with in a couple seconds anyways. Best thing to do if it continues is to semi-protect, not block 65k IP's :-) --lightdarkness ^(talk) 21:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes... but I can't semiprotect all the Star Wars articles and user/usertalk page. I guess we can just see how it goes for now. Yoda's sprotected and the vandal's latest IP is under a 24h block. --

Darth Deskana (Darth Talk)

22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been actively fighting the Dagobyte vandal for some time, if you can post on my talk page a list of IP's that have been doing this I'd greatly appreciate it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The vandal also made some recent self-promoting comments to Jimbo's page: [24]. The vandal seems to want to be notorious. I therefore, suggest all discussion of the vandal occur off-site, through email so as to give him minimal satisfaction. JoshuaZ 03:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

For quite some weeks,

00:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC Would be the normal next step.Geni

02:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to point all the administrators to yet another rebuke of User:Timothy_Usher by a respected editor. [25] User247 17:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about the editing behavior of User:70.95.218.47 and User:Rob.towers in Bipolar disorder. Since the 3rd of April he has performed up to 500 edits, deleting much of the content of the article.

He is:

• not providing edit summaries.
• will not respond to requests on the Talk page.
• is frustrating the efforts of numerous editors.
• has claimed that he is putting the article in a higher ranking in Google.

The response of other editors is at User talk:70.95.218.47 and the discussion about the behavior is at Talk:Bipolar_disorder#Changes_without_discussion. --WikiCats 02:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the other issues, but the google page rank comment shows a lack of understanding that we are trying to build an encyclopedia. High google page rank should come(if it comes at all) from our merits as an encyclopedia, not from gaming search engines. JoshuaZ 03:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He posted a legal threat here. I posted a db tag on it, but I believe you can access the history and look at what he said. I would suggest a block of some sort. Thanks, zappa 04:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He took off my db tag, but I will put it back on. If he deletes it a second time, I will leave it, but additionally ask you to please delete the article. Thanks, zappa 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He's also been blocked before - see his talk page here. Later, zappa 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking threw GillsMan's edits and discovered that a lot of content he wrote is mostly copyrighted text but I'm not sure where he is getting all his information. I suspect that his contributions are copyrighted because he uploaded logo's of business claiming that he "made" them. Also, I found one website were he straight copy-and-pasted information. Here is his contributions are suspicious:

---

Unconfirmed

• Advertising Standards Authority - he placed a large amount of text on this page that might be in copyright violation

• The articles listed below were all created by him but it looks suspicious:
  • Advertising Standards Board Of Finance
  • Broadcast Advertising Standards Board Of Finance
  • The CAP Code
  • Committee of Advertising Practice
  • Institute of Sales Promotion
  • Danny Spiller

• The following Images he uploaded saying he "made" it; I replaced the tag because I doubt he really made it
  • Image:OFTLogo.jpg
  • Image:ISPLogo.jpg
  • Image:Daniel spiller.jpg

Confirmed

• logo
  }}
• WP:CV
  .

---

I need an really expirenced editor to see if the unconfirmed violations are violations. Moe ε 04:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

GillsMan's Response - I don't know who wrote this but a few points I'd like to make: 1) I used to work for the ASA. 2) I disagree that "a lot" was copyright. I copied and pasted from the AA website, because I didn't realise it was copyrighted. 3) The tags for the OFT and ISP logo I must have put them in wrong - the tag for Danny Spiller, I put as made by me because I made a facepack for the game Football Manager and that image was from there. 4) I spent four hours making the ASA article, massively improving it, so to have "most of it" labelled as copyright is, frankly, insulting. GillsMan (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

DavidBrock (talk · contribs) is using the name of real person David Brock to vandalize pages. --waffle iron ^talk 05:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked under username policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What actually is the policy for those who get blocked for having a username that is the same as that of a notable person, and then subsequently claim to be the notable person in question? He hasn't done this, but just in case... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I request an unblock on behalf of

.

I request an unblock immediately for Chisinau (talk · contribs). If some admins have content problems on some articles than it shouldn’t block the users and then they shouldn’t make anti-romanian edits immediately as Mikkalai (talk · contribs) did http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Moldova&diff=48655131&oldid=48640117. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.133.230.127 (talk • contribs)

No, there is a lot of evidence that was not linked yet. See

User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. The block is legitimate given the circumstances. Alexander 007

08:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He even gives himself away as a Bonaparte sock in the most minute details. Like Bonaparte, he started badly thought out articles that need to be either merged, redirected, or deleted, etc. See Dumnezeu, which should be a Wiktionary entry, started by Chisinau. The dude gives himself away at every turn. Alexander 007 08:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact the anon IP keeps deleting what I post is even more proof...Alexander 007 08:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the prior behavior of this particular individual (one can see it on his talk page) I agree with Alexander 007 here- the block is appropriate. Never Cry Wolf 09:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Pringles: Once you pop you can't stop has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 17:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a valid block. --Cyde Weys 17:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:RecruitinPeople is encouraging sockpuppetry: [26]. Based on past examination: [27] It's likely a sock of User:Snowtroper Requesting extension of permablock of Snowtroper. --Mmx1 17:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked RecruitinPeople indefinitely. The Snotroper account doesn't appear to exist, though. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, it's User:Snowtroper (dropped the wrong letter). --Mmx1 17:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the name and user's contribution at

17:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Chris Nudds appears to be yet another sockpuppet of the blocked User:Hamish Ross. Image:Fredmoss.ogg, which the latest incarnation has uploaded, needs to be verified (I can't do it, for some reason). The JPS 19:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of fellow who makes you wonder what he's doing here. I suppose I'd recommend blocking Bgully because he's only ever edited an article twice, over a year ago, and both were crappy edits. . In one, he reverted an edit on

, he changed "the genocidal Holocaust" to "the allegiated genocidal Holocaust". The account was dormant between 28 April, 2005 and 10 March, 2006.

All his other edits are within the past month or so, he is a suspected sock of Antifinnugot because nearly all his edits are attacks on Antifinnugor's nemesis, Dbachmann and his supposed "clique" (which on the evidence before me is composed of absolutely any sane person who happens to be passing and comments on matters).

On April 7th, Bgully posted a rather dodgy application for arbitration [28]. He hasn't edited since then.

Having reviewed his editing history, I'm inclined to recommend a community ban. He's obviously not been editing Wikipedia for any legitimate purpose and the bulk of his edits have been attempts to harass other editors. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How about having a word with dab to make sure you catch 'em all, and community banning Antifinnugor and his whole sock drawer (plus any new ones to be blocked on sight)? It's not like there's any doubt that they're all one person, the editing style is as characteristic as the subject matter. Surely that alone is enough to run a CheckUser (or to make a CheckUser redundant, AFAIC). It's not like any of the incarnations has ever done anything but spout invective and waste good editors' time. Bishonen, hate clique member, 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC).

I have looked at the contributions of Labia_Ears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Flashmorbid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suspect they are trolling accounts; at minimum, they need to be watched closely. (In addition, the former one may warrant a block for an inappropriate user name.) - Mike Rosoft 19:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Labia Ears indefinitely as an inappropriate username; I find ears offensive. JDoorjam Talk 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This weekend has been particularly disruptive from this POV-pushing revertn junkie. I've requested an admin enforce the sanctions Arbcom placed him under -->

20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether this individual has breached the resolution of the arbcom or not, please remember

WP:CIVIL, and do not refer to him as a "POV-pushing revertn junkie." The goal and hope here is that User:Instantnood should feel like part of the Wiki community and thus beholden to Wiki guidelines, policies and rulings; name-calling won't help in that regard. Truly, JDoorjam Talk

20:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JDoorjam. It's been a long-time problem with user:SchmuckyTheCat. Guess appropriate action got to be taken to make him feel like part of the community of civility. WP:CIVIL is an official Wikipedia policy. — Instantnood 21:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[Somewhat less tactfully] Less posturing from everyone, more detail, please. El_C 21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration_enforcement#User:Instantnood| Here you go. — Instantnood

21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You should realize that no one here clicks on links, instead we try to predict what they consist of based on the wikiurl. El_C 21:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd apologise if you consider it inconvenience. — Instantnood 21:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. El_C 03:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has begun removing my discussion comments from the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view page, twice now [29] [30]

I consider the talk page an accurate record of discussions, and too remove such text is misleading to other editors, and against Wiki policy on Wikipedia:Civility. I feel that FeloniousMonk should be blocked from editing the policy page and its talk page. --Iantresman 20:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I was just in the process of looking at what's happening at that page, because I was wondering if you had violated 3RR. I'm not saying you have, mind you, because I've just started to look. Regardless of that, could I ask you not to try adding new material to the policy pages without consensus? Particularly at the moment, because a few policy talk pages have been under some pressure of late from new editors (I'm thinking of -Lumiere in particular), whereas these are pages that need to be stable, and I was actually thinking of protecting NPOV if the reverting continued. Anyway, I'll go and take a closer look now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just confirming that you didn't violate 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't discuss the issue, becaues FeloniousMonk has moved my comments from the page, as mentioned above. That is the problem --Iantresman 20:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian, having looked into this more closely, I now see you appear to be continuing in the footsteps of -Lumière while he's away. I ask you most sincerely not to do this. I don't know what the particular issues are on the NPOV page, because it's a page I don't often edit, but I saw your comments on the RfC about how WP:V must apply to policy pages too, and of course it doesn't, so you and -Lumière have simply misunderstood how policy works on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that necessarily means you're wrong on the substantive issue under dispute (because I don't know what that is), but I can see from the comments you've left on the RfC that your reasoning and approach isn't good. -Lumière is a very troublesome, inexperienced editor who keeps changing his user name so that it's harder to keep track of exactly how troublesome he's being. Any editor who supports him is likely to be put in the same category, perhaps unfairly. Therefore, can I ask you (for your own sake as well as for the stability of the policy page) to take a rest from this for a few weeks, and perhaps return to it when the -Lumière issue has been dealt with and things have calmed down? As for the talk-page refactoring, -Lumière has caused havoc on numerous policy talk pages, so it's not surprising that editors on Talk:NPOV have decided to userfy his or similar posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to discuss this with you further, here or elsewhere? --Iantresman 21:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is probably best, or you can e-mail me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, at FeloniousMonk's request, I have read through all the talk:Neutral point of view archives to discover where the issues I have brought up, have been discussed before. While "Undue weight" has been discussed at length, the points I mention on (a) verifiability (b) paraphrasing, do not appear to have been mentioned before. I can't prove that, as I can't easily show what hasn't been discussed, but I am sure that FeloniousMonk can easily provide a quote from the archives to show that it has.

So effectively, ANY discussion on "Undue weight" is now beyond discussion; any issue that anyone brings up on "Undue weight" may be now be deemed Lumière-esque, and squashed.

Even my brief discussion on Undue weight, that was moved to my talk page [31] resulted in an acknowledgement that a link to the "original email" may be warranted. And there is even the suggestions that "Jimbo is not the supreme lawgiver" (which seems contrary to the Wiki Policy page), and also deserves discussion (and again I can't find previous discussion). There is even some discussion on the subject in my "absence" [32] but of course it is very one-sided.

SlimVirgin, the policy pages themselves encourage discussion. My discussion issues appear to be unique, and hence valid. Consquently their removal from the Talk page is unwarranted, and other editors certainly shouldn't be able to choose which issues to address, let alone whether to remove them. --Iantresman 11:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to support Ian on this. SlimVirgin has a habit of removing material, even from talk pages, which she doesn't like. Her behaviour on the Animal Rights talk page is a case in point. Mccready 06:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jameswatt (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been posting the same basic comment to a wide range of Talk pages, giving a link to his site, and asking for it to be placed in the article. Sgrayban (talk · contribs) and Henry Flower (talk · contribs) have been removing them all, and after various warnings, blocked Jameswatt for link-spamming.

We don't allow the adding of links to one's site to articles; instead, we advise editors to do exactly what Jameswatt was doing: add the link to the Talk pages, and let other editors decide. The warnings, blocking, and removal of comments were therefore surely mistaken. Do other admins agree with that judgement?

The issue is complicated by two factors. One, which I think is essentially irrelevant, is that the site is appallingly inaccurate and worthless, and we shouldn't want the links added to any Wikipedia article. The other is that Jameswatt evaded the block by continuing to post his messages from 59.144.97.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). For that reason, I didn't lift the block, and I've blocked the mock-puppet. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam on talk pages is just as effective as spam on article pages, and once other edits are made on top of those edits it's a hell of a job to weed them out. Leaving those links in place would harm Wikipedia be encouraging people to spam talk pages. Placing a link on the talk page for discussion works fine for one proposed link, but not for tens of links each on a different page. Incidentally, as far as I am aware the IP edits came before the warning and block on Jameswatt's talk page, so I wouldn't have blocked.Henry^Flower 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam is spam and reverting it from talk pages is not doing harm in any sense of the word. Instead all the reverts to remove were undone by User:Mel Etitis who is a admin here. I would like a explanation of this when the goal of RC Patrollers is to remove such non-sense and spamming. It undermines the goal of WikiPedia.

Quoting Mel from the talk page "Why does it bother you that his site is benefitted by these links? We're not policemen, we're admins trying to protect Wikiepdia — and the links on Talk pages are doing no harm to Wikipedia. The site is clearly worthless, being grossly, not to say childishly, inaccurate, but then the links won't be added. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)" seems to be a bit harsh and rude to combat such spamming. --Scott Grayban 15:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks a pretty obvious case of spamming to me, as noted the content of the destination site is pretty worthless and contains google ads. The sheer voulme and willingness to continue once blocked etc. etc. Can't see why we'd want to encourage any future spammer from doing the same by leaving this in place. --pgk^(talk) 16:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with pgk and Scott here. Spam on talk pages is just as bad as spam in the articles. If you look at Jameswatt's talk page, several users said he could add the links. So not only is it spam, but it's basically a scam to trick people as well. We shouldn't be encouraging it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

When recently editors from another site added links to tens of articles, I removed them, explaining that we don't allow that sort of thing, and pointing to the guideline that such links should be placed on Talk pages. They were stubborn, and resisted, and in the end went off in a huff, but if they'd done what I (and Wikiepdia guidelines) said and added the links to all those Talk pages, it seems that the above admins would have removed them all and blocked the editors (something that I didnt do even when the link-spam was to articles). that seems wrong to me. Our guidelines don't say that links should only be placed on a certain number of Talk pages, nor that links should meet some quality standard.

I agree that he should have been approached (courteously), and told that none of the links would be added to any of the articles as they didn't meet our standards, and becasuse we discourage over-linking. A boiler-plate comment could have been added to all the Talk pages involved, saying that the link shouldn't be added, and giving the reasons. Instead, the editor was reverted and blocked for doing what Wikipedia guidelines told him to do. I don't accept that that's right. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

So that we're clear on this, he was blocked by Woohookitty for a grand total of three minutes. [33] Henry^Flower 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

When a large message is placed on a Talk page announcing a block, something ought to placed there explaining that (and why) the block was lifted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the guidelines and the function of RC Patrollers is in conflict here. I noticed it was spam links and that was its only intention of it. Regardless they are in talk pages or not it is still accessable by anyone and therefor promoting spam. It makes zero sense to not allow spam links on articles and allow them on talk pages. That said the reverts you did Mel should have just gone ignored and overlooked when you knew they were spam links and you admited to that. Now instead of 20 some odd pages that we had removed that from now still has it. --Scott Grayban 17:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't follow all of this, but I don't see that you've addressed the arguments that I gave. Thanks to User:Markalexander100 (alias Henry Flower) for noticing that the IP was used to edit before the block; I've unblocked it and apologised. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is that the Wikipedia guidelines told him to make the requests on the talk pages. That's fine when the links fit the guidelines but when its obvious they don't and the intent was to spam, which it was, is a conflict between removing spam and the functions of a revert to get rid of it. --Scott Grayban 17:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to focus here on the end result; should the link be on Wikipedia in any shape? Probably not. Cut through the red tape, then, and just excise it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It may make sense to add to the guidelines that posting links to the same website on many (say over 10) talk pages would also be spamming? JoshuaZ 18:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Katefan. He has placed this on aproximately 71 talk pages, claiming it is probably the most famous portal of biography to this article, which is utterly rediculous (in addition to non-parsable). He's now got 71 links to his site from wikipedia, even if these links are on talk pages. It is clearly spam, and i can't really see why removing it should be an issue . . . --He:ah? 18:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is a no-brainer and an obvious attempt to spam. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont see anything wrong with removing it, but if this is going to be the general rule then it would be good for future reference to have a policy we can point to and/or use to justify blocks. JoshuaZ 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How should this get started? --Scott Grayban 19:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is Wikipedia:Spam. And probably the Village pump. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've already brought the matter up at

WP:SPAM. JoshuaZ

19:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Link for it JoshuaZ? --Scott Grayban 19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here. JoshuaZ 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely post to the policy section of the pump, it'll get more/wider attention there. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. JoshuaZ 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ post on my talk page when you do up the proposal please. I want to follow this through. Thanks. --Scott Grayban 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As in ? A user reverted the spam back that I removed right after Woohookitty informed me of the indef block which was reversed later on. What is the issue here? That I removed the spam and you want it back or the fact I asked the editors to not revert and bring it back? --Scott Grayban 20:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

First, there's a very big question mark over whether this is link-spam, given the clear instructions to those who want to add links to their site, which is why I started the discussion here. Secondly, despite your claim, the original poster is not permanently blocked (as he shouldn't be). As I now see from User talk:Henry Flower, you seem to see this as battle against me personally; as I don't recall coming up against you under this name, do you have another account? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Its link spam period. Other people including other WP admin agree that it is. You seem to have it out for me by disputing your actions and me calling attention to it. You reverted all our removal of the spam links and your still defending it like its written in stone that spam links are allowed on talk pages. You don't seem to understand this is spam and your using your rollback like a toy and I view that as abuse. Oh I am sure that I'll get banned for some reason now that you put me in a corner to defend myself here from you accusing me of having a personal attack on you. However the only thing I have aginst you is the fact you have reverted all the spam links back. I looked at your history[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060415144118&limit=50&target=Mel_Etitis] and the actions on the reverts is uncalled for. --Scott Grayban 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Declarations like "spam is spam" and "this is a no-brainer" are unhelpful (and the latter is somewhat insulting, as are comments referring to common sense, etc. It's possible to disagree without being an idiot or lacking sense). We have a clear instruction to editors to behave in a certain way when they want links to their sites added to articles. The instructions don't limit the number of articles, nor do they say something like "only do this if your site isn't crap". This editor followed the rules, and was pounced upon and attacked by a couple of admins as though he was a criminal deviant. Why on Earth should we care if this person has seventy-one links to his site? We should care about what appears in our articles; the links don't appear there, which is what the rules about spam-linking are concerned with. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  the rules against spam are not only to keep the links off of our articles; wikipedia is explicitly not to be used for advertisement, and as zoe says below, googlebombing is googlebombing. There is no reason to allow these links to sit on the talk pages in order to increase the google rank of worldofbiography through the abuse of wikipedia. --He:ah? 21:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Twaddle. Talk pages are as much a part of Wikipedia as are article pages. Googlebombing is Googlebombing, we have forced people to remove links from their User pages, why should spam be allowed on 70, 710, or 71,000 Talk pages? Why do you object to "spam is spam", when that's an incontestable fact? Why do you want spam on Talk pages? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• More incivility; this really is getting people heated. "Spam is spam" simply repeats the claim against which I'm arguing, without bothering to consider and responsd to my arguments. Perhaps I'm wrong, and my arguments can be shown to be unsound — but merely telling me repeatedly that I'm being silly and missing the obvious is unhelpful and does nothing to move the discussion on. Talk pages are different from articles pages: we don't allow editorial discussion in articles, we do on Talk pages; we don't allow people to add links to their own sites to articles, we do allow (indeed encourage) it on Talk pages. If the claim is that our poicy should be changed, and people should be forbidden even from adding such links to Talk pages, then that should be argued for. If the idea is that a central page should be created where editors can place suggestions for links to a site in multiple articles, then fine, that should be argued for. Instead I'm just seeing a lot of emotional ranting about spam and Google bombing, etc.
  I care about Wikipedia's articles being compromised, I care about readers being pointed to misleading and downright false information, but I don't care (at least, not as a Wikipedia editor) about somebody increasing links to their site; I'm not an Internet policeman. They're using Wikipedia to do it? yes. Does it hurt us or our readers? No. Did we tell the person involved to do it in the first place? Yes. So should we officiously remove all mention of the links because we don't like them? No. Does that mean that I want the links? How on Earth could what I've said imply that? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And to top this off, after the clear view of many admins that this is spam, you reverted one of my edits[34] back to show the spam again which was removed again by another user. --Scott Grayban 22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another example of Mel reposting the spam is here. An anon, per the example, has since removed the spam. Might I suggest that we talk this one over before an out of hand wheel war erupts. --Jay(Reply) 22:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not another example, it's the same one. Unsurprisingly, because (despite the foaming of some people here) I reverted once, and then gave an example of what I thought should be the correct response at Talk:Plato. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the original user should be blocked (imo, he shouldn't be since agf he was following policy) their seems to be a consensus that the links are spam by any definition and would only be not-spam by what is essentially a loophole in

WP:SPAM. Furthermore, giving nearly identical messages to 71 different talk pages constitutes disruption which should be dealt with. Mel's repeated reversion of their removal is unhelpful. JoshuaZ

00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See above concerning this "repeated" claim. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have commented out all the remaining links using <!-- and --> That should prevent google from picking them up yes? JoshuaZ 01:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. If a editor/user doesn't realize its spam and removes the the remark tags, doesn't revert thinking it was vandal, or someone just simply reverts it back for no valid reason. Otherwise it should be ok. --Scott Grayban 02:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a question, is spam on User pages just as harmful as article talk pages? Like making a bunch of accounts and filling the user page with spam?

16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not duplicating here my arguments, at User talk:Henry Flower#Talk-page spam, that

1. The policy Wikipedia:Vandalism and guideline Wikipedia:Spam give no support to calling talk-page spam a form of vandalism (and strongly suggest it is not).
2. An ext link on a talk page has far less visibility (and does disproportionally less harm) than the same link on the corresponding article page.
   

(My opinion at this point is that

_ _ the proposed lks would be bad,

_ _ they deserve routine or bot-driven action to remove resulting article lks, and to respond negatively to the proposals, perhaps breaking the links, but

_ _ the reversions with the boilerplate summary of admin-standard reversion were vigilantism & worse than the problem they addressed.)

--Jerzy•t 04:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

He's back

Making throwaway accounts now, but leaving the same message on various talk pages. I've only caught two so far: [35], [36]. Antandrus (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No reason to report it here anymore. According to Mel is perfectly fine to spam talk pages. --Scott Grayban 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not okay. I see this as an ol' SEO attempt, since our talk pages have the same high Google rank as the article pages. The clickthroughs from our talk pages are entirely secondary (at least that's my assessment - comments?) -- grm_wnr Esc 05:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages certainly get picked up: do a Google search for "Elliott Frankl" and see [37].

I agree that its not ok but according to Mel(see above) and his reverts of Henry Flower reverts and mine, see history of this here[38], to remove it was unproductive as Mel explains the current spam policy does not prohibit this. Instead he says that if the user asks to place a link on the talkpages that is perfectly fine. --Scott Grayban 06:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not if he includes a live link that gets picked up by Google, and does so on 71 pages. At least, I always had the impression that Wikipedia is not a link farm. -- grm_wnr Esc 06:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel explains...' That's Mel's opinion, and I certainly don't feel bound by such fine and pointless hair-splitting: especially since the spammer has already been told, no, it's not acceptable. Unless Mel is arguing that it's okay to ask essentially the same question 71 different times. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no clear, set in stone, policy that prevents this on talkpages. This was the arguement from before. Even though the consensus was it is spam we can not enforce the no spam policy at all on this and I imagine because of that reverting any spamlinks like this on talk pages would also violate some policy if its done so I won't touch anything thats remotely spam on talkpages for that reason. Also there is nothing on Talk page guidelines that says otherwise as well. --Scott Grayban 06:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy doesn't prohibit a lot of things - the lack of a policy prohibiting them doesn't make it an acceptable thing to do; Wikipedia's policies are not codes of laws. Regardless, if he persists, it might be a good idea to think about adding his site to the spam blacklist. Raul654 06:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel insists that the reverts me and Henry Flower did were against policy and reverted all our reverts. Mel's no debate attitude above shows he is going on the "written in stone" thinking and refuses to concede that its spam and should be removed. This debate is exactly why this incident was started in the first place. Now its become a hiar-splitting one with yet still no end results on removing spam on talkpages. --Scott Grayban 06:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Be bold: I'm taking the liberty of nuking them myself, and if Mel doesn't like it, Mel can lump it. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it looks like he's done it before. Note the duplication here. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

...and he's not paying much attention, as shown by this addition about Rembrandt to an article about a fictional character named

Rembrandt Brown. --Calton | Talk

06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not touching any spam on talkpages in fear I'll be blocked from here. I'm just a lowly RC Patroller with no backing of adminship that Mel has. --Scott Grayban 06:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel is an admin, not God. He's not going to block users over -- at what could be considered at a considerable stretch -- a content dispute; and in the unlikely event he tried to do so, those blocks would be reversed so fast it would make his head spin. --Calton | Talk 07:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The hysteria and unpleasantness over this, together with the original vigilantism as Jerzy correctly described it is worrying. Aside from sneering, sarcastic questions on my Talk page from User:Zoe, User:Sgrayban is now leaving this sort of thing around the place. Calton has, unfortunately, joined in on this page with the same sort of aggressive language and approach. What on Earth is going on here? I made a point, in line with clearly stated Wikipedia guidelines, that a couple of admins had reacted very badly towards an editor who was following those guidelines. I reverted (once) their removal of what I took (and still take) to be legitimate comments left in accordance with Wikipedia:External links ("If [a link to a website that you own or maintain] is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article"). Few people (apart from Jerzy) who have responded have taken the time to read what I said carefully enough to understand it, but have simply reacted with robotic cries of "spam", etc.

I hold no brief for the editor concerned, and I've made clear that I think that the site is poor, and that the links shouldn't be added. I don't however, think that editors' poor behaviour is excused simply because they're acting against someone of whom we disapprove. When that poor behaviour is followed by the sort of reaction I've seen here, it saddens and worries me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OMG - First your reverted 47 reverts of the spam back to spam again, pointless and useless and started something that you dont like. Then you double reverted to make a silly point on silly boiler-plate only to revert the bloody spam back again that a another user reverted. Thats a clear sign of I don't care about anyone's opinion of what spam is. You lack the judgement to let the reverts stand knowing the links were spam. The you claim I had a personal attack on you. Then you jump everyone that disputes your reasoning on this. Taking the note of another incident this is the classic

WP:DICK problem. All this ened with zero help on your part and opened a nice can of worms. --Scott Grayban

18:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't revert once, you reverted somone's good faith removal 47+ times with admin rollback. While it is guideline to add links to a talk page to suggest inclusion, that doesn't extend to doing it to hundreds of pages. One is sufficient to allow discussion. More than that, especially over 10 is not helpful and is just advertising, After discussion has occured and people have noticed it, and consensus is that the link isn't valuable, there is no reason to add the request for the links back. Further, there is consensus here that it is spam, so that's enough. And no, incivility isn't condoned, and you're right, people should calm down and stay civil even when dealing with a serious spammer, but your actions escalated the matter, they did not help resolve it. - Taxman ^Talk 14:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief.

1. I reverted the removal of links once; the number of links is irrelevant.
2. There is no mention of a limit on the number of Talk pages to which links should be added.
3. In almost all the cases, there had been no time for discussion or even response to the links; the efditors concerned decided that other editors shouldn't be given the chance to see the proposals.
4. Consensus here, especially with the standard of comments, is not definitive, and is anyway irrelevant to my actions (unless you're demanding that I be clairvoyant). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For #2, I refer you to common sense; we don't need a numerical limit. One is likely good faith, many is obvious advertising. There is a guideline to leave it on the talk page, but that doesn't justify doing it a large number of times in violation of

WP:EL's other guidelines. Trying to use one guideline to justify violating others is obtuse. And you didn't have to be clairvoyant to know you shouldn't have used admin rollback that many times in this case at least, and that most people would consider it spam. You could have discussed first. Imagine that. - Taxman ^Talk

18:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Technical solution

Allow me to take this opportunity to plug a MediaWiki patch I recently wrote: bug 5523 on bugzilla. This would effectively solve the controversy by allowing links on talk pages to be marked with rel="nofollow" so that they can no longer be used for search engine optimization. Also see (and please participate in) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Spam. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The user,

, but if an admin were to handle this difficult case directly, it would be just as well. Septentrionalis 17:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The IP is from Luxembourg, but IIRC the troll was from Belgium. Maybe the troll crossed the border? Johnleemk | Talk 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather that blocking a whole IP range (the IP is dynamic), I have semi-protected Proto-Ionians. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The IP range appears to be a quite limited number of IP's; for example, yesterday's incarnation 80.90.38.14 (Contributions) was also assigned to Rose-mary back in March. She also left a message on my talkpage; and is editing fairly freely as an anon.

Unfortunately, there are half a dozen pages where Rose-mary would like to insert her favorite author: Phaistos Disc,Phaistos Disc decipherment claims, Pelasgians, Philistines, and so on. Instead of sprotecting all of the articles, would it be possible to put medium term blocks on User:80.90.38.14 and the others (a list of the IP's can be found, probably almost complete, in the history of Phaistos Disc; and no-one else appears to have edited from any of them.) This would compel the troll to get a named, and blockable, account. Septentrionalis 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Today's installment is 80.90.39.217 (talk · contribs)(edit to my Talk, now reverted). Septentrionalis 13:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

At 08:00, April 16, 2006 (UTC), I began depopulating three categories using

>

I agree with freakofnurture. The timing is sketchy, and blocking the bot, and then mass reverting it, doesn't seem like the proper response. DR isn't supposed to be a "stay of execution", it's supposed to be a ....."Ok now that we killed it, did we do the right thing?"

_Fire!

10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of any timings issues, for a bot that was producing no more than three edits per minute I would have expected talk first, rather than an out of the blue block. --Alf ^melmac 11:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That's what I meant by my comment, if it was a little ambiguous.

_Fire!

21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see where some of the panic on Tim!'s side comes from: since these were category deletions and not a rename, it would be a complicated process to repopulate the category after it was depopulated. It would either have to be repopulated by going back through Catapult's contributions, or searching the last database dump, or by knowing which actresses and actors had indeed appeared on CSI X of Y. The final point there reminds me that I need to go make this point over on DRV... and I agree that the bot should not have been blocked and reverted. He had all the information he would need to repopulate it from the bot's contributions IF DRV overturned it, but now if it is indeed not kept we will have to rerun whoever's bot on it. --Syrthiss 13:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if panic were the motivating factor, panic does not excuse inappropriate administrative behavior. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree (hopefully that came across in my original statement). I have noted as much on the DRV discussion as well. :) --Syrthiss 13:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that Tim has a strong interest in these categories as he was the creator of many categories in Category:Actors by series and has staunchly defended them in previous cfds. He previously attempted to prevent people voting delete on a rename nomination on similar categories here but was informed that deletion resulting from a rename nomination was an acceptable part of process. Arniep 00:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tim seems to be acting in an improper manner to protect categories in Category:Actors by series; at 10:26, April 16, Tim speedy closed a cfd on Category:War of the Worlds actors which had 3 delete votes here when it would have been trivial to apply a cfd tag or to at least inform the nominator so they could relist. Arniep 01:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not true, the deletion review is to examine the process wherein a category not tagged for deletion may be deleted. If DR rules that it can, then the category will be deleted and no complaints from me. If anyone's action are suspect, they are yours for continuing to campaign for deletion of such categories after the large keep consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Actors_by_series_and_its_sub-categories, another occaision on which categories were not correctly tagged. Tim! 11:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What a bizarre concept that CFR/CFD regulars decision to delete categories be interupted by people who actually create and use them. I'll just go and vote speedy delete on all articles on

07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where there aren't any closed doors. The discussion of the merits of the category itself (and whether deleting it should stretched into a month-long process-wank) belongs elsewhere, however. What I'd still like to know is why I was given a block and a mass rollback with no prior warning, and with the most ridiculous rationale I've ever seen. Because I follow unambiguous instructions to "empty and delete" several listed categories, some of which you have obviously taken offense to. This concerns me greatly, and my questions at User talk:Tim!#CFD and DRV have not been satisfactorily answered. I believe Tim! feels so strongly about this issue that he would have been blocked me and rolled back my edits just the same if I had done them manually, from my regular account. That, as I mentioned to him, would put things in a completely different perspective, but based on his more recent comments, I fear that Tim considers such perspective to be a personal attack. — Apr. 17, '06 [08:38] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

The bot was blocked for 9 minutes and I immediately left a message on your talk page to let you know the reason for it. The rollbacks were necessary to preserve the category whilst the deletion review was pending. I've already told you that I would not have blocked your non-bot account if you'd been doing the de-population manually. Tim! 11:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrator

16:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

I suppose that I shouldn't have blocked given that I warned him (violation of my own ruling, amongst other things ;-)), but I got fed up. Sorry, all; will try better.

James F. (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to warn him myself. This seems perfectly in order. Mackensen (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked while I was reviewing his edits and preparing a pretty stern warning. I've told him I want him to clean up his act or Wikipedia probably won't want him as a contributor any more. If he keeps it up over the next week or so, I'll probably recommend a long block, or perhaps an indefinite one. His userpage, some of his recent edits elsewhere, and edits by a suspected sock of his all contain extreme personal attacks on Chad Bryant and he hasn't edit an article in a month. --Tony Sidaway 17:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably want to sprotect the page if it gets sockvandaled, too. Isopropyl 17:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no impropriety here. A "common policy", eh? I hope he isn't waiting by the phone. I wouldn't describe removal of warnings as vandalism (see this discussion), but that doesn't make it ok in a case like this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:TruthCrusader wrote to me to complain about his block. Here's the response I sent him:

Removing comments, especially good faith warnings from administrators regarding your conduct, from your userpage, especially with offensive edit summaries, interferes with the proper functioning of Wikipedia and is incivil, and may lead to blocking. If you disagree with a conduct warning placed on your user talk page, the proper response is to politely discuss the issue with the administrator in question, not to remove it with an edit summary that clearly indicates that you reject the allegation that your conduct was inappropriate.

Try not being a

WP:DICK

; you'll get better mileage on Wikipedia if you try to refrain from dickish behavior.

Kelly Martin (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do disagree with this course of action. There is no reason to continue hounding someone after the initial warning and thus it amounts to little more than harassment. Seriously, what beneficial purpose is served? Informing the person that their action was inapropriate? Already accomplished by the initial warning.

The

policy allows vandalism warnings to be restored, and only vandalism warnings, because there are progressive levels of them leading up to a block and common procedures in place about warnings. Forcing a user to maintain a NPA, edit warring, or other warning in perpetuity on their talk page is the equivalent of imposing a scarlet letter / public humiliation. You made your point, they read it, case closed. There is no call to keep reposting the potentially embarassing note, threatening the user for removing it, or tossing in personal attacks in return.

If we do want to apply the scarlet letter principle then the user is right... the policy should be changed to say so. For the record, our

13:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at his overall conduct? I fear that if you're focusing solely on whether removing the notice was appropriate you may not have examined his extremely uncivil general conduct. --Tony Sidaway 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, here I was 'focusing solely on whether removing (and re-adding) the notice was appropriate'... since that was the issue in question. At the user's talk page, on the other hand, I attempted (likely unsuccessfully) to get him to understand that his bad behaviour was the cause of his problems. On the DRV for the templates which set this whole thing in motion I've been arguing against his claim that 'the userboxes in question are not divisive' (paraphrased without the swearing) and saying that I feel they should therefor be deleted under T1... even though I also strongly believe that T1 is a bad idea on free speech grounds. I think I've got 'the big picture' here, but I've seldom (possibly never) seen an instance where one thing was 100% to blame with no other problems. --CBDunkerson 21:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Consider Dowieite (talk · contribs). Edits at Propellor shaft, Sigmund and the Sea Monsters, etc, etc reverting back to versions by previous sockpuppets. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Restoring posts by previous sockpuppet. It's the long edit summaries that give him away everytime... Someone ban, please.--JW1805 (Talk) 04:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Done the easy part, as usual. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be an open proxy IP; see User talk:207.172.220.7. It's been used abusively, too. Mangojuice 14:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

after User:Kelmor as been labeled as Sock puppet of Wik, there is now Darkman201 (

17:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Rose-mary, who has a habit of threatening to contact real-world employers, and has done so at least once (See #Gator1, has left the following message on my Talk:

Yes, indeed. But the "so-called vandal" (who is not one) may choose another way to be read, when stuborn people refuse to discuss in a gentle and educated way. Injustice makes people angry, you know. And I know of an assistant librarian who could learn it. (80.90.39.217 18:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[40]

She uses a dynamic IP, but it has a small range, which no other editor seems to be using. I would appreciate it if the couple dozen IPs that her machine cycles through were blocked for a while. Septentrionalis 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've range-blocked 80.90.32.0/19. There have been only two edits from that range that didn't looked like they were comming from Rose-Mary, and they were made in November and December 2005, so there shouldn't be miuch collateral damage. —

Ruud

00:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Nrcprm2026 for 3RR on Uranium trioxide. I'm mentioning this here because I have some history with him - well I wrote on his RFArb. Though nothing on that article itself. So, please review the block if you wish William M. Connolley 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there seems to have been a certain amount of animosity from User:ER MD as the other side of the war who has also been blocked, some cool off time for both seems quite reasonable. --pgk^(talk) 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:ER MD is warring with User:Nrcprm2026 on different pages than Uranium trioxide/Depleted uranium --DV8 2XL 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Odras keeps adding rubbish about this supposed Polish porn star. It sounds to me like Anna is some actual person, but none of the claims are plausible (the latest one about being on the cover of Playboy should be easily (dis)verifiable). Could someone please speedy delete the article and reprimand this user? My apologies if I'm reporting this at the wrong place. Stevage 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I need help. Seriously. Someone please interfere, thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please someone interfere. Eternal_Equinox has a history of reverting changes that other people make, specifically changes that I make to the Kelly Clarkson page. He just recently removed a third image that I had uploaded to the page. The image in question [41] was removed by E.E. a couple months back, along with the two other images, the issue was settled by an admninstrator who found fair use didn't apply to one of the images, but the others were OK. Now that I try to re-insert the image, he reverts it completely. He has a history of intimidating other Wikipedia users, which is crystal clear when during his nomination of another article he hawks to featured article status. See [42] Something seriously needs to be done, I thought Wikipedia was a place where anybody can come in and edit, but in this article it seems what you do edit has to pass muster with Eternal_Equinox or he'll revert during his daily check of the article. I think it's time Eternal takes a Wikibreak, because he's doing more harm then good. Hopefully we can reach a resolution! HeyNow10029 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked

01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If the spamming continues after the block expires, just put on a much longer block. --Cyde Weys 01:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this IP resolves to AOL -- we really can't be blocking AOL IP's for more than 15 minutes or so at a time, because of the way AOL recycles its IP addresses every time someone loads up a different page. FYI, whoever this person is has been creating quite a stir at Kosovo and related articles. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

*doh!* I promise I did look at the huge sign on the block page, but misread the "172.128.0.0 - 172.216.255.255" part. Thanks for that Kate, I've shortened the block. -

brenneman^{L}

01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Malcom McLean article copyvio

• Malcom McLean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rossp (talk • contribs)

I've twice deleted this article as a blatant copyright violation. (Well, to be precise, I deleted it once as copyvio and once as reposting of previously deleted material.) Taking a few random sentences from the article: a significant unsung breakthrough of our time, McLean’s new container ports could do it for just under 16 cents, Without it, the U.S. military would have experienced extreme difficulty feeding, housing and supplying the 540,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and air force personnel who were in Vietnam by the start of 1969. So the deletion should be uncontroversial.

I've also blocked Rossp indefinitely until such a time a he makes it clear that he understands the problem. I notified him last time I deleted the article as copyvio, and his next edit was to re-create the article.

02:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
To avoid confusion: Although I've used the past tense for the blocking and deletion above, I am actually writing this first by about two seconds.

Talk page problem

Following an unexpectedly angry reaction to a comment on an AfD vote, I placed a comment on User:JJay's talk page, seeking to understand his motivation. Both during and after a largely fruitless discussion, JJay has made a number of unexplained changes to my words: [43], [44], [45]. I then chose to remove my content from his talk page [46], not wanting to be misrepresented, regardless of severity. JJay reverted without explanation [47]. I then posted a request that he remove my words himself, or restore them to their original form [48], which JJay has also reverted [49]. JJay has a history of heated exchanges with other editors, and I see little other recourse than to ask for admin intervention. Should this be an inappropriate request for WP:AN/I, please notify me so I can post to the correct page. Thanks. Tijuana Brass 03:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I made no material changes to this user's comments except to remove a misleading string of text while leaving the underlying Wp:AGF link the user had hidden [50]. Besides that, I changed the heading to the section- which is my right- and changed the link to the AFD page. I have very good reasons for doing this, because any message on my user page brings certain editors rushing to the AfD in question to vote against whatever stance I have taken. I reiterate that no significant changes were made to the comments. Nevertheless, there is a very clear warning notice on the user page that explains that messages can and will be edited for content. Besides all that, I have made no personal attacks against this editor and fail to see why he has addressed himself to this forum or on what basis he can make a broad statement regarding my history of exchanges with other editors, particularly since our exchange was never particularly heated. -- JJay 04:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes included nonsensically changing the section header "Personal attacks" to "pet rocks" do you have an explanation for that? At best it seems to be not taking the matter seriously and being a

dick JoshuaZ

19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment. I have explained why I change headings on the page. In this case, this user was not posting on the page to accuse me of making a personal attack. He was there ostensibly to find out why I was annoyed by his crack that I operate from "hardcore POV". In a series of posts, he then went on to talk about my "odd reactions", that "conflict with others is a recurring thing" for me, that I'm "looking at things the wrong way", take editing at Wikipedia "so personally", have a "history of heated exchanges" etc. In one of his messages, he writes "If there's good reason shown to keep the article, I'm willing to change my vote". Then when I provide some links showing that my AfD comment was not based on "hardcore POV", he responds with "You're missing the point. I didn't bring this up on your talk page to debate the merits of the Jackson article". I came to realize that his point was to lecture and provide advice, neither of which I asked for. His point was certainly not to apologize for accusing me of "hardcore POV". I came to feel very much like a pet rock, being told to sit, stay and roll-over. And since there is no reason that I have to repeatedly respond to this type of lecturing on my user page under an arbitary section header chosen by another user, I changed the heading to one I felt was more fitting to the general tenor of the conversation. Of course, as you have helpfully pointed out, I have a long history of being a dick, probably as a result of all those heated exchanges, and that is not likely to change anytime soon. -- JJay 01:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he's wiki-stalking me as well. I'll leave all other judgments as to WP:V WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and related issues (for both him and myself) to third parties. Tijuana Brass 04:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking??? That's a fairly serious accusation for which I hope you have some proof. You should realize that this is a public forum. Like for most editors, it is on my watchlist. Naturally, I'm going to respond when comments are left here that concern me. That is most decidely not stalking. I also frankly don't understand why you are citing WP:V. -- JJay 04:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(changed WP:V to WP:CIVIL, typo) Tijuana Brass 04:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking??? That's a fairly serious accusation for which I hope you have some proof. You mean like claiming, "any message on my user page brings certain editors rushing to the AfD in question to vote against whatever stance I have taken," which you did -- oh look -- two postings above it? Boy, that's a fairly serious accusation for which I hope you have some proof. --Calton | Talk 06:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

JJay's statement above isn't an accusation of anybody in particular. And there's proof like this on his talk page (not exactly the same, I realize, but it seems related). In any case, Tijuana Brass doesn't seem to have much of a case here from what I've seen. The only questionable edit linked here is [51] which does actually change the meaning of a sentence that didn't sound particularly offensive originally, but the meaning change was almost certainly unintentional considering the context it's in and his explanation of the change here. As for the revertions he made later, I don't see anything wrong with those either, it's his talk page and he wasn't removing warnings from it. Maybe he hasn't always acted as friendly as possible but I don't see any clear violations here, not even of

WP:CIVIL. –Tifego^(t)

_{07:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

JJay's statement above isn't an accusation of anybody in particular. It's an accusation of stalking by individuals whom he coyly refuses to name -- so it's still an accusation of stalking, period/full stop. All in peculiar defense of making a misleading word change in someone else's words; again, period/full stop. Not a violation of civility, just of intellectual honesty and of consistency. --Calton | Talk 11:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Carlton, let's not cloud the issue. I have never stalked this user. In fact, the only interaction I have ever had with TijuanaBrass was one AfD nom, my responses to his comments on my talk page, and this forum. That is not stalking by any stretch of the imagination. It is also undeniably a different beast entirely from the stalking I have experienced, which has involved editor(s) repeatedly editing the same pages I am editing, shadowing my AfD participation, and otherwise taking actions that are designed to harrass. With much of this action using the talk page as the jumping off point. However, I have never accused TijuanaBrass of this, so it is not exactly pertinent to this discussion. It is also not an example of intellectual dishonesty. As to the small change made to one of TijuanaBrass's comments, it was excessively minor and not in any way misleading, nor was it intended to mislead.

I tend to find long embedded links under unrelated phrases not particularly civil. If he wanted to, he could have changed that minor removal back. Instead he removed all of his comments and the section header and made an uncivil edit summary. Since unlike most editors, I have never removed any comments from the talk page, including attacks, complaints or messsages from vandals, I would rather his comments remain, particularly since I took the time to respond. After considering this overnight, and in the interest of putting this to bed, I have returned the five words that were removed- i.e. "perhaps you're looking at things the wrong way". We may all be looking at things in the wrong way, but whatever the case, I am obviously more than happy to let this user express himself in his own words. -- JJay

12:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Carlton, let's not cloud the issue.' Hey, let's not. You could start, by not making up things; you know, not defending yourslf against things no one said you did. Read what I wrote again, and do it slowly: what I was pointing out was your double standard in being insulted and demanding proof of an accusation you had not the slightest compunction in saying to others. And underneath all your convoluted justifications lies a simple truth: you changed someone else's words to change, however subtle, their actual message. Your I am obviously more than happy to let this user express himself in his own words is untrue on multiple levels -- starting with "obviously" -- and I stand by my reference to "intellectual dishonesty". No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it'll never be Miss America. --Calton | Talk 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't read slow enough to make sense out of your comment. Other than that, I stand by everything I've said or done, including the reasons for placing the notice on my user page, which this user chose to ignore. And no, I had no intention of changing this user's "actual message". What I actually did was waste a lot of time responding to it, as I am still doing. -- JJay 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

JJay, editing anybody else's comments is inappropriate, and I suggest you either leave them as they were, or delete them from your Talk page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

JJay's talk page is more or less at its original form, so we should be done here. Thanks for those who've commented. This baby's ready to be archived. Tijuana Brass 18:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess I spoke too soon. Tijuana Brass 07:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

More

User:JJay changes the title of talk subject [52] and then here[53] I fixed an error in my writing[54] to which JJay reverted my own edit back to the error[55]. Meanwhile causally correcting his own mistakes[56].

02:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Bravo. Your initial question and non-reason for posting to the user page broke WP:CIV and WP:AGF. I am impressed, though, that you haven't yet accused me of being a sock puppet here. I guess you save that for my user page. -- JJay 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is well established that

User:Jason Gastrich has recruited wikipedia members and used sock puppets to push his agenda[58] and [59]. This evidence of meat pupperty[60] is also on a AfD you voted agreeing with Gastrich (who made the page during his year long ban.) You have never reverted any white washing (example of white washing[61]

) despite posting on the talk and agreeing with some of his wishes. Meanwhile you have still refused to answer if you have been in contact with him or an intermediary.

Instead of answering the question you violated

WP:CIVIL, reverted my edits, and changed the talk section, which implies that I wrote it as a "Gastrich attack." Arbusto

03:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I never reverted your edits, although given the number of posts and the time I took to respond there may have been a conflict. Other than that, your continued attempts to slime me through some perceived association with a banned user, first on my user page and now here, are laughable. -- JJay 03:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Two minutes after this user posted "I never reverted your edits" he reverted[62] and again to alter the section title[63]. Also please explain why you reverted my typo corrections[64] twice. Arbusto 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because as I wrote that you reverted the page [65] removing a title that had been there for two hours and I reverted your reversion. However, please explain why you trolled my user page with a bizarre question implying that I'm a sock puppet [66]. As I indicated there, if you have proof then spell it out now in the proper forum. Otherwise, this looks like a blatant attempt to create conflict in order to latch on to the earlier thread.-- JJay 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Now would be a great time for both of you to drop this. You will never see eye to eye because of your fundamentally differing belief systems, and it's pointless to even try. What you should do is look at each other's contributions, weigh them against policy, and point out in a civil manner when there are things wrong. Just because someone disagrees fundamentally with your religion does not mean they are necessarily wrong in everything they say about it; and just because someone has deeply-held beliefs does not mean they can't write factually about the subjects of those beliefs without violating

WP:NPOV. You both have a history of good contributions, and there are plenty of avenues for resolution of disputes. Just cool it, please, and engage on issues not personalities. Just zis Guy you know?

09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

85.144.140.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Suspected to be Dr Les Sachs) [67] continues to add defamatory style information related to Patricia Cornwell across article and user space. [68] [[69] Is also making attacks against DreamGuy. FloNight ^talk 08:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. I'd like to block for longer, but I believe that address is from an ISP's pool, can anyone confirm? Just zis Guy you know? 09:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat concerned about User:C0ldpr0xy. His user page claims that he has done illegal activity and I think that this might cause problems for him and possibly for Wikipedia, even if it was a joke. I posted a message on his talk page but he didn't respond and he posted an article about someone named Jeton Ramadani, who also apparently did illegal hacking activities, which I deleted because it seemed to be a hoax. Does anything need to be done about this? Academic Challenger 07:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that unless he is completely irrational he is just posting stuff that isn't true for inexplicable reasons.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or another, let's not let this escalate into something stupid. Ignore it, move on. — Apr. 17, '06 [08:05] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Given that there is no "US National Bank" we can conclude that its not a real concern. Whether the user is bothing to contribute to Wikipedai is a different matter, and we should presumably keep an eye on him. JoshuaZ 12:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there WAS a "United States National Bank", but that was in 1885... so I don't think it's in any danger. :) Never Cry Wolf 12:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How ignorant for you to say that Wolf! Have you not heard of a little invention called oh what was it?... OH YEAH, THE TIME MACHINE!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this is obviously fake: if he'd really stolen $500 (accurate to six significant figures, apparently) from the United States National Bank, using his computer and a time machine, he would have referred to himself as a hax0r, not a hacker. Further, there is no mention that he is an "3117 71m3 7r@ve113r". He also would have referred to his activities as "rox0r", and the bank's security as "teh sux0r". Without these tell-tale signs, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that this is a false claim. JDoorjam Talk 14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious from the above evidence that this young man must be in possesion of a time machine. The prudent course of action is to not needlessly offend him or he could go back in time and kill us as infants.

Yes I did think it was somwhat odd when my parents disappeared in a puff of smoke this morning- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam, much as I respect you, I must humbly disagree. If he were that good, wouldn't he refer to himself as "3|33+ +1|\/|3 +|2@\/3113|2"? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

im in ur past, killing ur p4rentz. -- 9rm_wn0r 16:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of about a hundred long term abuse vandals.[70]; but it appears that he, himself, has added them. It was then removed; but his edits closely resemble that of the Communist Vandal:[71] [72] and [73]. I have blocked him for 48 hours for such vandalism. So is he, as he says he is, a long term abuse vandal? Thanks, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 14:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's a troll at best. He's done nothing productive in his short time here: I'd support an indefinite block. JDoorjam Talk 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

He's a Johnny the Vandal sock. I thought I got him the last time through (his obsession with Mike Garcia is a JTV trademark, and JtV has been impersonating Communism recently). Block him and salt the earth. Syrthiss 14:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

He's impersonating the communist vandal? How can you tell its JtV? Or mayhaps they are the same? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, maybe its the other way around. Ordo is listed on WP:JtV from back in march. Doesn't matter which is impersonating which, though. Both are suffering under an indef block deathmark. Syrthiss 14:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, since we've established that he is a sockpuppet, I have blocked him indef. Thanks for your help, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 14:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:4.226.111.130 is removing "prod" tags from many articles without doing anything else to the article. This does not appear to be vandalism, but simply an honest opinion that the article is worth keeping. The user is doing other, good, cleanup work. But the user doesn't replace the tag with "cleanup" or improve the article in any way; he just removes "prod" tags. If this were a logged-in user, a message on the talk page would reach him, and I've done that for his current IP address. But it's hard to communicate with an anon. I think this user could be a good contributor, but needs guidance. Suggestions? --John Nagle 19:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What the IP is doing is fine. A coherent edit summary is about all that etiquette requires for removing PROD tags; the anon is not only doing that, but in many cases adding stub tags and such. The burden is not supposed to be on the de-prodder beyond that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement from the accused party -- I am a somewhat regular Wikipedia contributor (300 edits last Saturday alone), mostly copyedit/grammar/typo fixes, but I'm on dialup and my IP changes several times per day. Today I decided to investigate the list of prod'd articles to evaluate how the feature was being used, worrying that it might not be getting sufficient oversight. I started with the oldest prodded articles and worked backwards through the list until I had looked at all ~500 prodded articles. Out of the ~500 articles I checked, I saw ~30 (I didn't count) that I thought at least deserved a discussion/vote before being deleted. That leaves about ~470 articles, ~94% of them, that I looked at but didn't de-prod.

On the ones I unprodded, I did add stub tags where I saw untagged stubs, and I did add cleanup tags where I saw badly-written text, but most of the ones I de-prodded already had cleanup/NPOV tags or were prodded for notability and not for quality. Since my goal was to review all ~500 prod'd articles in a few hours, I didn't have time to do much rewriting of the articles I unprodded. However, I need to point out that prod tags are proposals for deletion, not proposals for improvement. I left improvement tags alone or added them, except in a few cases where I could make some fast changes to fix the problems. I've bookmarked the contribs page for this IP (as I've done for other IPs I've made many changes under) so that I can revisit the articles in the future.

On the whole, after reviewing the entire list of prodded articles, I'm content that the feature isn't being abused by rampant deletionists like I feared; even though I thought I was a firm inclusionist, I could only bring myself to de-prod about ~30 out of ~500 (~6%), so I guess the system is working well. Still, I think there is a moral responsibility to check over the list, since it's not an "uncontested deletion" if nobody but the nominator ever sees it.

4.226.111.130 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like good work to me, 4.226. The Prod system relies on editors double-checking each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A perfect example why anons should take extra care to not be confused with vandals. It's alarming when an anon goes on a "rampage", and very difficult to judge intentions. Why not get an account anyway? :) Stevage 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Cemcem was blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. I am not convinced this was the right decision (don't bite the newbie; assume good faith). Lambiam^Talk 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Duncharris says it's a sockpuppet. I'd like to hear who it's supposedly a sockpuppet of before we unblock. --Cyde Weys 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If not a sockpuppet, Cemcem is at least a meatpuppet of another user who has posted on that AfD - his first five edits were to that page, and at the time of his block he had no edits to article space. The sock (if that's what it is) does appear to have been created with the intent of disrupting the deletion discussion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Leotardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Leotardo has been using an anonymous user's totally spurious accusation of sockpuppetry between

03:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the harrasser Mangojuice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . I added 9 pieces of evidences that would lead a person to believe the Theonlyedge is a sockpuppet of Pm_shef. You "thoroughly rebuffed" my charges by saying they couldn't be the same person, because they were editing at the same time, and one username was so proficient in adding AfDs and the other was very slow, so they can't be the same person. This was your only "evidence". And I added a sockpuppet tag to Theonlyedge, which you removed.... and now you are reporting me here. And I am the one harrasing here? No it's you. Leotardo 11:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And how many of these complaints are you going to put up on AN/I before you stop? I count three on this page alone. Leotardo 11:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a request up on RFCU, why keep pressing the issue? It will either be confirmed, disproved, or rejected. You know that pm_shef and theonlyedge have seen the template. Personally, I think both sides here should try to minimize their direct contact with each other (this goes for Mangojuice as well). If you have suspicions, bring them to an administrator and ask *them* to try and handle the problem. --Syrthiss 13:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll back off. Mangojuice 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a continuation of an issue that I mentioned above, but the administrator involved seems to have dropped out of discussion.

My recent discussion on (a) verifiability of NPOV policy (b) paraphrasing of NPOV policy, do not appear to have been discussed before. But FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unilaterally removed my discussion comments from the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view page, twice now [74] [75]

While I can appreciate an editor not wanting to engage in discussion, I consider the removal of discussions to be at least uncivil, as it removes verification of discourse, and prevents other editors from engaging in discussion.

FeloniousMonk has claimed that "dozens of Wikipedia's most credible editors have asked for this discussion to be either dropped or taken to user talk space over the last four months". As far as I can tell, my points have not been discussed before (FeloniousMonk should be able to show otherwise). And how do I spot a "credible editor"... do they have the power to delete contributions without discussion with the other editor?

I would like (A) my discussion restored (B) FeloniousMonk banned from editing the policy page on the grounds of heavy-handed uncivility --Iantresman 10:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is highly unlikely. FM userfied your very large, somewhat out-of-topic, and tenditious tendentious (not to say tedious) posts to the policy talk page. Your points have indeed been discussed, ad nauseum, as you would know had you read the archives. So far as I can see, your complaint is that your wordy and unsupported attempts to change a key policy have been userfied. Case closed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you find the discussions tedious (I can't find the word tenditious in my dictionary), but I asked other editors for claification on policy. I've looked through the archives (as I explained to the previous administrator); can you show me where I have received any clarification, or how I am supposed to? Policy suggests that I discuss it.

Nor can I find anywhere that FeloniousMonk has suggested that I take my discussion elsewhere. Nor can I find where there are policies or guidelines that explain the circumstances when it is OK to "userfy" a discussion? --Iantresman 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

tendentious (tenˈden sh əs) adjective expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, esp. a controversial one : a tendentious reading of history. (dont mind me, just trying to be helpful) Syrthiss 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

{{

11:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

172.208.173.58 (talk · contribs) is tagging legitimate editors with {{sockpuppet}}. He is probably the same editor as some other anon trolls/vandals, 172.178.190.244 (talk · contribs), 172.183.73.212 (talk · contribs), 172.178.132.39 (talk · contribs), 172.178.31.243 (talk · contribs), 172.174.77.138 (talk · contribs). I may haave missed one or two, but these seem to be the main perps.

As this might be a dynamic IP, I think a short block might be in order. Perhaps a longer one as well, but I'll leave to that whomever feels like picking this one up.

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 11:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are AOL IPs; given the dynamic nature, anything more than a 15 minute block will be more headache than help. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Headaches aplenty already! Thanks, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 12:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is: how to solve this holy edit war in the long run? 'Cause we can't endlessly revert and block every AOL IP number. Perhaps this could even be reported to the ISP? Comments left on talk pages such as this (which I have taken the liberty to remove) are not helpful to the Project.

13 ^{T C}

12:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Stay away from Kosovo or I call NATO to kill your parents"? Is something wrong with me if I find this amusing? De mortuis... 13:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Not at all, I left him on my talk page just for laughs. But then again, for all we know Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is the one trolling... The Minister of War ^(Peace) 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• ya people do know that the 172.x.x.x range is only semi-portable, so usually they don't support more than one person at a time, unlike the 64.x.x.x, 152.x.x.x, and 205.x.x.x ranges, a block on a 172.x.x.x range isn't likely to cause any problems, so you could probably get away with a 24 hour block if you really had to, and unlike the 64,152,205's, the 172s don't rotate unless you sign off, or otherwise disconnect your modem--152.163.100.65 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• only issue I can think of, is the ease in which AOL users can switch between the 172 ranges, and the shared ranges, does seem to make blocking them virtually impossible, especially since AOL can assign several different ip groups to the same computer, at the same time, hence my little quick change from 152.163.100.65 to 172.151.240.130, and back again --172.151.240.130 20:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• so, um, yep, virtually impossible to block--152.163.100.65 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked this indefinitely based on user name and vandalism only account. Contributions are adding pictures they uploaded to school sites, which included what appeared to be copyright pornography. All pictures also deleted. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The page Clive Bull is presently debating the introduction of a new version by Minglex. Some users believe that the article does not flow well: siting Minglex’s choice of subcategories, overall flow of the article (categories are stand alone and not linked well) and grammatical errors.

Blanning believes that the new version is better but instead of debating the issue has stifled debate through un-civil behaviour.

1. From what I can tell some of the opponents work in the same organisation (Same IP) and some others are students from the same university (hence same IP) [76]. Blanning has labelled them all sock puppets and refuses to debate their views of the article. He is also actively trying to ban them. These users have not vandalised any article yet he labels their justified objection to the new version as vandalism. 2. As the new article’s formatting and sub-categories are in contention by 10+ users it would be wiki procedure to keep the old version as by looking at the discussion page 10against to 3for is not a consensus. The 10+ users requested page protection for the old version. Against the wishes of the discussion and the majority of users he sneakily changed to the new version before protecting the page.

This is uncivil behaviour and an abuse of his privileges. Clivefan 14:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A case of m:The Wrong Version, it seems. Samuel Blanning did not protect the page. [77] Thus, no harm nor foul. Work out your differences on the talk page. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

He changed it just as it was about to be protected. Sthriss also likes the new version and I suspect colusion. Clivefan 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is highly amusing given that Clivefan was the one who requested protection. [78] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I asked for protection of the old version from Sam Blanning and Syriss see complaint below. They coloded to put in place the new version and protect it. That is uncivil. Clivefan 15:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

TINC. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Clive, Protection occurs to prevent edit warring or vandalism. , not to protect from editors who disagree with you. JoshuaZ 15:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see my conflict of interest here. I have never edited Clive Bull except for vandalism removal and a slight grammar fix. It is true that I stated I preferred Minglex' version on the talk page, but I've been largely trying to stay out of it because I don't have any interest in Clive Bull...I'm not British... etc. IPs and users from one side of the conflict have been trying for at least a week to have it protected, so when I saw that Sam (a party on the other side of the discussion) agreed it needed to be protected I decided to agree and protect it. Now that it is protected, Sam will not be able to edit it either for fear of censure because of unfair use of admin powers. JoshuaZ and BorgHunter are correct: we don't lock pages to help either side get ahead in a conflict, and anytime you request a page be protected you run the risk that it will be protected in the "wrong version". All that being said, if another admin feels that I may have been biased they are welcome to remove the protection. Syrthiss 15:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The request for protection clearly asked for the original version to be protected. You were biased. 147.114.226.172 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for page protection

:

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Wikipedia:List of protected pages with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.

Syrthiss 16:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A registered but unknown user with no User Page continues, despite warnings and with no response from him, to make inappropriate, evidently self-aggradizing changes on the St. John Publications page. Details below.

I have left comments on that article's talk page, and I also created the page User talk:Mrnitpicker in order to post comments/warnings directly to him before coming here.

I believe his edits to be inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia policy, and I document below that they are inaccurate. He does not respond, and simply to continues to repost, and I believe this behavior, coupled with the facts below, may make blocking him the only resort.

I am reposting here verbatim what I posted on the St. John page, followed by my posting to the Mrnitpicker page;

St. John Publications talk page

Deleted inappropriate self-aggrandisement

An unregistered [sic] person added, to the head of the article, "Most of the information contained in this article was taken directly from Ken Quattro's extensive and far more detailed article, Archer St. John and the Little Company That Could [79]."

First, that source was duly and properly credited under References right from the very beginning. Second, having created this page and going to great lengths to find other, confirming sources — as well as independently and solely creating a bibliography from scratch using often-contradictory sources — that statement is not only self-aggrandizing, it is inaccurate. -- Tenebrae 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding inappropriate comments

It Rhymes with Lust is not copyrighted by Ken Quattro. Its image is not exclusive to him, and if you want to get technical, what right did he have to put it on a commercial website himself?

If this behavior, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy, continues, I'm going to report you to the Admin and have you blocked. -- Tenebrae 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Mrnitpicker

All information on Wikipedia comes from other sources; that makes the St. John Pubs. article no different from any other, and all the sources, not just yours, were linked-to in the References section from the start.

• Every word in this entry is my original writing; you imply plagiarism by putting your notice at the head of the article, yet the article contains no phrases from any other work.
• It distills a long and highly detailed history of the company into a few concise paragraphs of original writing.
• It draws from a variety of listed sources, plus separately footnoted and linked-within-article sources, as well as other Wikipedia articles (such as Matt Baker) to, in the intro, encapsulate the company's firsts in a way the comicvilleart pieces does not, and, in the history, adds many details the comicartville piece does not.
• And finally, it includes a bibliograpy constructed from various contradictory sources, a bibliography constructed with my own sweat and hours — all of this, working anonymously, done not for credit or self-aggrandizement, but as an unnamed volunteer to help write an enyclopedia. If you'd wanted to write a St. John article from scratch as I did, nothing was stopping you.

I will now explain all this to an Admin for appropriate action. -- Tenebrae 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU for any any help. As you'll see from my User Page and Talk Page, I've been a hard-working Wikiepdia editor for close to a year, and from other editors' comments, I believe my work has been respected. Thank you again -- Tenebrae 15:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

He and a new user

00:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the info from User:KHM03's page while the matter is being discussed. I have not deleted it from the history. I am inclined to say that the information should be deleted from the history, as personally idenifiable information is a very serious matter. Johntex\^talk 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed but it's in a lot of different places now - check the contribs for HK30 and SimplePilgrim. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA

TalkTCF

00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it everywhere I've found it (on all the talk pages) but the link is of course in the edit histories. If I've overstepped the mark I'm sorry but it really concerns me that personal details can be linked without the permission of the user concerned. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA

00:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Help please -

00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No such username, but overcoming the slight difference in characters, I've blocked indef for POINT/stalking/edit warring/personal info.

seen this?) at 00:59 UTC (2006-04-14

)

Is a block needed on the other guy?

seen this?) at 01:00 UTC (2006-04-14

)

Yes, I think so. Not realizing you already made one block, I blocked them both for one month to give us time to discuss this without them posting additional links. Johntex\^talk 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift action - I have e-mailed

TalkTCF

01:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please ask him whether/how much he objects to the information being in the page histories. It is somewhat of a drag to try to delete it from the history of so many pages. Johntex\talk 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok - will do.

TalkTCF

01:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see the claim on User:HK30's talk page that he and this IP are one and the same. I saw no edits from User:206.61.48.22 on topics other than the same ones User:HK30 frequents. So I blocked that IP address for one month also. Johntex\^talk 01:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In this users defense, he/she was new and did not originate that site or spread it, I think, with any malice. He seems to just want a response from the users who it is about, in effect alerting them, and having the problem it talks about openly discussed, or responded to by the other side. I also note that the user, after being notified of his vio for the 3RR reverted himself so as not to violate the rule, and promised to follow the rules. I think he/she is potencially a good user, with a little explanation, and that therefore this bann is not just, esp. not indefintitely. Giovanni33 02:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I completly disagree Gio - the guy did not edit like a newbie and posting personal information everywhere he could think of pretty much counts as stalking - to the extent of asking Str1977 if he had a picture. Only the block and these kind admins stopped him from revert warring with me on this. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA

TalkTCF

07:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On his talk page, SimplePilgrim (talk · contribs) claims he used to be John1838 (talk · contribs) and J1838 (talk · contribs), whose user page was previously deleted as an attack page. I've indef blocked both of them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Another new user

TalkTCF

08:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted; deleted the transcluded user space. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - some of the users affect by these posts are on short wikibreaks for easter so I will keep a good eye out this sort of new user. Thanks again for the very swift response. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA

TalkTCF

08:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

TalkTCF

13:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

TalkTCF

13:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction he has not reverted but thinks I'm supressing information. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA

TalkTCF

14:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I thank Sophia and the others for trying to help; I would very much like the histories and archives of this personal information removed, if possible. KHM03 (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I just did User talk:KHM03. Jkelly 21:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in a lot more places than that I'm afraid - check the contributions for

TalkTCF

22:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple more of these have sprung up today but I don't know all the pages they were originally posted on, these two limited themselves to the user talk page. I've blocked both indefintely and sorted out the users talk page. --pgk^(talk) 14:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple Pilgrim request for unblock

Simple Pilgrim has contacted me via e-mail contesting the legitimacy of the block I placed on him. He also posted on his talk page, and I replied at his talk page. I am pasting those two comments here so that others may weigh in on whether the block should be reduced/lengthened/left-alone. User:HK30 has made a similar complaint on his website. This is the comment from Simple Pilgrim:

• I am very interested in why you have blocked me.

• In particular you say that I have posted personally identifiable information (or allegedly personal informaiton) onto multiple user pages. I dispute this and ask if you can point me at an example.

• I gather from other sources that what you may have meant is that I provided links to a site which contained such information. If so, I dispute this too. There is only one site that you could be referring to. When I posted links to it the site contained no personal information other than that available on Wikipedia. I do not know if such information was added subsequently, but if it was I do not see that I could be held responsible for it.

• I notice that other users have also been blocked for doing the same thing. As far as I can tell, no one was warned about the Wikipedia rule concerning personal information and the website in question says that no attempt was made to contact it. This seems exraordinary. Why would you and AnnH seek to punish people for a first offence (people who could well not have known about the rule) but make no effort to have the offending material removed. This of course is a secondary question since, as I mentioned, in my case no offence was commited anyway - the links provided being perfectly acceptable when they were posted)

• For the sake of clarity, I am happy to confirm that I have no intention of either mentioning or providing links to personal information in the future and in the circumstances I would be grateful if you would lift your unwarranted ban immediately SimplePilgrim 21:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I just received your e-mail. I will begin reviewing your situation and then I will make a more substantive reply to you here. Johntex\^talk 18:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a more complete explanation of why you were blocked:

1. You were blocked for a post you made at 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC) to User_talk:HK30. That post has been deleted now, so it does not appear in your user contributions. It is visible to administrators if the go to HK30's talk history and view deleted edits. The content of your post was to point HK30 to an external website.
2. HK30 then spread that information further around Wikipedia.
3. The content of that website regurgitated the same content that previously made up the user page of User:John1838 and User:J1838.
4. The content from those user pages was deemed to be a personal attack, so it was deleted from those pages.
5. You have admitted that you are the same user as User:John1838 and User:J1838.
6. Given that this external website incorporates information off your old user pages, and pushes the same POV you have pushed here (which is your view that there is some sort of Christian cabal controlling edits to specific articles), it is highly likely you are directly affiliated with the external site.
7. Moving deleted content off to an external site in an attempt to circumvent the deletion of it here is simply not acceptable. By itself this would be a blockable offense because you are trying to use a back door to reintroduce these personal attacks. You are doing so with full knowledge of the policy you are violating because you went through the whole proceedure when it was deleted off your user page.
8. The external website also reveals personal information about some Wikipedia contributors. This is a violation of
   WP:HA
   . Harrassment of editors is such a serious offense that it merits no prior warning. I will block on site for harrassment based around distributing people's personal information.

In conclusion - you did post a link to an external site. That site does provide personal information about Wikipedia editors. Such posting of information is considered harassement. The site is also being used an an attempt at an end-run to reintroduce content that was deleted off your Wikipedia user page. In the context of that deletion - you have been suitably warned already. Therefore, I see no reason to remove or shorten the block.

For clarity, short blocks override long blocks, therefore, your block will expire in a little less than a month.

I am also making a new post to

WP:ANI

to show other administrators that you have contested your block, and that I have replied to you declining to remove or shorten the block. This will give other admins a chance to review my decision.

Be warned, however, that the community is just as likely to decide to lenghten the block (perhaps permenantly) as they are to reduce it. Johntex\^talk 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This case was originally filed as an arbitration application by Demiurge (talk · contribs). The recommendation of the two arbitrators who have commented, James F., ➥the Epopt, is that there is nothing to arbitrate and that [email protected] should be banned by acclamation.

There follows excerpted information from Demiurge's application:

[email protected], and his various sockpuppets and anonymous IP addresses, has persistently and blatantly breached several Wikipedia policies, including

WP:SOCK

.

User conduct RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/[email protected]. Was certified by 6 other users and my summary was endorsed by 5 other outside users.

Problematic behaviour includes inserting virulent anti-Irish/anti-Catholic/anti-Croatian POV into articles, vitriolic personal abuse, revert wars and a wide array of sockpuppets. A user conduct RfC was filed, but the user flatly denied all wrongdoing and the sockpuppetry and aggressive POV editing continued. Examples of each category of disputed behaviour (much more evidence and examples provided in the RfC):

• WP:NPA: "You are an Irish Catholic fifth columnist parasite who has no business being anywhere in the UK. Stay in the country to which you owe your loyalty, and tell Camillus the same thing." "Too fucking bad, IGNORAMUS. DROP DEAD, DAGO -- GO BACK TO ITALY AN DSEE IF YOU CAN KEEP THE LANGUAGE ALIVE, OR BETTER YET LEARN ALBANIAN"
• WP:NPOV: "'Scot' is applied equally to all inhabitants regardless of their ancestral ethnicity, ... unlike the racist Hibernians who do not accept anyone who arrived with or after the Normans to be truly Irish."
• WP:SOCK: A large number of usernames and anonymous IP addresses which all share the same POV, same editing quirks, and the same turns of phrase. See Category:Wikipedia:[email protected]. Just one example: "he carries censorship in his very DNA, and it is always his first instinct" by Brandubh Blathmac vs. "It is Demiurge who is the censor; it is his DNA and his every instinct" by [email protected]. More evidence of sockpuppetry can be found on the RfC talk page
  .
• WP:3RR: "Demiurge--stay out of it--I'm just going to come back during or after the block and rv everything"
• WP:BLOCK: sockpuppet account "Mick Derrig" used to evade block

The user has not responded to the application for arbitration. I am notifying both him and Demiurge of this procedure. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

His response the RfC seems to be one of those classic examples of where an RfC response just shows that everything in the complaint is valid. I don't understand why this guy hasn't gotten indef blocked a while ago. JoshuaZ 14:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked at least three times for violating

3RR, once by myself. That's all I know of this case, but if the Arbitration Committee feels confident that the user needs to be banned, then I will support that decision. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?

) 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and indefinitely blocked him. If ArbCom won't bother with the guy, we shouldn't waste our time on him either. --Cyde Weys 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• User has returned as 67.101.79.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as shown by this edit and this personal attack. Demiurge 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Additional [email protected] Sock puppet evidence - In response to Demiurge reverting 70.19.72.158's "where apartheid schooling by creed has been the rule" post in the
  [email protected] then reinserted the material.[90]. 71.247.236.86, returned to the article a while later and inserted "a non-denominational school, which is somewhat surprising as almost all Catholics of Irish extraction, in the West of Scotland, attend "denominational" schools, which non-Catholics regard as "Irish" and "divisive" (Scottish Bishop Joseph Devine agreed that they are "divisive")."[91]. 70.18.203.33 then reinserted 71.247.236.86's deleted post.[92]. Leaving no doubt about the connection, [email protected] then added "non-denominational school, which is somewhat surprising as almost all Catholics of Irish extraction, in the West of Scotland, attend "denominational" schools, which non-Catholics regard as "Irish" and "divisive" to the article.[93] 70.19.72.158, User:[email protected], 63.164.145.85, 70.19.40.53, 67.101.192.69, Doc Glasgow, [email protected], 71.247.236.86, and 70.18.203.33 are suspected sock puppets of [email protected]. -- Jreferee t/c
  18:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:User247, who is also editing from an anonymous IP address User:24.7.141.159, is making multiple personal attacks, especially against User:Timothy Usher and myself and routinely accuses us of attacking him. In addition, User247 uses his userpage to describe comments made on his talk page as "attacks non-Muslim editors are willing to resort to in the hopes of censoring any constructive discussion of Islam." Examples of personal attacks, uncivil remarks, and miscellaneous accusations:

• "You got owned."[94]
• "...this proves how paranoid you two idiots are."[95]
• "The two of you have spent far too much time trying to tear me down."[96]
• "I understand from all your postings attacking me that you are threatened by my presence and knowledge."[97]
• "Are you hitting on me again?"[98]
• "You consider it lying because you can't accept the fact you could never do it."[99]
• "I'm bothered by the presence of a concerted war against Muslim editors on Wikipedia..."[100]
• "I'd like to add a few more users who showed up recently into the same boat as MOU for being unproductive non-sense creators."[101]

Pecher ^Talk 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User247 also creates section headings on his talk page to attack other users:

• "User:Timothy_Usher attacks again"[102]
• "User:Timothy_Usher attacks me again" [103]

Pecher ^Talk 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's my talk page and you two need to stop your attacks. Thanks for trying. 24.7.141.159 03:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems both out of context and less pressing. I think that both you and Timothy Usher should take your accusations against the user as a sock/meat puppet to more suitable (and coherent) channels. A well-organized, contextual user conduct RfC would be the first step. El_C 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You may also opt for WP:RFCU. Please give the interaction with the user him/herself involving these accusations a rest, though. El_C 21:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I shall.

It now appears this user has decided to take it outside wikipedia, attacking wikipedia generally and singling me out by name, with a helpful link to my user talk page [104].

For what it's worth, the "censorship" to which he refers was an attempted removal of personal attacks as per

22:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't post on Slashdot and never have. Please stop the false accusations. 24.7.141.159 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

While he claimed on my talk page that the Slashdot post had been “forwarded to [him]”[105], there can be no doubt that this user posted it himself, as established by (for starters) the following points of theme and style:

• “critical of his position”

Slashdot poster: “A look at the talk page [wikipedia.org] shows a particular editor by the name of Timothy Usher [wikipedia.org] has censored comments on the talk page critical of his position.”[106]

Hrana98: “It's disappointing to see that you haven't stopped attack people critical of your position.” [107]][[108]

User247:“...User:Timothy_Usher has been attacking any editor critical of his position...”, “...if any editor contributes a comment critical of his position...” [109]

24.7.141.159: “User:Timothy Usher has been editing comments critical of his position...” [110]

“User: Timothy Usher is deleting comments critical of his position...” [111]

• “feels right”

Slashdot poster: “These articles cannot be considered reliable sources of information and an open-letter is set to be released criticizing Wikipedia's policies of letting editors with negative agendas litter articles on Islam with what "feels right" instead of the facts.”[112]

24.7.141.159: “Unfortunately, in Wikipedia we go with facts, not just what feels right.” [113]

“...not because it was factually wrong but because it didn't "feel right" to other editors.” [114]

“...instead adopting whatever FEELS right to you” [115]Timothy Usher 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't post on Slashdot. If someone has decided to do this then maybe you should take it up with them. 24.7.141.159 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty trollish to me, and he responded to an NPA warning with threats to 'file complaints'. --InShaneee 23:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

True. The backstory is described pretty well on Slashdot.org posting. Although I should mention that both Timothy Usher and Pecher have been lobbing attacks at editors who were critical of what they believe. It actually qualifies as bullying and borderline psychological terrorism. As editors we either agree with those two or we suffer the consequences. I'd like to remind you that these two fired the first shots on my user page and I'm disappointed with the Admins responses to this harassment so far. 24.7.141.159 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake for not signing with my user name. I also want to note this attack on me is in retribution to this posting. [116]. User timothy usher and pecher have been tag teaming anyone and everyone they don't like. The similarities in their behavior makes it seem like Timothy Usher and Pecher are sockpuppets in violation of

WP:SOCK User247

03:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To further support my claims. User:Timothy_Usher labeled me a murderer when I refused to agree with his position [117] This was in response to him falsely labeling me an Islamist on those talk pages. Other users have been very critical of this user as well. [118]. I find it amazing that they always work hand-in-hand. Again, this is in retribution to my earlier posting and reporting of User:Timothy_Usher. User247 03:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, the Talk:Islamism page was protected because User:Timothy_Usher was removing people's comments. The Administrators agreed this was non-sense. I certainly hope we come together as a community to rid our community of any editors that follow the lead of these two. Not acting upon this will set the wrong example and severely compromise the legitimacy of Wikipedia. Let me know what I can do to help take action against these two. User247 03:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

I was alerted to this incident on my talk page and wanted to submit a letter I had been preparing detailing the actions of these two users. I only ask for your consideration.

My overall impression of both "Timothy Usher" and "Pecher" is one of growing annoyance at their heavy handed tactics against anyone who questions their established paradigms against Islam. Recently, Timothy Usher has taken part of multiple campaigns against any user he deems fit to attack. It started above when he lobbed insults and accusations at "Deuterium" [/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Deuterium]. Anyone that made the error of contributing an opinion was labeled a sock puppet of Deuterium and sucked into this war. I completely understand why so many editors have avoided commenting on this troubled username, but by ignoring the problem things have gotten worse.

At one point in this protracted battle, "Timothy Usher" had falsely claimed I was 4 different users. His only evidence was English phrases he deemed to be similar. Colloquial English has a very limited set of common phrases people tend to use over and over in casual speech and discussion. This evidence alone cannot be a grounds for a substantive accusation any more than hearsay can be admitted into a court room. Had the users in question been using esoteric terminology it would have strengthen the case but even then examination of IP addresses was a better solution. Although the IP address clearly showed, after I geo-located them, that it was next to impossible for me to be 400 and 1800 miles away from my university. This absolved me of any claims that I had been any of these users and he quickly dropped this line of attack on the notice board. He didn't respond to my sincere desire to understand why he felt it necessary to involve me in his attacks. This, however, wasn’t the end of this user’s attacks or his desire to recruit others to carry out his agenda.

After viewing a private web forum discussion talking about Wikipedia editors leading wars against other users, it came to my attention that editor comments were being censored on a Wikipedia talk page. Although I was hesitant at first to be bothered to participate, I pulled out my old username that I hadn’t used in months in an attempt to correct this serious offense. I began by asking Timothy Usher to stop this violation of our community policies. Only after he kept violating these basic rules that I asked Administrators to protect the Islamism talk page. Timothy Usher at the time had created an anonymous sock puppet from IP address 67.188.110.197 that he used to make is sound like he had a lot of support on his side. He knowingly changed his grammatical style to hide this fact and carried on reverting articles and lobbing criticism. This can easily be seen by examining that IP's contributions [119] coming about right when the Islamism debate heated up.

Timothy Usher and Pecher’s violations are too numerous to list but there are quite a few notable events. Timothy Usher has compared other editors to murderers [120] and has grossly violated

. I decided to largely ignore him while User247 decided to defend himself. Further examination of User247's talk page shows "Pecher" coming to the aid of "Timothy Usher" with his own accusations of User247 being yet another editor named "MuslimsofUmreka." This accusation was quickly countered by "Timothy Usher" and both of them agreed to concentrate their attacks on both myself and User247.

I am now seeing a Slashdot comment discussing a long history of this epic battle. Where this came from is beyond my knowledge but I would not put it beyond Timothy Usher and Pecher to write such a diatribe to further their ends. Quite honestly, this entire incident is growing to be an embarrassment for the community. I, too, am finding these attacks are unwarranted and becoming tiresome. I don’t try to focus on Wikipedia too much because my studies keep me very busy. However, I can attest to the fact that all the regular editors over at the Islamism article have left due to the events that have taken place since Timothy Usher arrived. Regardless of my personal opinions on the article, we cannot afford to drive out content creators and editors because of the actions of users such as Timothy Usher and Pecher.

"Timothy Usher" and his friend "Pecher" (anyone else think they are the same person?), have a fair bit of trouble getting along with people. I also firmly agree with the sentiment that this complaint is in retribution for the Administrator Notice against User "Timothy Usher" not too far above. Maybe its time we, as a community, ask Timothy Usher and Pecher to start abiding by our rules of conduct. If they cannot follow these rules, then they should have the option of not contributing any longer. We cannot make exceptions for any editor who wastes limited Wiki resources of prosecuting an agenda war because the casualties are editors who have made this place as great as it is. I appreciate your time and consideration on this matter. I look forward to proper measures being taken so this never happens again from these two user accounts.

Although I know that my comment will open me up to an assault of name calling, false accusations, and belligerent commentary in gross violation of

04:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty much like an open letter promised on Slashdot.[122] Pecher ^Talk 08:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:hrana98 was right about being accused wrongly. From Slashdot: ...Wikipedia's articles on Islam are tainted with negative propoganda... an open-letter is set to be released criticizing Wikipedia's policies of letting editors with negative agendas litter articles on Islam with what "feels right" instead of the facts. The letter above details both of your positions and does not mention the validity of Islam articles. Why are you twisting his words? User247 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So it does.

• ”...in the hope[s] of having [me] banned.”

Slashdot poster: “...in the hopes of having the account banned.”[123]

Hrana98: “...in hope of having me banned.”[124]Timothy Usher 08:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

At least the Administrators can see that hrana98's letter is fact. From above: "Timothy Usher" had falsely claimed I was 4 different users. His only evidence was English phrases he deemed to be similar. ... This evidence alone cannot be a grounds for a substantive accusation any more than hearsay can be admitted into a court room. Why do you persist on your little Crusade? User247 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Some comments this 24.7.141.159/128.97.247.141 had made on Talk:Islamism before I’d ever seen his user name(s):

Re Vector4F:

• “A reading of this talk page clearly shows that Vector4F has an axe to grind against proponents of Islam.” [125]

To Graft:

• “Ignoring this fact shows that you have never bothered picking up a translation for the Qur'an and are just ignorantly spewing non-sense on these pages.” [126]

• “Graft, knowledge is an amazing thing and it would be in your best interest to go learn something before preaching ignorance here.” [127]

• “I hate to burst your bubble but...”, “I find your desire to differentiate Hasan al-Banna from Mrs. Bhutto to also be ignorant.”, “Have a good day.” [128]

To ObsidianOrder:

• “Umm, I don't mean to be disrespectful but you are completely clueless with this statement”, “Unfortunately, your comment is rather ignorant and uninformed. I'm not going to sit here and try to educate you on where you are wrong because Google has ample amounts of information.”, “Again ignorance.”, “Please, life the blinders off your eyes.”, “It seems like you have a knowledge gap that needs to close before we can have a productive conversation.”, “Have a good day.” [129]
• “Furthermore, judging by your previous contributions to Wikipedia, it is no surprise that you have an agenda to paint Islamic political ideologies in a negative light.”[130]
• “It seems like s/he has a knowledge gap and an unwillingness to read the previous discussion on point s/he is bringing up.” [131]

All the preceding having nothing to do with me, much less Pecher, except to the degree that I'd felt offended at the tenor of discussion on the talk page, and the way in which this user was attempting to intimidate and dominate others through a relentlessly personalized dialogue predicated on the nefarious motives and/or abject ignorance of his fellow editors.Timothy Usher 13:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In his latest edit of Talk:Islamism, User:User247 has taken another editor’s comments (so they surely were) [132] and interpolated his own to alter the intended meaning of the passage [133]Timothy Usher 00:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this to El_C on my talk page and I'm putting it here for record... Was that a comment or was it an introduction? I assumed it was an introduction to the talk page because it was not signed and was residing above everything but just below the notices. If it was a comment then by all means revert it or I can revert it myself. I had no ill intentions whatsoever. I suppose I became confused due to the location and lack of signature. You are welcome to check my other contributions because I never edit/censor people's comments. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

To Timothy_Usher... please assume "good faith" as per Wikipedia policies. As you already know, I never revert or censor people's comments like you have repeatedly done in the past. I'm sure you can remember when the Islamism talk page was locked because of your censorship. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you are just hunting for anything to accuse me with.

Also for records sake this is what I am hoping to achieve (as posted on hrana98's talk page)... I think I am more than willing to overlook Timothy Ushers accusations of calling me an Islamist, a murderer and his constant harassment without any conditions if El_C continues doing the great job he/she is. Everyone has been asking you to abide by the rules, stop the revert wars, stop the harassment and name calling, stop using multiple sockpuppets, stop pushing your negative agenda against Islam, stop the meaningless argument, stop censoring people's comments, stop banning users who don't agree with you, stop asking for Administrators to ban anyone you happen to not like, stop labeling me a sockpuppet of another user without proof, changing your negative attitude, etc. I'm asking the same. User247 06:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• “I'm going to go out on a limb and say...”

User247: “I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you are just hunting for anything to accuse me with.” [134]

Hrana98: “I'm going to go out on a limb and say both of you are the same person.” [135]Timothy Usher 07:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me redirect you to the above comment I posted (please check the time stamp): At least the Administrators can see that hrana98's letter is fact. From above: "Timothy Usher" had falsely claimed I was 4 different users. His only evidence was English phrases he deemed to be similar. ... This evidence alone cannot be a grounds for a substantive accusation any more than hearsay can be admitted into a court room. Why do you persist on your little Crusade? User247 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC) You prove my point again. User247 21:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this is getting out of hand. I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (16th nomination), Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (16th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America 16, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America 16 as redirects and protected all of them so that it doesn't happen again for a short while. This is only temporary. Any objections?. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll just end up with "GNAA 17", or "GNAA 16.1", or, my preferred

WP:BEANS entry, "GNAA sixteen". (And people will think you're just trying to influence the pool, if and when it starts up.) JDoorjam Talk

00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, on the other hand, whose to say the nominations aren't or won't be coming from GNAA members? "Bad faith" nominations being closed as speedy keep, the article becoming "untouchable" in terms of deletions, they've got themselves a permanent place in Wikipedia haven't they? I'd suggest a 6 month break with a guaranteed relisting on 17th October 2006. Protect it until then and speedy close all nominations in the meantime. --kingboyk 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that, as soon as it's off parole, it will immediately be AfD'd (by a GNAA member if no one else). What I propose is that we adopt the following two rules:

1. The next AfD must be Gay Nigger Association of America 16.
2. All other nominations will not be considered; in fact, they will be speedy deleted as trolling/vandalism.
3. GNAA 16 will only be unlocked after gaining consensus on the GNAA talk page that a new, never-before-considered argument as to why the GNAA is non-notable is possibly persuasive (e.g., User:Linuxbeak realizes and convinces us all that the GNAA is, in fact, merely a Mefloquine-induced nightmare).

Or, boiled down to its core, Deletion of the GNAA must be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus must be built there that its deletion in AfD 16 is plausible given new arguments demonstrating its non-notability.

In this manner, we're not preventing AfD, or treating the symptoms (frivolous AfDs) without addressing the problem (the act of frivolously nominating it for deletion); we're merely raising the bar to its use. JDoorjam Talk 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as all the recent noms have come from people who are either making their first edits, or nearly their first... it's almost certain they're sockpuppets or have been told what to do (all the noms also have similar tones, to me at least). So I thought it was a given that these noms are by people who claim to be GNAA or support GNAA or whatever. --W.marsh 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop screwing around. Speedy keep any afds just like you would if someone afded

♥♥♥♥

14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Create a few plausible next nomination pages, and speedy delete any nominations for the next six months. Thereafter, the behaviour will revert to normal.

T/_C\^@

02:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The best solution (found The Hard Way by trial and error) is to redirect all such nominations to the same page, the 15th is as good as any I guess. Kim Bruning 17:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI is firing up the move wars again, [136] [137] which would seem to require that he be immediately blocked in compliance with Zscout370's injunction from March 24, although given the history of this fracas my words may well fall on deaf ears. In any event, if SPUI isn't blocked for this I'll assume that means I can move the pages back without being blocked myself... thanks for your time, have a nice day. phh 00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would block him, but as I am an active participant in the battle, it would be against

WP:BLOCK. Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E

) 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, sysops did not arbitrarily create new policy on AN/I, there is no "Zscout370 'injunction'". —Locke Cole • t • c 13:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't count unless Curps blocks SPUI for pagemoves :-P Cyde Weys 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That ain't happening - I'm doing maybe one or two per day. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Deaf ears indeed! Okay, well, I guess I'll go move the pages back, then. I can't help but think that there must have been a better way to resolve this. But whatever. --phh 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there consensus to move them back? There may not have been consensus to move to begin with, but warring over this is not productive. Presumably SPUI had a reason for the move; has this reason been discussed? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

many attempts have been made

to discuss these matters with SPUI. He has repeatedly made clear his intent to ignore any conventions or decisions that he does not personally agree with, and has disrupted literally hundreds of pages toward that end. To answer your question directly: His reasons have indeed been discussed, he has repeatedly failed to obtain consensus for the moves, and he doesn't care.

I agree that move warring is not productive. As I said before, I can't help but think that there must have been a better way to resolve this. --phh 20:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it actually warring if no consensus is reachable? JohnnyBGood t c 21:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix what I can in the time I have. If noone's blocking SPUI then noone should have the right to block me. Correct? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• pm_shef
  04:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification The checkuser for Eyeonvaughan and VaughanWatch revealed that VaughanWatch (

Thatcher131

00:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Jiang was reverting his user page and talk page to a state that, in my opinion, called disruption of Wikipedia. (See [138].) Note the caption: Taiwan=shame. I am tempted to revert it, but I might very likely be block by either Jiang or Nlu. However, I would like opinions on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it a personal attack/racism (albeit against a group (specifically an ethic group, not an individual), deserving consequences? Am I wrong about this?--Freestyle.king 04:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What do the two photos on his userpage and on his talk page actually say? Translations please. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 04:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, some of the words are in English. It seems like some sort of propaganda by the communist government in China to justify its claim over Taiwan. Some of the accusations include "Dalai Lama owns slave." "Taiwan=shame" It is basically two photos that provoke racial hatred between Taiwanese and Chinese, which is already a delicate topic on wikipedia. The photo also accused Taiwanese President

04:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. There is a difference between finding the happy happy guy amusing and provoking racial hatred. Freestyle king would do better to put his own house in order. Henry^Flower 10:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Henry find the "Taiwan=shame" photos amusing. Nevertheless the captions depicted on the photos are forms of racism/personal attack against a group and disruptive to the wikipedia community, since Taiwan-China relation is already a delicate topic on wiki. (see translation/examples listed above) However, I still like more neutral opinions on this before taking any other actions. To add to that, I consider the following phrase "Freestyle king would do better to put his own house in order." highly offensive. I hope no one is being personal.--Freestyle.king 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I reduced Alkivar (t · c · b · p · d · m · r)'s civility indef. block of StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to one week to be consistent with the RfAr. NoSeptember ^talk 13:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You do realize SIP is just a sockpuppet of another well-established user, right? The tradeoff is either that the sock gets blocked indefinitely or the same sanction must be applied to the main account as to the sock account. Since the main account is actually being useful and the sock is just being used for trolling, I would highly recommend that we keep the sock indefinitely blocked. --Cyde Weys 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The page Clive Bull is presently debating the introduction of a new version by Minglex. Some users believe that the article does not flow well: siting Minglex’s choice of subcategories, overall flow of the article (categories are stand alone and not linked well) and grammatical errors.

Sythriss along with Blanning (above) believes that the new version is better but instead of debating the issue has stifled debate through un-civil behaviour.

Sythriss used his administrator rights to protect a version of the Clive Bull page that is disputed. As he had contributed to the Clive bull discussion he knew which version I requested for protect.[139]

User:Kehrli has carried on a campaign of advocacy starting at an article titled m/z misconception, that is now deleted and then at mass-to-charge ratio. Mediation has failed. Currently the article only has factual inaccuracies, misleading information and disproportionate representation but that is after an extended period of being corrected by myself and other users, incl. moderators about advocacy. He has learned that to push his POV he must appear legit. Also not his user page which is a diatribe against m/z.

--Nick Y. 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

fixed a confusing typo Ashibaka tock 00:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

While browsing through old ArbCom cases, I suddenly stubled on an edit made in the old RFAR over Karmafist. It seemed that Karmafist had been blocked for one year UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), for making disruptive edits.

To save us all some time, this short discussion on User:UninvitedCompany's talk page ensued. Any and all comments are greatly appreciated. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your block of Karmafist

Hey there,

I noticed your block of Karmafist [140]. However, you may have been mislead by his provocative edit summaries, but it is not the case that "substantially all" of his edits have been disruptive. If you check their content, you will find most are normal edits (admittedly with the customary level of sarcasm here and there).

I certainly feel a block is warranted by his last "f*ck it" edit summary, and a few others in a lesser degree, but a year is much too heavy for this.

Please review the edits under question so that you can see for yourself the were not disruptive, but rather that only his edit summaries were uncivil. I'd appreciate it if you would adjust the block time accordingly.

Greets, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right insofar as some of the diffs themselves show relatively normal editing with curious edit summaries. The way I see it, though, he isn't contributing anything of value at this point, but is instead doing three things: (a) updating his user page and pages related to it, (b) making various edits motivated by wikipolitics, and (c) baiting other people by deliberately ignoring the AC remedies. I took the bait -- knowingly -- because the AC remedies were crafted based in giving lots of second chances to an established contributor. But he's not contributing -- he's made a decision to leave and is trying to leave as much damage as possible in his wake. He knows exactly what he's doing and is flouting the community on purpose. While I appreciate your concern and look forward to further discussion, and am willing to remove the block if it's clear there's a good deal of reasoned opposition to it, I'm going to leave it in place for now.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree he's not very contructive lately. And no doubt his edit summaries are only to be regarded as purposely inflammatory. Thats why I formulated so carefully - in no way to I condone this behaviour. But to my mind, your points (a) and (b) are no reason for blocking at all. Point (c) certainly is, but for one year? While I often disagree with Karmafist, he has seen good times as well and I think this counts for something. He's not a troll or a vandal, he's a contributor gone awry. And I think "there is still good in him" ;-).

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, but as soon as I have the opportunity I will post something on

WP:AN/I

. I'll inform you once I do. I'm glad with your open and honest reaction.

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion at User_talk:UninvitedCompany#Re:_Your_Edit_On_My_Birthday may be relevant to this discussion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this was the second time Karmafist was blocked for violating the arbcom ruling. As a process fanatic, I would think that we'd rather wait till the fifth (sixth) violation to have him blocked for a year, as the ruling says. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(from IRC) I do sort of feel sorry for Karmafist because I did used to respect him, but at the same time, he's been nothing but disruptive for awhile now, and I cannot in good faith reduce that one year block. --Cyde Weys 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reduced the block to one week, pending me being able to discuss this with him. The one year block was WRONG and out of place. Please follow the ArbCom ruling, UIC.

T+C) at 00:25 UTC (2006-04-19

)

I have to agree with Oleg Alexandrov here. Karmafist is flouting the Arb Com ruling with his edit summaries, which he has been warned about again and again and again... and the spirit of UIC's block is right, but we should probably follow the letter of the law here and stick to the five-strikes-and-you're-out-for-a-year remedy of the Arb Com ruling.--Alhutch 01:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had all day to think about this, and I have to disagree with the year-long-block now (and thus agree with NSLE's shortening of it). My reasoning is this: Karmafist is continuing with precisely the same violations that the ArbCom ruled on, thus, the letter of the ArbCom ruling should be respected. If he were doing something else, or taking it to a new destructive level, a lengthy block now might be appropriate, but as it stands, there's simply no reason to ignore the ArbCom's time and effort and short-circuit their decision. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

well said, i agree.--Alhutch 02:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a sock/meat puppet (User:CriticAtLarge) evading the current block on User:Gamahucheur at Ahmed Osman. Is there an administrator who can help by enforcing the block? -- cmh 22:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we allow to delete comments from other users on our talk page to cover up criticism from other users? User: Nlu recently deleted Rhtcmu's comments on his talk page, which questions Nlu's integrity. Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nlu&diff=48523697&oldid=48498685--Freestyle.king 01:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is, officially, nothing wrong with doing so.

T+C) at 07:25 UTC (2006-04-19

)

User Zora recently reverted my contribution in the Rajput article without any satisfactory explanation. Here is what she did

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=48963191&oldid=48961689

In effect this is what she achieved

(1) Introduced a spelling error in the word "Coterminous".

(2) Introduced inaccuracy and confusion in a statement pertaining to the process of Sanskritization.

(3) Deleted the names of two famous Rajput personalities from the list of Rajput heroes, who will be considered heroes by any standard you choose.

If this is not vandalism, what is? Can something be done to keep her away from the development of this article, as she is nothing but a disruptive factor in this process.

Maan Kanwar 01:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, this is not vandalism. This is. This too. Tijuana Brass 01:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I just now saw Maan Kanwar's notice at Talk:Rajput and his accusation here. I made a mistake. I posted this on Talk:Rajput --

Dear Maan, I agree, I made a mistake. The edits that you made don't seem particularily pernicious. I glanced hastily at the diff, checked your contribs, found that you are a brand-new account, and figured you were just one more of the sockpuppets that a banned user is creating at a great rate. I reverted to the last version by an editor that I recognized as NOT being a sock. I'm sorry I didn't see your notice here; I've been very busy. I apologize.

Is that all that is necessary, or am I going to be punished for making a mistake? Zora 02:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just an honest mistake; easy to make when a sock may be suspected. Tijuana Brass 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just won't stop vandalizing Olympia, Washington. Been reverted 8 times by 4 editors plus one bot. Warned thrice up to test4. Needs a block. Shenme 03:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Better off to add it on

03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)