Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

I've seen this at least twice by 2 different users, and I've only been checking at random. See for example: [1]. I've added all the domains to the spam blacklist that don't currently have external links in other articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-13 13:48Z

This User made the following comment on Backstreet Boys discography "Note2:Hi: I want speak with you I don't think black and blue sale just 15 million and this not with mind seven years just sale 15 million and they best boyband in the world, And your digit not true ever . take care before I wiping you from Wikipedia and I ravage your computer because you nuisance just here This user is also appears to be using multiple names Micheal-Nicks, Batguy, Richard Jone, Kmnmo, and has been extremely disruptive over the past two months (daily). All attempts to warm him of his/her errors and repeated removal of edits has not worked. Can someone please look into this and please take action. 59.124.99.83 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User is referring to [2] -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Want it that way (talk · contribs), Batguy (talk · contribs), Micheal-Nick (talk · contribs), Richard Jone (talk · contribs) & Kmnmo (talk · contribs) do all have a very similar editing pattern... -- Scientizzle 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a npa4 warning at User talk:I Want it that way, the account that made the attack statement. -- Scientizzle 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who registered the Jonawiki (talk · contribs) account is causing disruption at Star Wars Galaxies and Talk:Star Wars Galaxies, where he is using his sockpuppet Magonaritus (talk · contribs) (and vice-versa) to circumvent policy and influence an RfC. He has previously done the same at Upper Canada College and the relevant talk page for over a year. His demeanour is generally abrasive, and confrontational. All-together the user has violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:VAND, WP:POINT, and, of course, WP:SOCK, leading to edit wars and the pages being locked. Evidence has been outlined here. This user needs to be blocked. --G2bambino 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Jonawiki is now causing issue at Monarchy in Canada to make a point. --G2bambino 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now looking into this — One of these has contacted me concerning wiki-stalking with regards to the complainant. Will post my findings. WormwoodJagger 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I don't mean to sound suspicious here, but User:WormwoodJagger is not listed as an administrator. Nor am I sure how anyone has contacted him about possible wiki-stalking, as I see no evidence of such, unless the intervener has contacts with the user(s) in question outside of Wikipedia. --G2bambino 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was contacted inside Wikipedia concerning wikistalking. I can't say anything more until I've completed my invesitgations. If you have any further questions, please follow procedure and post on my talk page 74.110.212.198 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - I am not comfortable with your investigating anything. Your anon IP's edit history points towards you being aligned with the user(s) I have identified as disruptive and possibly sockpuppets. An actual administrator should handle this case. --G2bambino 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- you are not qualified to make that decision. I have been called in; it is too late. Your edits on Star Wars Galaxy have implicated you in a wiki-stalking invesitagtion that far exceeds only your minor contributions. Your assertion that I am aligned with others has been noted, and put on the record. Again, if you would like to discuss this further, please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page. All best, WormwoodJagger 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WormwoodJagger, under what authority are you making these claims? You can't be claiming this authority as a member of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. That page clearly states that "Advocacy is not mandatory" and "Advocacy is NOT an official Wikipedia procedure." You state "I have been called in..." could you please inform as to who called you in. You also state "...please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page." Could you provide details of what investigation, who set it up and under who's authority and where the protocol is posted on Wikipeda. I also find it very odd that you do not edit from September 2006, ignoring Magonaritus comments, until the 16 March. Just out of curiosity, do you deny that 74.110.212.198 is your IP? If I was G2bambino I would view your comments as a possible attempt at intimidation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not qualified? Anyone can ask for help from an admin. It is very inappropriate for you to try and disuade G2bambino from seeking assistance under the guise of authority you don't have. IrishGuy ^talk 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite odd. Is it usual for an 'investigator' to have only 73 mainspace edits to just 13 articles, including edits to the article in dispute? I have noticed some sockpuppetry at Upper Canada College, but this is something else. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I violated a whole lot of policies... I thought I was following correct protocol... I'll recuse myself. Good luck! WormwoodJagger 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would clear the air —— I honestly thought I was an admin. I was notified about this affair by Blunders (phone). Neither Jonawiki, Magonaritus nor G2bambino contacted me. You can see here I have protected a page while I was advocating on August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurofunk&diff=prev&oldid=71784370). I guess I'm not anymore, given that I was afk for a few months.

Nonetheless: I'm obviously recusing myself. I thought, however, that, for whoever takes my place, I would offer the findings from my investigation:

There are several indications that place non-trivial doubt on the assertion that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets.

(1) G2bambino placed a request for checkuser on Magonaritus as a suspected sockpuppet. His request was declined on March 10, 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&diff=114171374&oldid=114171183

(2) G2bambino asserts that Magonaritus and Jonawiki "always supports the opinions... of the other" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp). However, this assertion is untrue. They have disagreed 4 times:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Emulators: Jonawiki wanted to keep emulators in the Controversy section despite objections from Antman. Magonaritus agreed with Antman and moved it to a new Developments to Watch section.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Freeman_.22Controversy.22 Jonawiki wanted to keep the description of a controversy involving Jeff Freeman. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Freeman_.22Controversy.22 Jonawiki argued that the Bioware rumor should stay in the article. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#G2bambino:_Stop_Hiding_UCC.27s_Dirty_Laundry Magonaritus lightly chastises Jonawiki's demeanor with "no comment".

(3) Previous to the articles on Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies, both Magonaritus and Jonawiki have a long list of different non-intersecting editing interests:

• Magonaritus edited O Rly?, Elephant, List of Internet slang phrases, Dragon, Harvard University, AOL, ICQ, Edgar Allen Poe, Urban Dictionary
• Jonawiki has edited Harvard College, Old Ones (Buffyverse), Roma people, Green tea, Auction, Monomyth, Teras Kasi, Carl Jung, Monarchy in Canada

(4) Per the "100 edit rule" as one possible test for sockpuppets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:sockpuppet#When_questions_arise), the results do not really indicate that they are sockpuppets:

• Magonaritus has about 70 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies
• Jonawiki has about 97 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies

(5) On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp, G2bambino makes a decent case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki. There's no crime in a user forgetting to log in every once in a while. Then he tries to show that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are the same user because they both made edits to articles about Harvard, however this link is pretty weak.

• Jonawiki edited Harvard College to create a new section list of famous alumni. Magonaritus never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.
• Magonaritus edited the Harvard UNIVERSITY article to add a pop culture reference. Jonawiki never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.

On the other hand, G2bambino has displayed what seems to me to be disruptive behaviour, and proprietary interest in the UCC article, given his several hundred edits on the article.

(1) G2bambino has been accused of lacking WP:NPOV:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Rouleau....again
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Gbambino_and_POV

(2) G2bambino has been accused of violating WP:CIV:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Your_edit_summary_in_Image:Queen_of_canada.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Civility
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#More_on_the_meaning_of_.27Crown.27
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#gbambino
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Buchanan#Buchanan.27s_sexual_orientation

(3) G2bambino has been accused of vandalism and 3RR:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Canadian_Royal_Symbols
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Kingston_Community_Classifieds
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War

Re: Wikistalking

(1) G2bambino has been warned by an admin of violating 3RR in an edit war against Magonaritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War).

(2) Per WP:ANI, G2bambino did not have the "courtesy... [to]... inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." A check on the discussion pages of both Jonawiki and Magonaritus will demonstrate that G2bambino is attempting to get them blocked with as little notice as possible.

(3) Reviewing several thousand contributions from G2bambino, there were no contributions to any articles on gaming or Star Wars previous to his most recent contributions to the article on the Star Wars Galaxies game. The vast majority deal with monarchy, Canadiana and sexuality.

(4) His contributions displayed no knowledge of the Star Wars Galaxies game, just very generic edits.

(5) It seems his sole interest in the Star Wars Galaxies article was because of the presence of Jonawiki and Magonaritus. He even admits as much at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BaronJuJu#SWG_edits: "I was merely drawn to the issue as I've had to deal with Jonawiki (talk • contribs) and Magonaritus (talk • contribs) inserting POV and highly baised edits at Upper Canada College, and noted "they"'re doing the same at SWG."

This seems a possible case of wikistalking per WP:HAR#Wikistalking. Because of the past history of edit wars between Jonawiki/Magonaritus versus G2bambino, it seems per WP:HAR that G2bambino's edits in the Star Wars Galaxies article and his accusation of sockpuppetry have the "purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person... for the purpose of intimidating the primary target... to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely." G2bambino's edits in Star Wars Galaxies seemed only for the purpose of inciting and harrassing Jonawiki and Magonaritus. Per WP:HAR#Types_of_harassment, his behavior fits wikistalking.

I am no longer interested in this matter. Good luck! WormwoodJagger 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You put {{protect}} on an article. You didn't actually protect it. You aren't and never were an admin. You must go through WP:RFA to become an admin. IrishGuy ^talk 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this whole thing very disturbing. WormwoodJagger, you say that User:Blunders contacted you, but they don't exist. Of course there is User:Blunder (created 24 October 2005) but they have no edits. You provide a link to where the RFCU was removed as declined but forget to show Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magonaritus where the reason is given. Interesting too that several of your links don't quite match what you are saying and how easily you found all these when you are not active for months. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'll note that WormwoodJagger (talk · contribs) stated originally that he was contacted within Wikipedia; he has since contradicted that claim by stating he was contacted by another user via telephone. It should also be pointed out that the user who contacted him, Blunders of the third kind (talk · contribs), was previously party to the debates at Talk:Upper Canada College involving the accused sock puppeteer, myself, and WormwoodJagger.

Now, for Wormwood's investigation:

1) My request for a CheckUser was not declined, it was deemed unnecessary as I'd already done sufficient work.

2) Having your socks disagree with each other once in a while is a tactic for throwing people off the trail.

3) & 5) Magonaritus', Jonawikis' and 66.208.54.226's edit histories cross paths more often than they diverge. If I make a good case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki, I also make a good case that 66.208.54.226 is Magonaritus; ergo, Magonaritus and Jonawiki could well be the same person.

Disruptive behaviour:

1) WP:NPOV

• I was accused of NPOV by a user who was attempting to edit based on his own POV and not factual evidence. I was supported by other users, and the accusing editor eventually resigned.
• Accusation of NPOV by the same above-mentioned editor.

2) WP:CIV

• Confronted because I called a tag "silly"; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
• Supposedly offended user stated he never said my actions were uncivil; no breach of WP:CIV
• Debate with same user under 1) above; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
• Debate with same user under 1) above; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
• Accused of violating WP:AGF by same user who stated he never said my actions were uncivil; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV

3) WP:3RR

• Automated bot reverted legitimate change; no accusation of WP:3RR
• I removed linkspam; no accusation of WP:3RR
• Legitimate warning of WP:3RR against myself in an edit war with Magonaritus.

Wikistalking:

1) Same warning already mentioned above, does not constitute Wikistalking.

2) Agreed - did not perform the courtesy of notifying Jonawiki or Magonaritus. It does not excuse this omission, however 1) I didn't read the introduction carefully enough to take note of this, 2) I didn't want either user to stop their editing pattern and begin again under new user names. This does not constitute Wikistalking.

3) Jonawiki and Magonaritus were indeed causing disruption at Star Wars Galaxies; I intervened to aid those who wanted to maintain balance, order and NPOV. I am free to edit whatever articles I please. This does not constitute Wikistalking.

4) Agreed.

5) Agreed.

All together, this is a pretty poor collection of "evidence" - a look beyond the mere surface shows that 95% of it is groundless. The other 5% I have, or will, accept responsibility for. My motives are to see nothing but the end of disruption and strife caused by a particular user; it is not up to me to decide how that is done, hence I have notified administrators of the issue and leave it to them to deal with.

It should be drawn to the attention of those involved here that Roguegeek (talk · contribs) has filed a proper suspected sock puppet report. --G2bambino 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the aspersions being cast on my name -- it's a little ad homine(o?)m. As for 'conveninence': as I said, I was conducting an investiagtion. As for withink wiki -- within wiki community. Now leave me alone -- please! I made an honest mistake and am really feeling beat up on (sniff).... Have some faith! Good luck! WormwoodJagger 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You called G2bambino a wikistalker and attempted to intimidate him with authority you don't have. You probably shouldn't be complaining about aspersions as you have tossed the mud yourself. IrishGuy ^talk 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2bambino IS a wikistalker (see above). I never attempted to intimidate ANYONE -- I SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO TALK TO ME USING MY, UM, TALK PAGE. Clear? WormwoodJagger 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. You specifically pretended to have authority you don't have and told him what he could or couldn't do. Saying things like "I have been called in; it is too late" is most assuredly attempting to intimidate. IrishGuy ^talk 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No IrishGuy ^talk . I WAS called in & I SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO TALK TO ME USING MY, UM, TALK PAGE. THIS IS HARDLY CONTROVERSIAL. And G2bambino HAS ADMITTED TO WIKISTALKING JONAWIKI TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST HIM. WormwoodJagger 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WormwoodJagger, you did not ask G2bambino to contact you on your talk page. You invented some non-existant protocol and procedure and then told him that was where he was to contact you and implying that he was not to post here any more. As to your remark about G2bambino wikistalking Jonawiki. Well to ID sockpuppets you have to look at the edits they are making. Frankly, I too think that your purpose was to try and intimidate G2bambino. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm finding this very upsetting -- I'm not sure why CambridgeBayWeather and IrishGuy are even piling on me, here. If you go through my edits, you can see I thought I was an admin, when clearly I'm not, and I thought I was following correct procedure by having G2bambino's questions about my legitimacy moved to my talk page (you're wrong to assert that I did anything but ask him to follow protocol and not plug up the Jonawicki sock puppet discussion with anything else). I was asked to look at him in terms of wikistalking and, as you yourself note, without knowing his intentions, nor without having completed my invesitagtion, it certainly seemed as though he was wikistalking. He's had you explain his position very clearly now, and I am no longer suspicious, though I must say you two seem to work as a team, in my experience, as this reminds me very much of Upper Canada College last March. Furthermore, I don't care what you think my purpose was, anymore. Please stop wikistalking my posts here, and let the people who *can* resolve the matter of sockpuppetry do so. I will not be logging into this account nor checking anything for the next ten days, becuase, frankly, I feel like I'm being wikistalked and harassed when all I want to do is explain myself. I may even start a new account and close this one. Good day sir! I said good day! (imagine a Fez accent :). WormwoodJagger 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making silly accusations. This is an ongoing thread. If CambridgeBayWeather and I (or anyone else, for that matter) chose to reply to comments, that isn't "wikistalking". While you claim that you were asking him to follow protocol...it was a protocol completely made up by you. I'm also not sure how you could assume you were an admin. Who confered these admin powers on you? IrishGuy ^talk 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you are going to get much of an answer. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a policy for dealing with edits such as this [3] - personally I rather resent it - I spent a great deal of time an deffort on that page - do we remove it - or are we forced to look at it for ever. I don't think it is the time or place to start a thread on the subject there. Giano 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what? Please provide the diff of the edit that concerns you. Sandstein 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point Sandstein, I forgot to include it I ammended now. Giano 13:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seems a very sensible suggestion to be me - I'd fail any student who used wikipedia as a source - it's a good starting point but that's it. --Fredrick day 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See cite .. dave souza, talk 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the comment in question is violative of Wikipedia policy, and so should be allowed to remain (perhaps marked with a {{unsigned}} tag). --Nlu (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the comment that Giano links to: of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be cited in a scientific paper. Jimbo said as much also, I think. That's not a slight on Giano's editorial abilities, but simply a reflection of what we are - a general encyclopedia. And of course we don't delete comments in a discussion; that would be vandalism. Giano, if you disagree, just make a polite reply. Sandstein 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, not by our standards, nor the standard of most academic groups. This is not a bad thing, we are an encyclopedia and thus should only be the starting point for research. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem, and considering the poster is a sixth grader, it's good advice; it is an accurate statement of fact, and most teachers don't accept Wiki as a source. We don't accept ourselves as a source :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The particular article may be very good (for sure!). All Giano-heavily-worked-over articles may be very good (right?). Other individual articles may be very good (of course). But it's still much too early in the day for teachers to treat Wikipedia as a reliable reference work, as opposed to a useful research aid/starting point. The quality is much too variable for that. Metamagician3000 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wikipedia is extremely unreliable" It is the "extremely" I object to, even in light of recent events, I do not think the project is that unreliable. Giano 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another case of people whose imaginations and understandings extend from A to B, I'd say. No, Wikipedia is not extremely unreliable. In fact, it's extremely reliable. It is not totally reliable, of course. As the Science editorial review showed, Wikipedia can be the best source of information available to a student. Professors who allow no citations to Wikipedia are morons or think their students are. Those who allow Wikipedia to serve as proof of anything are as bad. Wikipedia is an invitation to research more, but it is research. It can never be the last word, but not allowing it at all is foolish. The "extremely unreliable" edit is vandalism, Giano. It should be treated as vandalism. It would be no more to the point than someone going in to the Pol Pot article and inserting, "a very evil man." He may have been a very evil man, but we're NPOV, even about ourselves, in article space. Geogre 12:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are just plain wrong - there is no other way to describe it. In no way, shape or form is that comment Vandalism. --Fredrick day 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on a talk opining that Wikipedia is not a reliable source cannot possibly be construed as vandalism, seeing as vandalism is defined, narrowly, as a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Personally I wouldn't cite WP any more than any other encyclopedia, but that doesn't diminish my appreciation for it. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not vandalism in the traditional sense, but it is certainly undermining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If the whole project is "extremely unreliable" because it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - what are we all doing here? - What is the point? Why bother with text at all - why not just print a catalogue of suitable published references under each title and leave it at that. Of course there will always be mistakes - that is a risk everywhere in anything - but if we think and believe the project is extremely unreliable - then that is very concerning indeed. Giano 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's adding it that looks like vandalism. There are already pages that say that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable. We already put that in footers. To then go in and add "extremely unreliable" looks like an opinion being inserted, not a modification of a policy page. I'd read that as an insult to my article, if I were writing it, myself, and a bit of spray paint that I'd have to scrape off the walls. Imagine you were writing something on Goobers, and someone comes along and adds, "Really, really, really, really speculative" to a statement that said, "The origin of the word is speculative." Maybe it's a clueless edit, but I can see it being highly unwelcome and insulting (hence vandalizing). Utgard Loki 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clearly well intentioned comment is not vandalism, even if it hurts your pride. Wikipedia:Vandalism says almost exactly that: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." A slightly thicker skin, or stiffer upper lip, is advised. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think AnonEMouse - you are rather missing the point. It is not question of putting up and shutting up - it is a question of - is there any point at all writing a page, if the second it is finished complete with references etc, someone can come along and say on the talk page this is "extremely unreliable" - if it happened anywhere lese the editor would be asked what specifically is unreliable? If we the people writing this are happy to be branded "extremely unreliable" then there is little hope for the project. Giano 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I looked for "Giano is extremely unreliable" in that edit, and couldn't find it. I merely found "Wikipedia is extremely unreliable". Taking a look at the number of articles which have been edited to consist of the equivalent of "Eric is gay" in any given 24 hours, I'd have to say that's pretty much correct. Despite that, most of us still, somehow, find the will to live, and soldier on. Sigh. It is a hard and lonely road we walk, we few, no more than a million or so of us, Wikipedia editors. So defamed. So troubled. So misunderstood. On that last point, being misunderstood, I didn't mean to write anything about shutting up (and, in fact, can't see where I did - but heck, that's two things I can't see. I must need a new prescription. Do you know a good optometrist for mice?). If you wish to rebut on the talk page, and mention the Science study, or a dozen other good things about Wikipedia, go right ahead, and you'll find lots of supporters. That's why they call it an Article Talk page. Just don't call people who disagree with you in good faith vandals. At most, visigoths, please.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh well, you're probably quite right. Wikipedia is for the most part completely unreliable. Giano 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say it's a work in progress. I'm going to go and check our article on the Visigoths, now. They were a very interesting Germanic tribe. Metamagician3000 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is pretty reliable because of people going around trying to make sure that it doesn't tell the world that Eric is gay. Therefore, having that insertion is an insult to the vandal hunters, the deletion hunters, the information adders, the editors, and the writers. An Alan is not going to welcome a Vandal saying that he's a barbarian. Utgard Loki 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry: wikipedia is not a reliable source.--Vidkun 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Indefinite block endorsed.

MiddleEastern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been indef blocked. The block was reviewed first by User:Sandstein who supported the block, and I have reviewed the block twice as per his request, and believe that the block is warranted as well. Given the user persistence to the contrary, I would appreciate it other admins can take a look. See: User_talk:MiddleEastern#Block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first that I have heard of this case and I have no involvement whatsoever in it--- nevertheless i would like to point out that over some time now I have observed that the actual practice of administrator Jayg belies his pretences of impartiality; he habitually uses wikipedia regulations and administrative privileges selectively to advance his particular political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.145.134 (talk • contribs)

...says the guy with no edit history other than this comment... IrishGuy ^talk 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Hm... MiddleEastern was originally blocked by Jayig as a sock of banned vandal Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I think this is somewhat implausible: Frogsprog usually vandalises Korea-related content while MiddleEastern is focused on Israel/Palestine issues, and apparently speaks Arabic. Jayig (who has not yet commented on the issue) indicated that a checkuser has confirmed IP address identity, but we can't find records of a checkuser request. MiddleEastern meanwhile claims to have used some sort of IP obfuscation, which according to Jossi justifies a block per WP:NOP. Apart from all this, MiddleEastern has exhibited some unpleasant habits sometimes associated with single issue editors, e.g., blaming his troubles on cabals of "Jewish admins"...

Does all this justify an immediate indef block? I'm not quite sure. But my experience says it's rather likely that an user with this kind of attitude will not be a net benefit to the project. Sandstein 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He apologized though, says he "would like to offer an "olive branch" to User:Jayjg" and wants a "new start" etc.--Domitius 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in waiting for Jayig's response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MiddleEastern appears to be a single issue editor. (S)he may or may not have a point on that issue. MiddleEastern should realize that There Is No Cabal, but should note that people with particular interests do tend to congregate. In this case I would think it might be on a per-language basis. We have a lack of arwiki<->enwiki translators doing adequate cross checking and sources checking. I would not surprised if both wikis were biased, POV, and out of sync on the topics at issue. If so, this particular case would just be a symptom, not a cause.

Do folks have ideas on where to dig up more arabic translators? (I'll go ask around myself too). --Kim Bruning 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find MiddleEastern's claim of buying "IP masking" software on ebay credible. I did a search on ebay for a product with the name of "MaskMaster" and was unable to find anything in the current or completed listings. A google search also turns up nothing. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no idea if MiddleEasterns claims are credible yet, but I did manage to start recruiting ar translators. That's something. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, why don't you just unblock the poor guy. He seems like he sincerely wants to edit wikipedia. He is obviously not a troll and not here to cause problems. I think this might be politically motivated and that is a shame. Jiffypopmetaltop 23:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had investigated MiddelEastern's case sufficiently to come to such an informed decision, you would have known "he" appears to be a "she". Rockpocket 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As I said on his talkpage, the main problem I see is that the admin who blocked him was in a content dispute with him.--Domitius 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was he? I cannot find evidence of that. Did the user provide any diffs to support that argument? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we hear Jayjg's justification prior to unblocking this editor. Rockpocket 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MiddleEastern was an incredibly rude and disruptive editor, so I have no problem with the block; the comment "I am only referred to as a troll because a jewish (sic) admin says so" sums up the problem. As for Sandstein's query about why there's no RfCU, first, there's no requirement to post a public RfCU, and secondly, Jayjg has check user rights, so he doesn't have to ask himself. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: In your opinion (SlimVirgin), one off-colour potentially anti-Semitic comment that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL (for which MiddleEastern has apologized) is sufficient evidence in permanently banning a user? And further, you think that because Jayjg (or any other admin has check-user privileges that he is not required to post a public check-user notice? I just want to be sure I understand what your argument is here. Tiamut 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could the remark only be "potentially anti-Semitic," Tiamut? Can you describe a circumstance in which it might not be? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been a mere description, and would therefore be simply a violation of WP:NPA. For example, someone here could write "Tiamut only cares about this issue because she's a Palestinian editor." Would that be anti-Palestinian? (or anti-Semitic? seeing as Palestinians are Semites) It could be, if "Palestinian" were being used in a perjorative sense. But it's not obvious that it is, now is it? As I wrote above, it's an "off-colour potentially anti-Semitic comment that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL." Tiamut 15:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reveal yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reveal what exactly, SlimVirgin? What shady thing is it that you are trying to imply about my character this time around? Tiamut 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know anything about my editing, you'll know that I rarely "try to imply" things. I'm saying quite clearly that I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that you regard the remark "I am only referred to as a troll because a jewish (sic) admin says so" as possibly nothing but "a mere description." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said again. My use of the word "description" refers to solely to the possibility that "Jew" in this context might be merely a descriptive adjective and therefore not necessarily anti-Semitic, though certainly offensive for its implications that Jayjg cannot overcome bias as a Jewish editor and therefore: "an off-colour potentially anti-Semitic comment that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL". I think that's pretty accurate assessment, don't you? Lovely speaking to you and still waiting fo my apology, as noted clearly on my talk page and yours many, many times now. You can add this one to the list. Thanks again. `Tiamut 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it itself may not. But add the use of proxies to edit WP; add the dubious explanations about his reasons for using a proxy, and you may have grounds for a block. We could change the block for a month or two, if she agrees not use proxies, and agrees to probation on WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just go and check this user's short edit history. See the edit summaries, see her questioning of editors about their Jewishness (see [[4]), etc. OK, so we do not need to bite the newbies and second chances should be extended in most cases. But her behavior so far does not bode well at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user looks like a sock to me: he started making fancy templates a little bit too soon for a newcomer. Even if the story about mysterious proxy is true, should it be allowed? (see Wikipedia:No open proxies) The fact that it is a single issue extremist POV pusher doesn't help his case. I support the block. (Disclaimer: I've conflicted with the user and removed some of his uncivil comments.) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there are at least two distinct, though related issues here. Firstly, is MiddleEastern really a sockpuppet of Frogsprog - because that was what s/he was blocked for. If not, then how and why was s/he blocked for that reason? Secondly, if s/he isn't a sock should s/he be indef blocked per WP:OP and/or for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues? Personlly I think that is extreme. However, even if the consensus on the second issue is to block, I would still like to get to the bottom of the first issue, otherwise we are open to allegations of using WP:SOCK as a difficult to challenge justification for blocking "nuisance" editors. Rockpocket 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Jay saw the evidence that ME is a sock of Frogspog so your second question may be moot, but frankly, in this case, I think an indef block for WP:OP and/or for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues isn't extreme at all. There are too many "nuisance" editors as it is, and MiddleEastern and/or Frogspog, like anyone else, could have come back without being disruptive. Had this happened, there would have been no reason to examine this editor, and he/she would not have been blocked again. <<-armon->> 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that, in my experience, users who come here and rant about Jews, Muslims, gays, or [fill in the blank], don't mend their ways. Support indef. IronDuke 02:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ME's and Frogspog's "voices" are very similar. Both went in for lots of ranting (ME anti-Jew/Israel and FS anti-American), lots of caps and shouting, both appeared to live or have lived in the UK, neither were native English speakers, both made the same kinds of errors. Add the apparent technical evidence to that. But even without the sockpuppetry, the block would be warranted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Jewish editor, I'm offended and support the block, per IronDuke and SlimVirgin. No comment on the sockpuppet thing, the vitriol is the reason that I support the block. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef block per Iron Duke above.Proabivouac 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs like this and this and ignoring consensus (reminiscent of other banned users) such as here imply both a divisive editor as well as one who may have been around the block before. I did not know about WP:ANI in my first week. -- Avi 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that diff, but that makes me support an indef block also, Frogsprog or not. We can still wait for Jayig to comment, though, before closing that case. Sandstein 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Sandstein. Rockpocket 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MiddleEastern was using the same IP as a very small number of other disruptive editors, one of which was positively identified as the permanently banned editor User:Frogsprog. MiddleEastern was clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor, though she claimed otherwise, and her edits were remarkably similar in tone and style to Frogsprog's, though in a different topic area. Her explanations for using the IP in question were unbelievable; that she was using a non-existent program ("MaskMaster") purchased somewhere which had never sold that product (eBay) which did something technically impossible (pretend your IP is from another country) for a reason which was totally bogus (to get to sites that are "banned in Israel", something Israel doesn't do). And if there is any truth at all to her claims, then she is still editing from a proxy, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. On top of that, reviewing her contributions in hindsight, they seem solely for the purpose of political advocacy, remarkably aggressive and hostile, and far too obsessed with "jews" and "Zionists". Finally, MiddleEastern has already made it clear she would honor no block, regardless of the decision made here. I am baffled as to why we are wasting so much time on this. As for the claims by MiddleEastern that I have a "vendetta" against her, and by Domitius that I was "in a content dispute" with MiddleEastern, as far as I know I had never interacted with MiddleEastern before the block, either on a Talk: page or in an article. I would encourage Domitius in particular to provide evidence of any content dispute, or apologize. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that those following the discussion read User:MiddleEasterns latest comments on her(or his?) talk page in response to some of the issues and questions raised above. Tiamut 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing new there, Tiamut. My understanding is that the block stands, and that this case is closed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut:

1. How does being an editor on wikitravel affect detailed knowledge of things unique to enwiki such as WP:ANI itself, that a n00b user would know about in his or her first week?
2. Using a zombie is forbidden in all wiki projects per Meta:No open proxies.
3. ZIONIST! We'll show you yet, zionist opressors, if you are pro-Israel you are PRO MURDER! Speaks for itself.
4. How is it possible for an Israeli to claim to be neutral? Speaks for itself.
5. User's 12th edit
6. User's 13th edit
7. User being disingenuos, at best
8. Especially when user soon thereafter posts manifesto.
9. “And I won't let you defend Israel in any way possible…”
10. Removing cited and verified information because it portrays Israel favorably (you don't see Isareli's doing that to Saudi Arabia, do you? )
11. Forget about an RfA after two weeks, she is canvassing as well.

There are other examples, but I would rather not bring the entire edi history. Judge for yourself, tiamut, if this user is someone who has demonstrated the ability to edit consistently within the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. -- Avi 17:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that she has to date on her account at English Wikipedia. That's quite obvious. But I fully agree with Rockpocket that the issue that prompted the Check-User was a sockpuppet accusation and that that is what needs to be investigated here. While there are certainly violations of WP:NPOV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, all of us have trangressed these at one point or another. New users, particularly those who from places or backgrounds underrepresented amongst our editors here at English Wikipedia, may have a more difficult time than most when they first begin, for many complex reasons probably better discussed in a forum addressing issues of systematic bias, conflict resolution, cultural sensitivity, etc. My comments here are not designed to excuse User:MiddleEastern's editing work so far, nor her inappropriate or disruptive comments. I do want to point that she/he has expressed a willingness on her talk page to avoid editing at Israel-related pages without engaging in the talk and to turn over a new leaf in her bahviour. She even extended User:Jayjg an "olive branch" (almost poetic considering Arafat's famous quote about not letting it fall from his hand at the UN - but I digress). My point is only that perhaps we could try to be a little more empathetic, while still considering what is best for all members of the community. We could shut User:MiddleEastern out now, or we could give him/her a chance and see what happens. The most we have to lose is having to put up with a few more days of inappropriate and disruptive behaviour before she would be blocked again. Whereas blocking her now means that we risk turning a potentially good editor who might not even be a sock-puppet into a sworn enemey of English Wikipedia. Tiamut 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this "olive branch" is about. Is MiddleEastern apologizing for the various false accusations she has made about me? It doesn't really matter; this is not a personal issue between MiddleEastern and me, so "olive branches" are irrelevant. She is either a sockpuppet of a banned user, or, if you believe her farfetched story, editing via proxies, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, the sockpuppet allegation has been investigated. Just because not concluded to your satisfaction doesn't mean no investigation has taken place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could any admin who has not previously done so please review MiddleEastern's unblock request and close this debate? I think we have sufficient consensus at this point on how to proceed. Sandstein 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it; I would advise you all to read my unblock decline comment. -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what to think. Have a look at the edits in Special:Contributions/84.13.41.18; I was originally suspicious because of this edit, which changed some possibly important information. I am not entirely sure whether this editor is contributing in good faith or not. Yuser31415 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP just deleted this section of AN/I, as seen in his contribs (I forgot to CnP the diff.) ThuranX 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor also blanked several sections of my Talk page today around the same time, which makes me rather suspicious. I warned the IP on its Talk page.--chris.lawson 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that edit linking to the Stansted disambiguation page rather than London Stansted Airport, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, it's a totally good faith edit and not vandalism. Original version was:

It is the fourth largest airport serving the London area after Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It is one of London's six international airports, along with Heathrow, Gatwick, City, Stansted and Luton

The IP's version was:

It is the fourth largest airport serving the London area after Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It is one of London's 5 international airports, along with London City Airport.

The IP's version removes the redundant duplication, and also changes the incorrect figure of 6 as the maths is completely wrong. The article said London Luton plus 5 other airports make 6, but London Luton was included in the other 5. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're "not entirely sure whether this editor is contributing in good faith or not", some might say issuing a blatant vandal warning is incredibly poor judgement, especially as his edits weren't vandalism. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the IP's blanking of this AN/I, instead of a reply here, IS worth discussing, since it should be up to others to say 'nothign ot see here' instead of him removing it; if any accused could remove, that could lead to chaos here. ThuranX 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, ThuranX, I would say that since that IP just started editing here the day before yesterday, s/he probably isn't acquainted with our policies. Yuser, on the other hand, is an established user and should know better than to call another editor a blatant vandal. Considering this IP is so new, I think s/he is to be commended for such a calm response to such aggressive messages. Jeffpw 10:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agf, but still, an IP that can find and delete from AN/I suggests to me that it might also be a more experienced editor with a semi-static IP. but if nothign else shows up behavioraly, then I guess it's jsut a new editor learning. Could go either way. ThuranX 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New sock/alias of User:Netspine. History behind all this is:

03:10, 16 March 2007 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs) blocked "MelicanMatkins (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Account impostering User:MelicansMatkin.)

So today there's been User:Netspine (now blocked) and now User:PelicansPatkin (which I admit I haven't even looked at in depth) It's rather obviously a sockpuppet, or am I confused? Shenme 22:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PelicansPatkin (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmm. Why do I disagree? IrishGuy ^talk 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked PelicansPatkin (talk · contribs) as an obvious vandal and troll. --Yamla 23:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• note: aka Netspine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • MelicanMatkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • MelicanMatkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 74.109.244.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Just for reference :-) Shenme 23:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume that MelicinMatkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is part of this club and block. If nothing else, it's a username problem. Natalie 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also found and blocked PelicanPatkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Natalie 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the IP's been given a longer block; hopefully that slows things down for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

An admin placed a protect tag on a new article I was in the process of writing (Linz sisters), and he is inexplicably refusing to remove the block even after I discussed the problem with him. I need the block lifted so I can finish the article. -- Big Brother 1984 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the article that you added was a straightforward copyright violation (every phrase or sentence that I checked was copied; there might be some linking material that wasn't, but that's simply not enough). If you want to write an article on this topic, then do so off-line (making sure that none of it is plagiarised from anywhere), and then ask an admin to remove the protection. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake here was saving the article before I was finished with it. My first save was a quick summary of the subject that I found on another site. I then expanded and reworded the article -- but before I could save it the article had already been deleted. I then saved what I have finished at that point as the new article, and then that article was deleted (and the page protected), even though there was very little remaining of the original article. I then explained to the admin that it was a work in process, and that there would be no copyright infringement whatsoever when I was done, but I was ignored. I have the finished article here right now, and there is not a single sentence that violates copyright. This whole problem started because I save my unfinished page too soon, but there was no reason for the admin to over-react in the manner that he has (especially after I explained my intentions to him). There is no reason to protect a page that clearly doesn't need protecting. This is starting to get ridiculous. -- Big Brother 1984 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been deleted twice for the same reasons (copyright violations) by yourself. Following the second deletion, it was WP:SALTED to make sure there wasn't a third recreation. There's no case to answer here. -- Nick ^t 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really wasn't a copyright violation the second time it was deleted. The admin simply saw that it had been deleted before, and then deleted it again even though my second article was completely different from the first. I NOW HAVE A 3RD COMEPLETELY ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE RIGHT NOW AND ALL I WASNT TO DO IS SAVE THE FRIGGIN' THING. I apologize for shouting, but I am starting to get frustrated by everybody's reluctance to remove a block that never should have been added in the first place. I’m getting tired of being treated like a vandal. This admin protected the page before discussing the issue with me, and there is no reason for everybody here to uphold the block. I am a long-time editor, and I fully understand what needs to be done to correct the article in order to satisfy the admin's complaints. There is no reason to protect this page from me. None whatsoever. -- Big Brother 1984 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second (i.e. last) version of the deleted article was a very clear copyright violation of [[5]], with only some words changed, bt with the order and complete sentences copied verbatim. Both deletions of this article were correct. E.g. your article: "Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them, despite filing nine claims with the court for access. " The Times: "Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Upper Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them once, despite his claims for access reaching court nine times." Fram 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, both the first and second version was a work in progress. The admin should have sent me a message instead of deleting and protecting the article. The finished article would not have had any verbatim sentences either, but I never got a chance to finish it because this admin over-reacted. And in any case, an occasional copied sentence does not make for a severe copyright violation. .But I'm telling you, the new article that I have here does not have any verbatim sentences. The proper course of action would have been to delete or reword the offending sentences, not the entire article. I can't believe that nobody will remove the protection. This is absurd. I have a new article to post and it is really starting to piss me off that I can't post it. This is such a minor issue, and I don't see why it is being blown so far out of proportion. Just unprotect the article and see what happens. I promise, I won't bite. ^>^ -- Big Brother 1984 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no position to do anything about it. Maybe try Wikipedia:Deletion review? --Onorem 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I posted what I have written on Talk:Linz_sisters. This story was international news, and should have an article. But as long as this silly protecting stays in place nobody is allowed to create the page. The protection is completely unwarranted, but I'm getting tired of trying to get somebody to correct this admin's error. I really don't care about the subject enough to go through all this trouble. -- Big Brother 1984 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested an approach that would enable you to write an article; if you don't want to take my advice that's your choice of course — but please don't pretend that it's wicked admins who are preventing you from adding an article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what this user is doing, or has says he is doing, or did I miss something.

He said: "I have the finished article here right now, and there is not a single sentence that violates copyright." And then came here, where admins hang out and requested it be unprotected. Am I just confused or did I miss something entirely. IvoShandor 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to hear a voice of reason. Now can somebody please unprotect this page? -- Big Brother 1984 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my initial read this situation escalated because you re-added copyvio material. Now were some new pages monitors/admins overzealous, sure, but you initiated the copyvio; they were simply doing clean up work. The entire situation could have been avoided if someone, anyone, simply stubified the article with original writing. An article will come of this eventually. I would unprotect the article myself, but I'll recuse myself for a day. There is a case to answer here, a notable article was deleted for a good reason. (no deletion review necessary) That ideally shouldn't happen; instead it should be replaced with content; an original stub isn't hard to do folks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted Big Brother was treated (warned) as if he was a new anon. I find that inappropriate and definitely not assuming good faith. So keep this in mind when assessing the situation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two entire sections of the article were moved last night, evidently by two warring editors, without discussion or consensus. Could someone please stop by and take a look?--Mantanmoreland 14:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick initial scan, both sections were moved to new articles: Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings and Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Since the information for these two sections is quite long, splitting them out to separate articles seems reasonable to me. This practice is well known and documented on Wikipedia:Summary style. Slambo (Speak) 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Slambo. I'm going to suggest that they retain a paragraph or so in each section, as it is blanked out currently.--Mantanmoreland 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this article could definitely use more uninvolved editors. I responded to an RfC.--Mantanmoreland 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User MarkThomas has been vandalizing my userpage by repeatedly shrinking the picture on the userpage. He should mind is own business. If it's too large for his tastes he doesn't have to look at. Please put a stop to his activities. Thanks. Billy Ego 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on WP:USER I don't see anything that says (no offense) a big gaudy looking image can't be there, just that it has to be free. It doesn't look great IMHO, but it is your page after all... - Denny 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he may be trying to get me to break the 3RR but as far as I understand I can revert vandalism indefinitely. Is this correct? Billy Ego 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one owns any page on the Wikipedia, including user pages. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, WP:USER does state that extensive discussion not related to the Wikipedia is not appropriate... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is related to Wikipedia. Its the explanation of my POV so people can see where I'm coming from when I work on articles. Billy Ego 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't require an essay. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture blocks the navigation and toolbox menus on the left-hand side. If WP:USER doesn't prohibit that, it should. -- TedFrank 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[6] fixes it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, nevermind, actually didn't need that. Just removing the right alignment fixes it. Why was it right aligned in the first place? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this MarkThomas's statement On that level, I agree, it's quite helpful to know we're dealing with a self-professed Nazi. My father shot people like Billy in a war not so long ago. [7] constitutes personal attack and/or break of WP:CIVL? -- Vision Thing -- 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you I was offended by it and felt it was a threat of violence against me. Billy Ego 02:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a personal attack; no, it was a threat of violence. El_C 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know that it wasn't a threat of violence. If someone told me that in person I would think they were planning, or entertaining the thought, of killing me and I would be fearful for my safety. I would be watching my back. I'm not too worried about it because he doesn't know where to find me, but that doesn't make it not threatining. Billy Ego 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it wasn't an explicit threat of violence, anything else is subject to interpretation. El_C 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.
I'm having problems with user User:DarthZantetsuken. A while ago, I noticed that he had several copyrighted images on his userpages. Every time I've seen other people with 'fair use' images on their userpage, they were removed. So, after checking the policies, I saw that, indeed, they should be removed. So I did. So he wouldn't think he was just being vandalized, I explained in the edit summaries. Here is the first case, and then I saw a second one and removed it here. Note that, in the edit summmaries, I explain that copyright images can't be used in userpages.
His first response was to revert one of those removals, and restore a copyrighted image as seen here.
I removed the offending image again, and once again spelled it out in the edit summary here.
Disgruntled, he then proceeded to request protection for his userpage from "vandalism". The page was semi-protected, but he was informed that it wouldn't stop me and that I was right to remove the image anyways. Across several edits, he eventually added an accusation directly into his userpage, as seen here. I didn't vandalize, and I'd say explaining my reasoning calmly meant I wasn't being "childish".
He also decided to remove my barnstar from my own userpage, just because it contained the words, "playstation", and "wii". This was vandalism. (You can see the edit here.)
By now, I was a bit miffed. Just because I actually bothered reading the rules, I get accused of vandalism and got my own userpage vandalized for real. Rather irritating. So, I left a message on his talk page explaining the rules, including links so he could check them out for himself, and telling him to remove any and all false accusations from his user page. You can see that message here. (There's an intermediate revision not shown because I also added that he needs to fix things if he doesn't want me to seek administrative intervention)
Rather than realizing that he was wrong. Rather than seeing that the rules leave absolutely no room for ambiguity, he instead decided to do a series of rather childish things.
He changed my post on his talk page into, well, you can see it here.
He moved part of the discussion onto my own talk page (for some reason, leaving out the part where I signed, just so he could call me out on not-signing; as if nobody could just check his own page's history if they were actually interested). He then admitted to doing it as revenge (or, as he put it, "You cannot prove this. Also, you have violated my user page so, an eye for an eye.") You can see the results of this move here(nice and polite edit summary, btw).
Furthermore, at the very same time that he started having a beef with me, an anonymous ip has started vandalizing both my userpage and talk page. Including things like labelling me as homosexual (around the same time that darthzantetsuken decided to add a note to his own userpage indicating that he was straight), suggesting that "bladestorm should die", etc etc etc.
While although I've been annoyed with many editors, I've never suggested that they should die, nor questioned their sexual orientation.
If you take a look at the edit summmaries in my own userpage here, my talk page here, and his own changes here and here, I think it's pretty obvious that he and 158.123.134.2 are probably the same person (at least, likely enough to check it out with a checkuser). (Actually, as a possible coincidence, if you look at the contributions of both darth and 158.123.134.2, and go back far enough, you'll see that both have targeted CertifiedGangsta with uncivil behaviour. I'm sure CG has cheesed off a lot of people, so it could be nothing, but I still find that an odd coincidence.)
Any and all accusations against me having vandalized when it's irrefutable that I've merely done what the policies explicitly state I should have should be removed.
If darth is 158.123.134.2, then I expect serious action to be taken for both the vandalism, and the rather uncivil comments like "bladestorm should die".
All false quotes from me on talk pages should be summarily deleted.
So, can I get some help here? Bladestorm 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was blocked [8] by NawlinWiki for a month less than an hour ago. I left the account a warning and if he continues that'll get blocked too. – Steel 17:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good to know. However, if they are, in fact, darth, will that affect him at all? Bladestorm 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He can't edit from the IP, but still can from his account... which is one edit away from being blocked. – Steel 18:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my IP, is there any way that I can approve it, oh exaulted one? DarthZantetsuken 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this suit you? This is my AOL IP thing. Yes, I'm an AOL User. Does it occur that other users could have done this? 63.3.18.130 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (aka DarthZantetsuken)[reply]

Um... Darth? Are you aware that you just connected yourself to an ip address that's also guilty of vandalism? And, more specifically, the same kindof vandalism on CertifiedGangsta's page that this first IP address did to my own user page? That is, 158.123.134.2 was used to add a homosexual tag to my userpage and persecute certified.gangsta, and the ip you supplied for yourself was used to add a homosexual tag to certified.gangsta's page here? Is that an admission of guilt? Bladestorm 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday has blocked DarthZantetsuken for 31 hours for rude and immature behavior. I've removed the personal attack from DarthZantetsuken's user page. --Edokter (Talk) 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (I know it shouldn't bother me, but I just haaate it when people accuse me of things) I appreciate it. Bladestorm 01:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to those who contributed to the new shadowbot thread: this edit by Irishguy for some reason deleted eight days of threads. -- TedFrank 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the...? I have no idea how that happened. My apologies. IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not your fault... It happens a lot lately. My theory is that the code that catches edit conflicts occasionally lets one through. --Edokter (Talk) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's a glitch from trying to edit at the same time a bot is archiving? -- TedFrank 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bot is just a user. When someone hits the Edit button, he gets a copy of the current revision. When someone else hits Edit at the same time, he gets the same. The problem occurs when both editors try to save their revision; the database gets two different versions based on the current revision. The first is accepted, the second editor gets a warning that there is an edit conflict. Now... Databases can be slow. That means it takes time for an edit to be fully entered into the database. If the software sees a second edit being presented, while the first is not yet completly saved, it might not see the edit conflict and try to save that revision as well; overwriting the first edit. --Edokter (Talk) 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandstein has just deleted a short blurb about myself from my userpage[9] which I believe is helpful to other Wikipedians so they know what my POV is. Voluntarily telling my POV is definitely related to Wikipedia. It helps to know where others are coming from. Not to mention it seems really hypocritical of him since his userpage has things clearly irrelevant to Wikipedia such as "I am also a bicyclist, a classical liberal, an author and a lieutenant in the Swiss Army." How is that related to Wikipedia? Because he's in the Swiss Army he's qualified to edit articles or to be an adminstrator? I don't understand the point of that statement. Why would that information matter to anybody? I think the deletion was POV motivated. Why isn't he going through other people's userpage and deleting things that he thinks are irrelevant? Please review this action. Billy Ego 19:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question by a non-admin passer-by: Was it really a "short blurb"? This might make all the difference, since Sandstein quoted WP:UP, emphasizing the "extensive personal opinions" bit, when explaining his reasons on his talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's Law has been invoked. The content that was removed might not be so great on a user page. It might be better to keep that to a subpage (No one ever looks at subpages) or use, well frankly, less controversial language (tl;dr, but seemed possibly offensive and very rant like.). If you just said "I follow (neo?, again, I didn't read all of it) facsist beliefs.", rather than encouraging social (Quote from removed section: "I also support the shutting down of large department stores such as Wal-Mart because they are putting the mom-and-pop stores out of business.")and upholding ideals that some may find repulsive, antiquated, or dangerous. Also, did you post this to his user talk page? It would be good if you did so, as this is considered common courtesy. (Notice: I am also not an admin.) Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "subpage"? How do I make one? Thanks. Billy Ego 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a page within a page, created just like a normal page is, except it has two titles: the userpage location, a forward-slash, and then the second title. It's recommended that you keep it non-threatening and inside Wiki-policy in subpages too. See: Wikipedia:Subpages. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "short blurb" in question is in fact an 805 word essay (longer than quite a few articles) going into intricate detail about Ego's personal political views to an extent that could never be useful to other contributors. --tjstrf talk 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that Sandstein is also deleting a link to it when I try to link to the deleted version of my userpage. Is this permissible behavior on the part of this adminstrator? I can't believe that it is. Billy Ego 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the section that was removed is against Wikipedia policy, linking to it is probably against policy as well. (Extreme example) It's like there is a dead body on the road, someone buries it, and then you put a giant neon sign saying "It's got a gold watch on" pointing at the grave. Glad to see Sandstein showed up, too Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not notified of this discussion. At issue is whether a multipage political essay belongs on a user page. WP:UP says it does not. For more, see User_talk:Sandstein#Deleting_things_on_my_userpage and User_talk:Billy_Ego#Essay_removed. Sandstein 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a political "essay." And it's not multipage. It's one paragraph. It takes up only one-third of my monitor screen. How is that multipage? Billy Ego 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It deals with politics. It's more than one page in length on a Microsoft word document, normal font setup (Just because no one separated the paragraphs doesn't mean it's not more than one page). Hence is it a political essay one paragraph in length. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the important part of Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F which Sandstein quoted was "extensive". In other words, if you have a few words about your stand, that's all right, but Sandstein clearly thought you were verging on a full fledged essay. Compared with your comments about his page, for example, no doubt he feels strongly about liberalism and the Swiss army, but he doesn't put up an entire lecture on them. If you can condense your statements to brief notes, that should be OK. I wouldn't recommend going to subpages either, that would fall under the same policy. Your user page should be about you as a Wikipedia editor. Feel free to put up a link to a personal site or two, on which you can expound on your political views - popular free hosts include Blogger.com, Geocities, Tripod.com, and others. (For what it's worth, I am an admin, but that doesn't mean my statements are necessarily any more valuable as one. I'm just offering advice as a moderately experienced user here.)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

Just came by and would like to annotate that 1) I think it's generally a good and in my opinion in this special case good-faithed thing to lay bare one's own POV when you are going to edit articles pertaining to your POV, and 2) that instead of unilaterally removing that essay, the situation could and maybe should have been posted here first. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would have been better if he had been asked to remove it on his talk page, which is where such a request should go. Except, oh yeah, he was asked, Wikipedia's userpage policy was highlighted, and he refused. It is absolutely not optimal to post every single policy violation on AN/I for opinions. It was a clear-cut policy violation. Sandstein pointed to the policy and asked him to remove it (whereas some editors would have skipped this step, incorrectly, in my opinion). He didn't, so Sandstein removed it for him. Nothing to see here, move along folks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skookum1 has engaged in repeated personal attacks against me despite warnings.

• First attack[10] - he calling me dishonest, a hypocrite, and vain. I put a warning on his Talk page for this[11].
• Second attack[12] - he calling me a "terrible hypcrite". I put a second warning on his Talk page[13].
• Third attack[14] - he calling me a "pretentious twit".

I have not warned him for the third attack, because I don't think the warnings are doing any good. He only responded to the warnings with taunts[15]. Admin intervention would be much appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it all started on Talk:Chinaman, extended into User_talk:Skookum1#Irony, and finally onto what HongQiGong is referencing. I'm trying to separate the content dispute from the personal attacks, and wouldn't mind an extra pair of eyeballs. Xiner (talk, email) 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to seperate out the content dispute from the personal attacks? Those three are the only instances that I've specifically noticed. But Skookum's comments tend to be pretty long, so I might have missed some other ones. Most of what I've said toward him is to explain that we should avoid using weasel words and original research, and also that WP is not to be used as a soapbox. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to read all the comments on those pages, and it seems that there is a content dispute. However, that has now been drowned out by the personal attacks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content dispute is obvious, and it's not really anything different from your average content dispute about a controversial topic. I tried to keep my replies to him short - please provide sources, avoid use of weasel words, don't use original research, don't soapbox on the Talk page, etc. Which eventually led to him attacking me. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely disingenuous and mirepresentative. Hong trots out "weasel worlds", "original reseqarch" and "soapboxing" as if I were actually guilty of them and is if he didn't do exactly the same things himself.Skookum1 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he's only interested in justifying his attacks and continuing his incivility. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Hong Qi Gong is in the habit of running to authority whenever his own inconsistencies and ill-behaviour are called on the carpet and he finds his bad logics/evidence cornered and revealed for what they are (empty posturing); and de facto what he's doing is a personal attack on me, based on my responses to his ill-advised, provocative and utterly POV changes to Chinaman, and his fudging of the facts concerning the citations there etc. The squeaky wheel gets the grease - but why is it that Hong Qi Gong's wheel squeaks so damned much? Recruiting admins to hound another editor he's deliberately provoked an argument with......The real incident here is Hong Qi Gong's POVisms, lately as applied to Chinaman under the guise of needing-citations, but without providing valid citations of his own; and throwing around guidelines like WP:Weasel words which he himself is guilty of violating, especially in regards the logic applied to his POV edits at Chinaman. But some people can look in the mirror and think it's a window, I guess....Skookum1 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, IMO Hong is only launching this incident report so as to incite momentum against me towards a block for incivility; during my last and only block (thanks to standing up for democratic values at Talk:Erik Bornmann) Hong actually showed up on my talkpage and gloated about me being blocked, and how he hopes I'd never come back etc etc. Some admins may choose to cooperate with this childishness and clear attempt to manipulate Wikipedia processes; I'd hope most of you have more common sense. Hong is not posting this out of a concern for civility, but because he wants to get rid of someone who challenges him so he can "control" certain articles in peace. Fine, masking disreputable conduct under the guise of "civility" may indeed be one of the oldest games in "civilization". More's the pity.Skookum1 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly willing to further engage in discussion regarding the content dispute, but I have warned you twice on personal attacks before "running to authority". My only responses on said content dispute has been that we should avoid using weasel words and original research, and that sources should be provided if weasel words like "some people" are used. These are perfectly legitimate editing concerns to point out. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I'm getting massive deja vu here. Quite sure this has been on ANI before. Why don't try a spot of dispute resolution - WP:RFC, maybe? Or even community enforced mediation? Really, though, I'm damned if I can see how this requires immediate admin intervention. Recommend taking this elsewhere, and I've probably said that before, as well. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there were personal attacks. If everyone stops posting now, however, it'll all pass. Xiner (talk, email) 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I have warned you twice on personal attacks" - warned me? Whined at me, maybe. But what are you, a judge and jury? Just because I don't invoke official procedure against you (which maybe is a good idea, given last time, especially your gloat-attack during the Bornmann block) doesn't mean you're not just as guilty. And yes, "running to authority" is the hallmark of the morally weak - that's an opinion, not an attack, so deal with it. If you want others to stop using "weasel words" maybe you'd better learn what those are and not falsely accuse others of using them when they haven't and when you have YOURSELF. The perfectly legitimate editing concerns at Talk:Chinaman you invariably ignore, or delete.Skookum1 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum, please be more civil than that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Oguz1 (talk · contribs) has been reverting other users' edits in spite, i.e. here and here. He was warned to stop at User talk:Aldux#Oguz1, but still continues to do so. [16] Khoikhoi 19:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he was also bad-faith edit-warring with these parties and has a history of this behavior. I've blocked him for 1 week. Rama's arrow 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt, who is banned, posted again on Talk:Daniel Brandt. I am just curious--why does this user get to post/interact when banned when other banned users with articles (such as Barbara Schwartz) are routinely RM/RV'd out if they post. my understanding was posts by banned users were typically removed for being banned, and the usernames (if logged in) blocked as socks, and the IPs if not logged in blocked for a duration. - Denny 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't. Revert. Block. Ignore. --tjstrf talk 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others have let the edit stand... and during the previous hooha (DRV/AfD/DRV) I believe Doc Glasgow (an admin) had actually threatened to ban anyone who RV'd out Brandt's edit at one point. I am not an admin so I can't block myself. - Denny 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant diff from before...

I've quit for now. But is any process pillock removes the above as the post of a banned users, I will rise from the grave and block them for 1,000 years.--Doc^g 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... is policy we endorse this, or is anyone free to RV banned users on sight? - Denny 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits says "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion.". So users are free to rv banned users edits on sight, any block for such behavior would be innapropriate. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to be clear, do you mean if I RV a banned user, anyone blocking/reprimanding me is out of line... or that RVing a banned user is fine, but reblocking them/their IP is not alright? - Denny 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I mean any action taking against a person reverting a banned user would not be appropriate as the action of reverting a banned user is explicitly allowed in the banning policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny, nobody is stopping you but nor can you force other editors to remove said material. Personally I think this is a case where his non-main space edits should be allowed but that is just my POV. At least he isnt hiding who he is, SqueakBox 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind if an editor in good standing also wishes the addition of the material the banned user is adding, then regular editorial debate should take place. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Doc stepped in because Brandt was correcting potentially libelous/false information about a living person–himself. If that's all he's doing I'd let it stand. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that WP:BLP trumps anything else, if it is unsourced material about a living person being removed then it needs to stay removed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP notwithstanding my concern is that if we do this for this banned user, the next person banned with an article can point to this and say, "Did it for Brandt". then, if we don't do this for all banned users with articles (the number will surely grow in time), it would be hypocritical to only give Brandt that luxury. - Denny 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a BLP violation then we are not doing it for Brandt, but because of our policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF??? I really can't believe this rules-wonking! Three weeks ago Brandt posted some fairly level-headed observations on his own bio page. At the time, I issued a warning that they should not be removed because I suspected that some small-minded person would be more concerned with the 'rules' or with dissing Brandt than actually looking to see how we could improve out content with fairness to the subject. Here, three weeks later, someone drags this up and wikilawyers exactly as I'd feared. We are not in the business of warring with Brandt or any other 'banned user'. If they may useful posts, all good and well. This is not a battleground and we don't do vendettas. Article quality is always our overarching priority. Try creating www.wiki-soap if you need a MUD where you can battle foul fiends and other monsters endlessly.--Doc^g 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right message to be sending. The message is not "If you arre banned you are our enemy forever." If someone, anyone, any banned user comes back and reasonably explains some problems with an article on a talk page, they are welcome to do so with thanks (at least from me). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't ban users in a punitive manner. If users are actively contributing to the project, there is no reason not to allow them to do so. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly disagree with either of you in that if the edit has merit, it shouldn't be reverted, but WP:BAN is abundantly clear that that belief is not policy (no "wikilawyering" necessary, sorry Doc); perhaps a change is in order to bring it closer to the blocking policy so that it states that edits by banned users may be reverted rather than the present language. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, Brandt is banned for very good reason, and any edit he makes should indeed be reverted. He has stalked me for many months, stalking that has included contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine from 20 years ago. He has posted seriously libellous material then refused to publish a correction that was sent to him, which shows he is not the honest researcher he claims to be. He tried to hound another woman either out of her job or out of Wikipedia, and succeeded in doing the latter. He has posted photographs of people without their consent, some of which were very intrusive and clearly intended to be hurtful and possibly damaging to their lives. The only person I know of who has more seriously invaded Wikipedians' lives was Amorrow, whose edits are reverted on sight so that he gets the message that he isn't welcome here, no matter how useful his contributions might otherwise be. If we don't afford that minimum courtesy to editors — that we're not going to be asked to edit alongside people who are stalking us — then we'll lose everyone that Brandt and others like him decide to target.

It's common sense to allow corrections to his BLP to be made if he draws attention to them, but if that's his only interest, as opposed to grandstanding, he can do it by e-mail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we encourage Brandt's general participation. But as long as we have a publicly listed article on him - and an open discussion about it on a talk page - we should not prevent his public participation in that. Removing edits that are otherwise constructive is churlish, and serves no useful purpose. Denying him a right to comment publicly on his own bio will not prevent the behaviour you indicate, indeed it is only likely to escalate things further.--Doc^g 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that constructive edits by banned users shouldn't be removed just for the hell of it or to spite them. But the key word here is "constructive". You can hardly call deriding Wikipedians and claiming we have "no sense of social responsibility" constructive in any way. If he wants to fix his article, he can either learn to keep a civil tongue in his head first, or do as SlimVirgin suggests and conduct his business by e-mail. The substantive content of that linked post could have been quite easily said in a civil, policy abiding manner as "Mentioning my draft card burning without also mentioning the amnesty is non-neutral/libelous/mean, please fix it." I find it quite humourous that a man who claims to fear for his reputation because of us mentioning his student activism, which was apparently mentioned in the New York Times and already quite publically available to anyone who cared, doesn't think that his habitually throwing about insults online is potentially just as damaging to him. If I were an employer I'd care a lot more about my applicant's present attitude when dealing with people they don't like than what their political views were during Vietnam. --tjstrf talk 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is precisely the problem. Commenting on Brandt's ethics, inconsistencies and contradictions is not really not something we should have any need to do. What you think of Brandt is neither here nor there.--Doc^g 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do have a need to do it, because of people who revert those who have removed Brandt's posts. If editors would avoid helping banned editors to evade their block, we wouldn't need this discussion. Musical Linguist 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why not change policy then to reflect what you say is practice...? If this is true and supported shouldn't the policy on banning be changed to reflect this? - Denny 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you dig up a three week-old dead issue on an archived talk page and resurrect it here as a dramatic 'incident' needing admin attention?? It looks like you're just out for drama, and point scoring. This isn't a game.--Doc^g 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not out for drama or points... he posted again today to the article talk page, and I was about to RV him out as a banned user... per the written policy, but then I remembered your comment, and didn't want to get tagged by someone for a block... his post today is here. - Denny 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an abuse of blocking powers to block someone for removing a post from a banned user. Musical Linguist 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also isn't that edit another legal threat? "The draft-card burning is libelous unless counterbalanced by details of Jimmy Carter's draft amnesty in 1977. That's my position. I expressed this in writing via a fax to Danny Wool on September 9, 2006. If he doesn't do something about this, the Foundation will be held accountable"- Denny 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed his legal threat as I understand my reading of the written policy pages. No legal threats, and no editing by banned users (the policy doesn't have any exceptions for their own pages that I saw), so I removed it albeit late... from the page here. - Denny 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned editors can stop the behaviour that got them banned, and can e-mail an appeal to Jimbo or the ArbCom. If Brandt is sorry for the harm he has brought into individual editors' lives, he can take down his website, stop posting people's personal details to other websites, send an e-mail to Jimbo expressing his contrition, and ask to be unbanned. If the only issue is BLP issues with his biography, he can e-mail his concerns to any administrator. Regardless of our opinion of him, his article is subject to as strict an interpretation of BLP as any other article. But SlimVirgin is right: it is an insult to stalking victims to expect them to have to edit alongside their stalkers. Musical Linguist 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was wondering if an uninvolved admin or kind soul could have a word with Alan2012 (talk · contribs). He's been posting fairly lengthy items at Talk:Garlic regarding medical journals, their connections to the pharmaceutical industry, etc ([17], [18], [19], [20]). Some of these posts verge on personal attacks, and all of them are soapboxy and violate the talk page guidelines' injunction to use the page to improve the article in question, rather than as a platform for personal views. It's not the first time this has come up with editor; I'm afraid he's going down a path which will be unconstructive in the long run. I tried to address the issue (also here, for example), but I'm involved in editing the article, so I fear I'm not impartial and not making a positive impact. Anyone? MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a WQA item for the same user that hasn't been responded to as well [21]. --Ronz 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting negative COI, WP:VAND, WP:CIV - WP:EQ, WP:NPA - WP:ATTACK, User Calton. History of WP:POINT, WP:CREEP, WP:BITE. COI, with users and re: article Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. From edit notes, (cur) (last) 15:57, 19 March 2007 Calton (Talk | contribs) (Nope. Obnoxious boxes? Obnoxious article.) Thanks. Telogen 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's quite an alphabet soup... can you tell us what did he actually do wrong? Doesn't look like personal attacks or true edit warring. --W.marsh 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs... Everyone loves diffs. Natalie 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about this. I had a dispute with Calton in the past about pushing tags onto an article repeatedly, but seriously... Let's just AfD the damn thing. It's probably notable enough. Everyone should just try fixing the article rather than putting a million tags on it. It's not really worthy of atention here. Grandmasterka 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this report as well. Having a hard time assuming good faith here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I found Calton's forcing tags and comments, especially "obnoxious article," to be pushing various letters of the WP alphabet a bit too far. Admins decide, I just report. As for as User Antaeus Feldspar, you find what you need in the User's talk and history. I think the admin response was good on that. Thanks. Telogen 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Calton has had a history of antisocial behavior, dating to atleast October 2006. See this AFD: [22] where he verges on personal attacks against me and against User:VivianDarkbloom and comments left at my talk page: [23] on the same subject. Regarding these attacks, an NPA warning was left on his talk page, which he deleted see: [24] While these are from a long time ago, they may show a long-term inability to play well with others. Also, on February 16-17 2007, he reverted more NPA warnings on his talkpage. See dif: [25] (get a pattern?) Not sure if any of this is relevent, but take it as you wish. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron32. Very helpful. I'm witnessing the same pattern. User Calton has since taken charge to revert the edits, and override decisions, of admins, see Jeanne Marie Spicuzza history. Reverted tags removed by admins. Added article to his personal AfD list, which was around for years, before I even arrived. I'm sensing COI all right, from User Calton. Other Users experienced this problem (see history) and have left it, probably out of sheer frustration. So, a bunch of editors get deterred from fixing an article and then the article gets dumped because it can't be fixed. Not much you can do if you're getting blocked and accused of this or that because you simply disagree, on principle. Call on admins for assistance. I've done all I can. Thanks. Telogen 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins dont' really have any additional say in what goes in articles, however, his continued re-insertion of hideous tags to game the system and avoid the trouble of an AFD is troubling, especially when coupled with a lack of response to discussion efforts on the talk page and rude edit summaries. Milto LOL pia 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page. This seems like the best solution for this. See my protection summary for details. I think it's fully deserving of an entry on WP:LAME and I have added it. Also, Calton technically violated WP:3RR, but any block now would be purely punitive. Grandmasterka 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Mr. User:Deathrocker keeps on removing the "Replaceable fair use" tag from Image:SerieATrophy.jpg, uploaded by himself. Where to ask for a suggestion on this case?--Francis Escort 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, edit-warring about it with them is not likely to solve the problem. I'd start by discussing it on their user talk page to try and find consensus, maybe get a third opinion. And in case of too many reverts: WP:AN3. Sandstein 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Replaceable fair use}} tag is a call to discussion itself, and removing it is to try to silence the discussion. The proper way to dispute the tagging (as the tag itself explains) is to add a {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag and start a discussion on the image's talk page. Reverting the tag removal is, for the effects of 3RR, reversion of vandalism. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed the edit of Francis Escort because he is a sockpuppet of blocked member Panairjdde. Panairjdde's last sockpuppet, Uyet Ustranimii made exactly the same edits to atleast three different articles [26][27][28] as this guy (Francis Escort)[29][30][31] before been indefinetly blocked.

I placed a tag on his user page in regards to the above also, and he blanked it in an attempt to cover his tracks.[32] - Deathrocker 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me to put that tag, but User:Mecu [33], and you immediately removed it. What is your answer on this?--Francis Escort 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs don't lie[34], unlike yourself Mr. Sockpuppet. You have a long history of this, would have thought you'd have learned your lesson by now. - Deathrocker 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Liar, you forgot to tell us why you removed the tag put by Mecu on March 1.--Francis Escort 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much name calling already. I suggest each one of you, from now on, not to bother to answer attacks. Deathrocker, you removed Mecu's tag, but that's not the proper way to dispute that tag. You should use the image's talk page and not an edit summary. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricknoddy (talk · contribs) was blocked a couple of weeks ago for misue of NPWatcher, by adding inappropriate tags to articles seemingly on the basis of {{Idontlikeit}} or as part of a campaign against other user's articles. This bad tagging has taken place both with and without NPWatcher. Since Steel359 removed Patrick from the access list for NPW, I have undergone a long campaingn of repeated requests both on and off WP to give access back to Patrick, which I am of course unwilling to do. What has spurred me on to this decision to report the matter is this edit of Patrick's, which strikes me as trolling. In addition to the grievances I've expressed, I suspect that there are others shared by many other contributors. However, I do feel that Patrick's actions are in good faith, but that he allows himself to let things go a little too far at times, allowing his emotions to take precedence over policy when on NPP. Does anybody have any ideas for where to go forward from here? I suspect that mentoring would be a fair idea, but it's hard for me to say whether or not he has "exhausted the community's patience" already. Martinp23 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have signed up for admin coaching, but nobody has responded. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I direct the attention of administrators to this contribution in relation to Patricknoddy's earlier block? The central point it makes is accurate. Sam Blacketer 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the indef blocked User:Pogsurf (vandalism only account) is evading their block with a sockpuppet, User:Lobster blogster. Both users demonstrated a high level of Wikipedia skill immediately after registration, and have demonstrated the same MO by editing a very narrow range of articles (especially Paul Staines and Claire Ward, who is the current MP for Watford, a page Lobster blogster has also edited) and repeatedly linking to the same Guardian article. Also, a quick google confirms the link between "Pogsurf", "Lobster blogster", and Watford, however I won't post the links as it's poor wikiquette to reveal peoples' real names online unless they volunteer them. I raised this first on User:Majorly's talk page, but moving it here to go through the official channels. Could an admin deal please? Cheers, DWaterson 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add more proof, see [35], User:62.136.198.105 appears to be the same as User:Lobster blogster. User:Pogsurf had an anonymous alter ego, which was User:62.136.238.65. A quick comparison of their edit histories shows this, and [36] shows Pogsurf thanking another user for a comment left on 62.136.238.65's talk page - something he'd only do if they are the same. Note that 62.136.198.105 and 62.136.238.65 are the same ISP, and both perform the same kind of edits. This shows that 62.136.238.65, 62.136.238.65, Pogsurf and Lobster Blogster are one and the same. Note as well that Lobster Blogster has also edited the Watford talk page, with a very similar comment to one Pogsurf left on articles before he was banned. And Pogsurf was often editing Claire Ward - who is the MP for Watford. Nssdfdsfds 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

I have just added this back from the archives, as the user is still here, should still be blocked, and is still inserting libellous material into Talk:Paul Staines. Could *someone* please block him - this process doesn't seem to be working.

Thanks Nssdfdsfds 09:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I have restored this incident report again, as nothing has been done the previous two times. The user has admitted to being a sock of the blocked vandal, saying [37] "Just a small point to add here, that it was Nssdfdsfds that repeatedly undid revisions of mine both here on the discussion page, and on the article itself." The article has been protected since February 19, but Lobster Blogster's account was created on 3rd March - he's clearly referring to his previous vandalism as the permabanned user Pogsurf. Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see Nssdfdsfds getting in a tizzy and telling tales out of school here. It's perfectly true that after Pogsurf was blocked by Persian Poet Gal as a "Vandal Only Account" I created the "Lobster Bloster" account. However I object strongly to the label "Vandal Only Account" which I assume is being used perjoratively, and not as an obscure reference to my Germanic ancestry. If Nssdfdsfds bothered to discuss prospective changes via talk pages I don't think so much hot air and wind would be generated. Please feel free to ban me again if you feel that is the right thing to do. There are many more names and IP addresses I could adopt, should the need arise. --Lobster blogster 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You are now blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only you'd stop trying to reference known libellous material, there wouldn't be a problem. Nssdfdsfds 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there would still be a problem. Indefinitely blocked users shouldn't return under new names. As such, I blocked him as a sockpuppet. IrishGuy ^talk 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is back again, as User:62.136.198.105 fulfilling his threat to be back using multiple IPs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.136.198.105] Could someone kindly block him ASAP. Nssdfdsfds 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last time I asked for intervention (see archived), User:Djwatson has been posting more personal attacks after already being warned a few days ago.

See his personal attack rant on someone's user space as well as the Szechuan cuisine move debate. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title says it all really. An admin may wish to counsel/advise the aforesaid editor. I have notified User:Reywas92 on his talk page of this notification here, as requested in the instructions. WLD^talk|edits 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know this was a problem (especially since the user is 13+). Why does this require intervention from an administrator? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here, theres plenty of other websites where people can identify their age also plenty of users who identify themselves as being under 18 - the users merely giving some facts about themselves Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :Users who are minors are generally advised to be cautious about giving out too much identifying information. There are stricter guidelines, albeit sometimes controversial and not policy, that are applicable to younger minors (younger than 13; this user states he is 14). However, a user merely stating that he is 14, by itself, would be harmless. We have administrators who have done that. The only advice I might give this user would be that he might want to provide his state of residence instead of the specific town. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a passionate debate of this Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, which did not become a guideline or policy, but which was punted up to Arbcomm here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, and one of the proposed remedies was "Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled [sic]. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information." - I'm deliberately not trying to take a position on the matter, but just flagging it up for those who have stronger opinions. One of the (many) problems with the proposed policy/guideline was defining just what constituted a minor (amongst other things), but my personal working definition is anyone too young to vote in the country of their residence. Regards, WLD^talk|edits 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(why do people put edit-conflict?) :) Which instructions? I know that there was a policy drafted by the community, but this did not include users this old. Self-identifying as 14 years old is perfectly acceptable, AFAIK, and I'd based on the username, I'd guess he/she is 15 now. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only a 2-1/2-out-of-12 chance he's 15 now. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions on this very page at the top that say "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting." - I didn't mean anything else. SOrry if I caused confusion. WLD^talk|edits 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) is editing at Korean War from IP 68.126.243.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) again today. He's reverting back to the same edits that led to this post on ANI here Any chance someone can block the IP for a while to slow him down and maybe semi-protection is in order for the article? Thanks! C ^thirty-three 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article semi-protected. Seeing as Peters hops IP's almost every day I don't think we need to block this one, which has no edits in the last four hours. If it does edit again, please report it here or at AIV, which might get you a quicker response. Thanks for your vigilance. Picaroon 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheColdTruth awarded Djma12 a barnstar, referring to me as "KazakhPolice" and thanking him for keeping my "propoganda out of the article." I would like to see some sort of action/reaction from an administrator - perhaps warning TheColdTruth about personal attacks. KazakhPol 00:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djma12 awarded Cs a barnstar for "preserving the public record on the Kazakh government," another personal attack targeting me. KazakhPol 00:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second one doesn't mention you, nothing actionable there. --tjstrf talk 01:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from WP:CN)

Reuben Singh needs to be on more watchlists. A very determined vandal consistantly changes it to an attack piece. As I'm currently extremely busy in real life, I'm posting this here to ask people to keep an eye on it. It's a living person. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think this belongs on ANI. I put it on WP:CN and WP:VPA because I wanted as many eyes as possible to see it. The attention it needs is not administrator specific, and being here it gets lost amongst all the other gobbledy-gook that does need attention from an administrator. I put it on WP:CN because it's something that the community at large needs to be aware of and keep an eye on. I put it on VPA because assistance is needed. Moving it from CN to ANI just seems... dumb. I thought WP:CN was supposed to be for more than just community bans. So, why was it moved? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI gets far more attention than WP:CN and administrators who watchlist the page can efficiently deal with and gross libel etc very rapidly. (I didn't move it btw) Viridae^Talk 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Rasheed3036 is continuing to vandalise both articles and my personal userpage. S/he has been given five warnings ranging in strength from 1 to 4, and has committed vandalism even after the vandalism4 warning. Aleta 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked by User:Llama man. In the future, WP:AIV usually get faster results. Natalie 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Natalie, for pointing me to AIV - I've bookmarked it now. Llama man, thanks for the rapid response on Rasheed3036! Aleta 01:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been tagging many newly created articles for either proposed or speedy deletion, and many of those same tagged articles have been expanded into viable aricles by other myself or others(usually the creators). I though he/she was just overzealous; but eventually, his/her prod/speedy tagging of The KLF(well beyond stub-level)drew a vandalism warning from User:Kingboyk who reverted it back to the last pre-tagging edit. I then realized that he was clearly causing trouble; so I started monitoring his recent edits regularly, and have to revert or de-tag about dozen of prod/speedy tagged articles(none of which I created) a number of which again were expanded to decent articles. To top things off, earlier today he/she vandalized devil's advocate by inserting c's into the middle of several interwiki links. Because a registered user made a good faith edit and failed to notice it, I had to remove the c's myself. Based on the fact that he/she has clear knowledge of prod/speedy deletion policies and abusing them, I'm not ruling out the possibility that this IP may be a sock/meatpuppet of a more prolific deletionist vandal... Ranma9617 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watex has spammed Club Penguin with the same link to a wordpress blog and alters existing links to link to that blog in the same manner and with the same link as the follow blocked users:
Peelers (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Peele (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Squids'and'Chips 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No he isn't. IrishGuy ^talk 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now he is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. No idea what happened there. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=116422077&oldid=116421910

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&curid=9875104&diff=116424025&oldid=116423815

I added info to the article and I am being accused of "disruptive" and I'm being told I have to "persuade" others before I edit. I already took it to the talk before I edited. I fixed the wikiboxes, added more detail, and added more sentences along with references. This is a very serious matter. Removal of info back up by sold references without justification or validity could be preceived as vandalism too. I want administrative assistance into this matter. Is this behaviour by other editors allowable? :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article's talk page speaks volumes on this issue. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, I explained on your talk page to please take it slow. there are 7-10 different editors all RVing you heavily with all the aggressive changes... it's not a race. your suggestion was posted on Talk under 70 minutes before you put it in. Be BOLD... but given the article history, and the desire of so many to stablize it, you need to work with them too. - Denny 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... you kinda missed the point of taking it to the talk page. The point is to discuss, not simply state things on the talk page as if they are established fact and then say "but I did go to the talk page!" And even then, you have to wait for people to comment. The time span being a day, not an hour. -Amarkov moo! 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note that User:QuackGuru has been brought to WP:ANI on this article four times previously. here, here, here, and here. I want to AGF but I think that for some reason Quack wants to WP:OWN this article heavily and I don't understand why he is not working well here with others. perhaps an enforced break from the article for a week? probation? - Denny 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Amerkov I should wait a day before editng the article after discussing on the talk. FYI, most edits are made without any prior discussion. I seriously like to know if any other people agree with Amerkov. Also, is there any policy you have to talk before editing. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 05:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Amarkov. As for policy, please see WP:CONSENSUS ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Talk:Essjay

So doing my own research on the Essjay thing I found this interesting tidbit from 2005 -- it seems Essjay started an arbcom proceeding against someone named User:Rainbowwarrior1977 and had him banned from wikipedia, one of the charges being that he claimed he had a law degree. Check out the opinion here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rainbowwarrior1977, esp. the "Misrepresentation/honesty" subsection. So is that binding precedent for everyone else? If so, then the arbcom or Mr. Wales erred when initially overlooking Essjay's misrepresentations. Hallibrah 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom does not make policy. WAS 4.250 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Arbcom deals with behaviour. Gwen Gale 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean their decisions in one case are not binding to others in similar circumstances? Hallibrah 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ArbComm case against Essjay, who is now a retired Wikipedian and has no special privileges. None of that has anything to do with this article, which is about the controversy that arose when a specific editor/admin (etc) was found to have claimed credentials he did not hold. I suggest if you wish to pursue this further, you go to WP:CN or another forum. Risker 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Given I agree with Risker's take above...) Mind, I can't speak for arbcom but yeah, they do say they're not a court and I've never heard of an arbcom decision being cited as a precedent in any reliable sense. Think of it this way, the community (with Jimmy Wales' ultimate permission, guidance or whatever) makes policy. Arbcom scolds editors who have taken WP:BOLD way too far too many times. Lastly, Wales in his management and public roles simply isn't under the same rules (observation, not criticism). Whatever he said about Essjay, whatever mistakes he made, whatever helpful things he may have done, have aught to do with editing the wiki under WP policy. Gwen Gale 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: ex cathedra. Regarding the Arbitration Committee, it could be said that they are effectively the constructors of policy within very specific areas such as de-adminship and formal banning. Arbcom doesn't write policy, but it is the sole body of enactment for certain rules so its actions (or trends therein) are those policies. (This is aside from the fact that since our arbitrators are all highly respected members in their own rights they can exert quite a bit of personal influence as normal policy page editors.) --tjstrf talk 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But don't they decide or at least more specifically define what the rules are? Like when they said "misrepresentation of qualifications is unacceptable" back in 2005, there was NO policy regarding that at all. If they didn't mean their statement to be binding, why even bother specifically ruling on it? Hallibrah 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • You have good questions, Hallibrah, but this probably isn't the best place to get them answered; as far as I know, none of the people regularly editing this article are members of ArbComm. You might want to try the talk page for the Arbitration policy, where members of ArbComm are more likely to see your questions and respond with more accuracy than any of us could. I hope this is helpful. Risker 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll move this thread to WP:ANI for now, thanks, Risker! Hallibrah 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the best place for this thread either, unless this specifically requires administrator functions. WP:CN or the Arbitration policy talk page, as suggested above, or Village Pump are infinitely better places. Natalie 03:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) may be your best bet. --tjstrf talk 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent example of irony, but I don't know what can, or should, be done about it now. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i'll move to Village Pump Policy, thanksHallibrah 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the contributions of Anantashakti (talk · contribs), you will note that this user uploads lots of cc-sa images owned by Himalayan Academy Publications, with an added pious commentary and of course a link to his organization. None of the images has any noticeable encyclopedic value, and since they are unfree, we are not keen on having them. Still, the user is not directly violating any policy, and I am not sure how to deal with this. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the images are non-free, they're clearly violating image copyright policy. But they claim to have permission from the organization. We should have them follow up with OTRS. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparently User:Himalayan Academy Publications already did so and gave permission to the user in question. All we need now is a response from the wikimedians tending that address that confirms this notice is indeed true. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a role account, though. I left a note. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the problem is, even if the permission is genuine, the images are basically advertisement for this publisher and devoid of encyclopedic value. They should all go on Ifd as UE, but I cannot be bothered to Ifd them individually as long as they keep getting uploaded. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. The images appear to be clear and often of high quality. Whether the subjects are promotional I could not say, not having much experience of Indian religious art. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think they're all unencyclopedic. Take for example Image:CowHA.jpg which is being perfectly useful on Sacred cow. The fact most of them haven't been added to an article, doesn't make them spam. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • true, some may be useful as illustrations, provided we can cite the artist. Random illustrations of random concepts are not encyclopedic in themselves, but I agree such images can be at home on commons. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Canvassing rolled back, user blocked

It's been noted at the RFA page, but thought I should mention it here. Comments like this have been going around by User:JohnHistory in attempt to garner opposition to User:Clawson's RFA. In fact, he's canvassed nearly 50 users regarding it.

It's not even a good opposition, he's just bringing up some content dispute they had over whether the red baron was jewish or not.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue has been resolved on his talk page. John Reaves (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think JohnHistory knew it was the wrong thing to do, since he's now brought it up on the RfA talk page after I asked him to. – Riana ^ঋ 09:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Possibly, but "Maybe you will support the opposition too??? JohnHistory 09:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory" has me wondering if he actually got the concept of not canvassing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that kinda made me bang my head against the keyboard a little bit. Just a little. – Riana ^ঋ 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the disruption caused by canvassing, I remain of the opinion that people who do so should be blocked until the relevant discussion (RFA in this case) has ended. Despite possible ignorance of our guideline pages, I find it hard to believe that anyone who canvasses is not aware that this is deliberate distortion of the process. >Radiant< 10:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also note that as an anon (yes, he's obviously the same person) this user disrupted the talk page of Tuskegee Airmen. He's a winner, through and through. That he's somehow garnering support makes me sick to my stomach. I'd support a block. Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support block, at least throughout the duration of the RfA. I feel bad that Clawton is not being given a fair go because of this user's disruption. – Riana ^ঋ 10:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully agree with the above 3 statements - he's still going for it on the Rfa talk page, this has biased the whole Rfa, support block Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user's canvassing is disruptive. If he continues to canvas, a block is a no-brainer. If he's stopped canvassing, it seems to me that a block would be punitive, as it cannot dampen the impact of the canvassing already done. If checkuser show he's otherwise disruptive as an anon, he should be blocked for that. I'd also strongly support admin roll-back of as much of the canvassing as possible, to prevent more users from seeing it. --Dweller 11:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is, he's still disrupting it on the Rfa page, seams he has more of a personal vendetta against the candidate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted to the user's talk page, asking him to stop. --Dweller 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's gone to bed for the night, ([38]) possibly before seeing my message. Can I request rollback on the canvassing? --Dweller 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support roll back, and I'm more than happy to it is there is support to do so Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thirded. >Radiant< 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And done. Wow, that was even more canvassing than I expected. Since he seems unrepentant I would endorse a temporary block to prevent further disruption during the RFA. >Radiant< 11:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah thanks, I'm actually more concerned that he created an account yesterday and almost all his 150 edits have been to go against Clawson and try and bias his Rfa, there's minor disruption, but this seams like a disruption only account so far Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I have blocked User:JohnHistory for disruption for 24 hours, after many warnings he preceeded with this, if anyone feels I was wrong to block, I am more than happy to review it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. – Riana ^ঋ 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an on going dispute and general mess. A, very, short version is that a new editor user:DrParkes made some sweeping changes to the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu article, these were reverted with a requests for discussion by several users, including myself. It turned into an edit war & DrParkes and User:Loudenvier were banned for 3RR violations, DrParkes was then re-banned for attempting to bypass the block. After reaching my 3rd revert on the BJJ page, I decided to look into the other articles edited by DrParkes, and I added citation requests & removed some POV comments, these edits were reverted again without discussion, then when sources were added my attempts to format were reverted, can't be sure of the exact order but DrParkes 3RR ban came into force and the same patten was followed by an IP [[80.34.17.209]. At this point other editor involved in the BJJ article had also looked at it and edited, as some of the edits DrParkes had made to BJJ had linked to them. At this point user:Kentkent started editing in a similar manner to DrParkes, but with comment on talk pages, claiming to be a friend, an edit war to maintain the AfD tag started. There are now a growing list of possible sockpuppets User:Kentkent, User:Kbenton, User:Jamesthorburn, User:80.34.17.209 and User:Steely_eyed_eagle_hawk) who have only or mainly edited the Barry Ley (or deleted Blaggers) articles. I requested the admin that banned DrParkes to look at this and he has refused. Some help is needed however to sort out the mess. --Nate 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not intending to state the obvious but users with a long history of constructive edits are having their work targeted which is affecting a number of well developed articles. This is becoming a real problem.Peter Rehse 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First up, the AfD has been open long enough, I will close that - without the locus of the dispute the problem may diminish. I have also blocked Jamesthorburn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kbenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as blatant socks. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you time, hope it calms down now--Nate 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppeteer who has recently been recieved a community ban (see here) has evaded his block and started to not only vandalise articles and upload possible copyvios but is starting to threaten me on my talk page. The admin I usually report this to (User:Yamla) seems to be offline at the moment but could I please have an admin look into this. The evading sockpuppets are BatistaTheMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Sebastian P 12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Oakster Oakster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Oakster 11:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:479240555_l.jpg "Back of Verdict" pretty much settles it: Oakster Oakster is clearly a sockpuppet. He admits to it. Not very opaque, is this fellow? Looks like someone already did the banning, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've just noticed a fellow Wikipedian has reported him for banning as well. Thanks anyway and I apoligise for any inconvenience. -- Oakster  Talk  12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All blocked. – Riana ^ঋ 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With approximately 80 known sockpuppets and many more waiting in the wings, I've started fully protecting articles this banned user targets. If he is threatening you, I advise that you simply delete the threat. If he emails you, don't respond. He starts with minor intimidation, moves up to threats of physical violence, then eventually he'll express a desire that you die or maybe even threaten to kill you himself. He was also caught violating privacy (an action for which oversight was required). He will also likely claim that you are stalking him but note that WP:STALK does not apply if you are following submissions of a banned user so you can undo them. --Yamla 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help with the sneaky vandalism from 76.20.34.20[39]? There doesn't seem to be a place to report and I haven't time to clean it all up. I've done Gulf War but there could be other pages - some edits look good, some aren't (example changing the start and end dates of the Gulf War which didn't get picked up for one month[40]). - Ctbolt 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Both articles semiprotected

There are different proxy IPs from India blanking out cited material from Aguirre, the Wrath of God shown [41], [42], [43] (some examples) and Apocalypse Now (shown [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], and [51]. Could some admin take action and semi-protect the article? Thanks. Real96 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Riana ^ঋ 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the note above, I'm not sure where the appropriate place to report this is, so I'm putting it here. Denny Seiwell (talk · contribs) is either knowledgeable about a suspiciously wide variety of topic, finding lots of little errors and correcting them; or he is making nothing but sneaky vandalous edits. I can't figure out how to determine which, other than to ask experienced editors such as the admins here to take a look. Thanks. Deli nk 14:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky vandalism. Some are hard to tell without specialized knowledge, but this edit is clearly minor vandalism, this edit is highly unlikely, and this edit is directly contradicted by this official source. However, just as a stopped clock is apparently right twice per day, this edit seems to actually have the correct information (It was one of the earlier ones I decided to research, so I was conflicted at first - I think preponderance is vandalism after all). I see TedFrank (talk · contribs) has already reverted all of DS's contributions and warned him. I'll second the warning, but will ask about the University of Yazd bit. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Denny Seiwell is a semi-famous musician, so there are probably Wikipedia:Username policy issues as well. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, other than the University of Yazd date, which I honestly think was just luck, I can't find a single undisputably worthwhile edit from this account, and it's been around since June 2006. Rather than warning, I'm going to block per WP:U#Blocking "inappropriate or borderline inappropriate usernames that are coupled with vandalism". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since admins rarely get enough thanks: Thanks everyone for looking into it! Deli nk 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious Gregor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) responded to my opening Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curious Gregor against him by making the counter accusation: diff from my userpage, "Pete Hurd had accused me of being a SockPuppet. I thought in the manner of corporate law I would bring a countersuit." Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete.Hurd. I don't want to revert his accusation against me on my userpage myself, but I invite an admin to consider doing so. Pete.Hurd 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete.Hurd fall under some CSD? If so, it should definitely be deleted.

Although not an admin, I've removed the notice about sock-puppetry from your page. The other part, though, I've left - I think it should be responded to, not removed. Od Mishehu 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll move his rant to my talk page, but it's a bit too laughable to merit a detailed response. Pete.Hurd 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs to be blocked for a while, for repeated vandalism. anonymous6494 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably get a faster response at WP:AIV. MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been taken care of. Thanks though. anonymous6494 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm having problems with this user. Recently, I closed an AfD which he started as keep. He didn't like that, and left me a rather rude message saying "Just letting you know that you failed your duty as a wikipedia administrator today. Not only did you not care to acquire an overview of the debate, which would have lead to no consensus, you also failed to really read it." I didn't particularly like being told I "failed", since I didn't, and no admin can "fail" since we're all volunteers. I told him this, but despite that he continued telling me I "failed", even though I explained my reasoning he wouldn't have it. This discussion is located here. I told him to take it to deletion review if he was unhappy with the result. I thought that would be the last of it.

I then came across this page. I saw this AfD closing had been logged, and I had been labelled as "incompetent" (here's the original adding of it). I removed the word incompetent, then told him I had done so on his talk page. He replied informing me yet again I had failed greatly (even though we'd discussed I hadn't failed), then he altered the wording to say "Incompetent decision to keep was made by User:Majorly" - which I still count as an attack on my judgement. I again removed the incompetent part, but then the wording was changed again, this time saying the decision was incredibly competent, but was against policy... since it was following policy I removed it, only to be reverted by popups. I asked him to remove it on his talk page, twice and responded neither time, so I removed it one last time, only this time I was reverted "as vandalsm"! He left a message on my talk page asking me to stop vandalising the subpage. All I've done is removed the attacks on my judgement, and throughout he's been really unhelpful and uncooperative. I'd like an opinion of what to do about this. Thanks a lot. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable. Either put it up for deletion review or drop it. Sniping at other editors because you didn't get your way is uncivil. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear, the above comment is addressed to Twsx (talk · contribs).

I did drop it after trying to convince him to at least explain his decision for. I have lost my temper in the first message and acted uncivil to a certain extend. This is unforgiveable and i apologized for it 5 minutes later and once again yesterday. All of this happened within a timespan of 3 hours [52], after that, for my part, the topic was done. I "log" my actions and participations on a subpage for later use (comes in hand with a couple of things, such as re-created speedy'd newpages as example). I understand that as with every other page, personal attacks are not welcome, so with some reluctance, i removed them. As it is now, the "log" reflects pure fact without any personal attack, which is why Majorly's last edit definitely constitutes as inproper. I would also like to note that Majorly did not behave perfectly innocent himself, such as calling me a whiner (which is relatively irrelevant, as i never made any move to have his decision evaluated or similar) and saying i was "making ad hominem attacks" while the only person pushing the topic was he himself.
In conclusion; Majorly made his decision, i accepted it right away, but told him my opinion about it anyway, which lead to a discussion that kept going on for 3 hours. Eversince i was fine with what happened. The person keeping the discussion up, is Majorly. I will give my comments to whatever may come up in this discussion here, but for now, this is everything i have to say. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twsx should definitely try to be more civil from now on but we should also let bygones by bygones. However, in the future, I would suggest before you post your opinion of other people's actions, I would seriously recommend you consider whether it is constructive or not... Sasquatch t|c 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of his "Log" remains. He insists on retaining the language, "Incredibly competent decision to keep against policy." ("against policy" being the key words, and the dripping sarcasm notwithstanding). He has reverted to keep the language in there while identifying their removal as "vandalism" (which is, of course, laughable). If you believe the closure was against policy, open a deletion review. As above, it is not acceptable to take the course you have taken, namely: insulting the closing administrator on their talk page and denigrating their closure in your userspace. If you continue to refuse to have the deletion reviewed, you must stop immediately. I think we all know why you won't do it — you'll find out that it was an acceptable closure and an accurate reading of consensus — so you continue to snipe from afar. It's uncivil and incredibly inappropriate. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be entirely fair here, the vast majority of 'keep' arguments were specifically based on criteria which were listed as "dubious" notability criteria at the time, and which are now explicitly listed as outright "invalid". The remainder of the 'keep' arguments weren't backed up by anything other than personal assertions, or the desire for journalists to treat porn more seriously.

In short, no actual valid arguments for 'keep' were really made.

Consensus isn't supposed to be counting the numbers (10 keep, 7 delete, in this case); it's supposed to put significant weight on the strength of the arguments themselves.

I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with the decision anyways. I'm mostly an inclusionist that thinks that the policy is too strict. However, it's pretty hard to deny that notability was not proven in that afd, as defined by the policy at the time, and that it definitely wouldn't pass the test if it were based on today's current notability criteria.

Nobody is obligated to take it to deletion review unless they wish to reverse the action taken in the afd. But a person is more than entitled to say that it was a wrong decision. Wikipedia doesn't support the level of censorship that you're proposing.

The 'incompetant' arguments were uncalled for. I think even twsx admits that now, right? However, he certainly seems to genuinely believe that the decision was contrary to policy, and, objectively, I tend to agree. I'm allowed to say that: It was against wikipedia policy. Big deal.

The 'incompetant' (and 'competant') problem: that was a serious problem. But arguing about whether or not a person is allowed to say they think a decision actually followed policy? That's just silly. Bladestorm 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability guideline is WP:PORNBIO, which allows for more subjectivity in determining notability than I am normally used to because of the genre's general lack of coverage by normally reliable sources, and the keep votes were in line with that guideline, unless I'm misreading something. At any rate, this isn't deletion review, so this isn't the place to debate that. Saying, "I don't believe the result was an accurate reading of consensus" is different than "KEPT AGAINST POLICY" (especially since notability guidelines are just guidelines) and saying that the administrator is incompetent (which, until earlier today when he removed it due to this thread, his Log page stated clearly). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure it's clear: All accusations of 'incompetance' were entirely inexcusable. Not arguing about that part; only whether or not a person is allowed to believe that something was 'against policy' or not. (basically, the extent to which wikipedia should be censored)

As far as the guidelines are concerned, the primary arguments were based on the number of google hits, the number of films, and the nomination for an award related to her chest.

The google hits and # of films are explicitly declared "invalid" criteria for notability in the current draft of the guideline, and they were labelled as "dubious" at the time of the afd. The award that was cited in the "keep"s wasn't even notable in and of itself, so even if she'd won, it wouldn't really have mattered. But, in this case, she didn't even win. She was merely considered for a non-notable award. Bladestorm 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About that edit i made after this entry here has been made: [53]. I didnt mean to cloak anything, all i wanted to do is remove whatever insult there was left, as i do agree and regret that i did make inappropriate namecalling. Bladestorm found good words for the case; my behavior was under the belt. However, while i believe it is my right to express my opinion about an administrators decision, this topic seems to be about my logpage, which does represents a short personal memo about my opinion without any attack, and nothign more. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, there is some interesting, at least tangentially related discussion of whether it constitutes a personal attack to call an administrator's decision something like "incompetent" (as opposed to calling the admin himself or herself that) in the workshop of the InShaneee arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD close = valid; I would have done the same. Even if it ended up as no consensus, I would have kept the article by default. The personal attacks by Twsx were uncalled for. The user is allowed to comment on admin actions, but it really shouldn't resort to namecalling and such. In the future, I advise Twsx to be more careful with his words, and to politely discuss a situation with a user. Nishkid64 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A death threat was left on User talk:216.23.242.78. As such, I have blocked this IP address indefinitely and forwarded the information along to the high school in question. Once this matter has been dealt with by the high school, we should unblock the IP address. It is currently blocked anon-only, though, so it should not affect users who are signed in. This address was previously blocked by another admin for six months. --Yamla 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done the right thing; I've seen some pretty nasty messages, but never one like that. I've seen IPs where they've threatened to have my account deleted, but death threats...how common are they? Acalamari 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From schoolchildren? Probably not that uncommon. Genuine death threat? I hardly think so. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much - some of our less mature vandals will make death threats the minute they are blocked, but real threats are (thankfully) few and far between. Natalie 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not genuine, but we should treat all such threats seriously, regardless of their likeliness to manifest. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – blocked

JINXTENGU has given himself away again with this edit to Persian Poet Gal's talk page. Acalamari 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Blocked. Natalie 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; that's the third one I've reported here in less than five days. Acalamari 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is almost certainly George Vithoulkas, or someone closely related to him. For instance, When a photo Homeopathic uploaded was deleted, the copyright status on the webpage was changed.

He has been making extreme POV-pushing edits to George Vithoulkas, and any attempts to lessen the POV have led to him complaining. I realise that content issues aren't germaine here, but this is beyond content issues to him trying to remove all negative content.:

• Advertising a product of Vithoulkas' (last in a series)
• ...and restoring the advertising again
• Objecting to the use of anything negative in the article - This one shows up funny, I'll quote:

The critique article you've used as reference is by someone who does not believe in Homeopathy, nevermind the general 'neutral' tone and titles. The author, Anthony Campbell, in his book concludes that Homeopathy is not proven and suggests the effects are due to placebo

Book summary. This critique is against Classical Homeopathy, not Vithoulkas himself, who is simply expressing Hahnemann's Homeopathic point of view for health and disease, nowdays accepted by most Homeopaths (the critique is dated 1978). Besides there was a newer edition of Vithoulkas' Science of Homeopathy printed on 1980, with very possitive comments by the Homeopathic community ::Amazon.com. At the time of print of the very first edition of Science of Homeopathy, at the Royal Hospital, only Homeopathic Polypharmacy (combinations of homeopathic remedies) were being used, and that only for minor health issues. Campbell and the establishment felt threatened, and hence this negative critique. Science of Homeopathy is a standard book used in almost all homeopathic schools around the world - the fact that it has been translated in 20 languages is a proof of its acceptance. And please do something about Adam Cuerden, he is clearly biased, dismissing all information about Vithoulkas as POV (please compare the edited versions) ::Homeopathic 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in question is here, and is from the British Homeopathic Journal.

I don't know what to do with him. If I had my druthers, I'd block him, but... Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE

He's now making legal threats: [54] (this makes it easier to read) I've changed two things he objected to on my talk page to an exact quote, and a more exact paraphrase of his argument since this, but I somehow doubt it'll placate him. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to provide more detail about User:Homeopathic's legal threats. Here [55] and here [56] he uses edit summaries to threaten legal action over the George Vithoulkas article. I warned him [57] about WP:NPA and WP:NLT, after which he continues to make legal threats: [58] and [59]. I am becoming very concerned about this situation, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could intervene. Thanks! Skinwalker 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a hawk when it comes to fighting legal threats but to me it seems like he's skirting just outside the realm of what warrants an instant ban. Let us know here if he crosses the line solidly. I'll drop a note to stop even alluding to a possible lawsuit. --Golbez 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article on the wrong version, let's work this out shall we. --Golbez 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there actually any sources for this article which are not in some way connected with advocacy of homeopathy? Guy (Help!) 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Frankly, the subject seems largely invisible outside of pro-Homeopathy sites, and that weird Right Livelihood Award. (Have you ever poked around the R. L. Award website? They criticise the Nobel prize for not awarding enough science prizes to the "south". Big freaking surprise, given there's only two not-particularly populous first-world nations in the southern hemisphere.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to be a bit slow, have just noticed this [60] "Dave, i'm just letting you know Adam inserts FALSE information on Vithoulkas' WP page, obviously intentionally. Just a friendly note, WP and Adam himself can be sued for this. Hope you resolve the situation.Homeopathic 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" which is perhaps superseded by later events. One thing Adam's not picked out from the interview which was the source of the contested views, it indicates that Vithoulkas has fallen out with "his students from the UK in the 1980s", which may explain a bizarre comment by an anon supporter of Vithoulkas on my talk page at 13:08, 19 March 2007: "it seems that you have sided with the wrong guys". There appear to be rival factions in the homeopathy world. .. dave souza, talk 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play devil's advocate: if there are no independent sources on this guy, should we really have an article about him? MastCell ^Talk 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed pretty borderline to me. Critical review of The Science of Homeopathy from the British Homoeopathic Journal looks pretty independent. User:Homeopathic recently added other articles from the same source which are very uncritical, reading rather like advertising magazines. His books do seem to have made it onto Amazon.com, though Amazon.co.uk didn't seem to be selling them themselves, essentially referring buyers to second-hand dealers. .. dave souza, talk 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin take a look at what User:Jiaur Rahman has been up to? Things like moving his user and user talk page to article namespace, etc. I'm getting confused just trying to follow what he's done. --Minderbinder 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He created his user page, then moved it to Watercolour Artist. I have tidied this up, and will ask the user not to do so again. He also tried to add "© Jiaur Rahman 2006-2007. All rights reserved." on WP:ICT as a copyright tag to be used. Hmm. Neil (not Proto ►) 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've db-empty tagged Jiaur Rahman (talk · contribs)'s creations JIAUR RAHMAN & -- Scientizzle 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind about deleteing Template:Ph:Diff, I guess it's used at Help:Diff... -- Scientizzle 18:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out his false copyright tagging of a copyrighted picture tagged as "wikipedia screenshot". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked Kataraisdabest (talk · contribs) indefinitely. S/he has not made any constructive edits since registering the account, and instead blanked Adult Swim twice. S/he apologized, but then created Katy&inuyasha three times and the talk page four times (all were deleted as either nonsense or G8). After getting a level 3 warning, s/he left for a month, but came back and started making posts on his/her user page and various user talk pages (the user page had previously been deleted in a MFD). After Kataraisdabest posted on my user talk page, I left him/her a final warning, as Wikipedia is not MySpace and the user seemed uninterested in contributing (I posted a reminder that this is an encyclopedia) - this incivil comment resulted, and Kataraisdabest was blocked, and here I am. Could someone review this? --Coredesat 17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine. I'm sure Wikipedia will cope without him/her. – Steel 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block seems to improve Wikipedia, so I support it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. IrishGuy ^talk 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me...the only thing I might suggest is apply a {{welcome}} tag with any lower-level warning, to give the user a better chance to figure out what/why/how they were doing wrong and perhaps get them to become useful contributors. -- Scientizzle 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About: Wikipedia:Association of International Wikipedians:

This appears to be an unapproved WikiProject of sorts. As placement in Wikipedia namespace would appear to misleadingly imply official Wikipedia status, I was tempted to speedy delete it, but I'd like input on this.

Also, the page was created by AINW (talk · contribs), whose only two edits were to the page. Based on its claim of use of items created by Wikimachine (talk · contribs), I am suspecting AINW to be a sockpuppet of Wikimachine. Opinions wanted on this as well: is this block-worthy on AINW? (I don't think that Wikimachine should be blocked, but he should be warned for doing this, I think.) --Nlu (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but, as far as I know:

1. WikiProjects don't have to be "approved".
2. Using sockpuppets ("alternate accounts") non-abusively is generally permitted.

(The group is a rather bad idea, of course—it's entirely redundant to the regular translation projects—so I have nothing against deleting it. But it ought to be done for a legitimate reason.) Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably belongs in meta, see m:Category: Wikipedian associations. That is, in any case, where my association is, the m:Association_of_Incremento-eventuo-darwikian-delusionist_Wikipedians Bucketsofg 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "approval" may be the wrong word, but it bypassed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. --Nlu (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed a user recently moved an article into a user's namespace recently as a way to avoid needing to suggest the article was a candidate for deletion (See here). Is this an acceptable practice? --Rebroad 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While very much good faith move, I dont know about it. I think it opens the doors for alot of possible bad faith. If it needs to be deleted, it needs to be deleted. There have been many proposals for expiremental deletion but i think the way ti stands, regular deletion is the current acceptable practice. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not acceptable. 'Userfying' an article is only permitted once a page is about to be deleted once it has followed proper procedures, usually for the purpose for improving the article. Moving it for the purpose of (speedy) deleting, bypassing WP:CSD, WP:AFD or WP:DRV is simply not done. I would revert the move and speedy-tag it. --Edokter (Talk) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh please. This article would stand less than no chance of surviving an AfD, userfying and leaving a message on User talk:Walljordan it was just someone trying not to bite the newbie. I would simply have changed it to a redirect to person, probably, but Miss Mondegreen went to more trouble. Why would we discourage that? Guy (Help!) 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a block of Lordknowle (talk · contribs), who has been disrupting the article at Knights Templar (currently at GA status, and trying to get to FA). Lordknowle, who claims to be a PhD in the subject[61][62] (yes I've told him to read up on the Essjay controversy) has been repeatedly adding a link to his own website,[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] and been inserting false information into the Knights Templar article,[75][76][77] either using his own website as a source,[78] or trying to obfuscate the issue by citing what appear to be valid sources, that in actuality have nothing to confirm the information that he's adding.[79][80] When challenged, Lordknowle throws out a wide range of personal attacks,[81][82][83] some of which are violating WP:BLP policy,[84] and has been trying to intimidate other editors out of the discussion by saying that if they don't have a degree in history, they shouldn't even be participating.[85][86] He has also falsely accused an editor (me) of copying information from his website for the Wikipedia article.[87]

A clear consensus against Lordknowle's actions has been achieved on the talkpage (see Talk:Knights Templar#Inappropriate external link), but he continues to edit war to re-add the false information and his link to the page,[88] along with other information in support of his group.[89][90][91] He is also now bringing in meatpuppets to try and support him: HexTokis (talk · contribs) and Blakescottage (talk · contribs).

In addition to the on-wiki actions, Lordknowle has also been sending me a series of harassing emails, with a large quantity of venom and personal attacks (I can forward these along if anyone would like to verify this).

In summary: Lordknowle's website of http://www.templars.org/uk appears to have just launched a new version on March 10th,[92] so the recent activity on Wikipedia seems clearly designed to try and drive traffic to the site. My recommendation, after discussing it with others, is that Lordknowle be blocked from Wikipedia for a "cooling off period" of a few days or weeks, and then if he genuinely wants to return to Wikipedia after that and work in a cooperative and collegial fashion, he would be welcome.

Administrator assistance is requested to address this issue, before it further escalates and completely derails the FA process. Thanks, Elonka 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (as nominator) Given the clear desire of Lordknowle to promote his website, and the quantity of WP:NPA violations, a block of 2-4 weeks seems appropriate. --Elonka 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block as blatant spammer. Yuser31415 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How do you know that the site is his? And does the knights templar have an official website? --Minderbinder 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He confirms the website connection at his userpage: User:Lordknowle.[93] And no, the Knights Templar were a medieval order that was dissolved in the early 1300s. They have no official website. --Elonka 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see any outright personal attacks. Is Lordknowle un-civil? Yes. Then again, I think Elonka going out of her way to use the phrase "claim" in reference to LK's PhD (and drawing a parallel to him and Essjay) is fairly un-civil too as the obvious intent is to call LK a liar without actually saying it. IrishGuy ^talk 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "obvious intent" is to point out that pseudonymous contributors can and do invent fake academic credentials, and that it is a mistake for other contributors to trust them without question. Please assume good faith. Philwelch 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it is good faith for Elonka to constantly refer to LK's "claims" of having a PhD (as she even did for this thread)? IrishGuy ^talk 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skepticism about unsubstantiated claims of one's own expertise is not bad faith. Philwelch 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It most assuredly isn't assuming good faith, is it? IrishGuy ^talk 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are limits to assuming good faith. Accepting unsubstantiated claims of academic credentials is one, for reasons Elonka has pointed out and that we are all very familiar with. Elonka is not even assuming *bad* faith, merely suspending judgment, in the true spirit of skepticism. Philwelch 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is worthwhile noting that Elonka's comment "All edits are required to be sourced, regardless of who adds them" is slightly incorrect; spelling corrections do not have to be sourced, ANI reports do not have to be sourced, et cetera, et cetera. Yuser31415 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I fail to see how a 2-4 week block would resolve this content dispute. It may allow for enough time to get the article promoted to FA, but then what? There are more appropriate venues in place to handle such disputes: WP:MEDCOM, WP:RFC, WP:RFAR, etc. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The constant personal attacks and harassment are what concern me. The content disruption is pretty weak sauce for a block (although this sort of thing has led to bans in the past), but the harassment deserves a fairly stiff block, particularly if Elonka can forward or post some of the emails she's received. Philwelch 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing the cited diffs as personal attacks is going a bit overboard, IMHO. Of course I am not aware of the actual content of any of the e-mails mentioned by Elonka, but they are off-wiki. Looking at the situation from a neutral stance, I see no reason to endorse either vendetta. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it okay, during a content dispute about the Knights Templar, to go on laborious tangents about Elonka's character? Philwelch 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was. I don't think that a temporary block will diminish Lordknowle's animosity because Wikipedia makes for a poor vehicle for any sort of effective behavioral modification. Lets focus on helping them resolve the content dispute. The personality clash and ensuing bad faith accusations are unfortunate, but that is a personal matter between these editors. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per above. — Deckiller 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a content dispute. Elonka has filed this complaint as well as a 3RR. I think she is simply forum shopping to find an admin who will block this user for her personal recommended week or two. IrishGuy ^talk 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone violates 3RR as well as harassing other contributors, I don't really see what's wrong with reporting both incidents to the most appropriate place for each. Philwelch 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Firstly, I object to being called a meatpuppet. Although new, I have been trying to pour oil on water on here in relation to your squabble with LK. The term meatpuppet (which I have now looked up) is not very welcoming to someone who has tried to resolve the issue. It also seems very hypocritical for you, Elonka, to be nicey-nicey in your welcome statement and then use this sort of language. It seems that Elonka really does have some real issues here. But to start bringing people like me in, when I'm trying to pacify the two of you seems more like desperation with no logical argument. I would disagree with your often used expression of 'concensus'. On the Talk page of the article in question, Elonka has been supported by three people (some names also appear here) who have personally contributed to her own Wikipedia article. That is not the basis for impartial concensus and should be considered in that prejudicial light. As to LK's academic qualifications, I know what he holds, as we have visited his library to research rolls and other archives. He is most definitely the holder of a doctrine and to accuse without knowing the fats is plainly rude and unnecessary. This now just seems to be academic jealously and I am frankly shocked at this attitude. As to breaches of policy, Elonka has equally labelled LK with the SPA tag when it is obvious that he is not. He has not been party to any vandalism at all. As to private emails, that is a matter for email providers to sort out, not Wikipedia, even if such emails exist. I am astounded at the manner in which this complaint has been raised considering the Talk messages that Elonka has sent on my introduction to Wikipedia. I am not happy at all. HexTokis 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not really all for "voting" on blocks, but the personal attacks, uncivil tone, and "shut up and let the expert do it" attitude are a cause for concern. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd strongly support investigation of HexTokis to determine if he is a sockpuppet of Lordknowle. I don't think any action should be taken until that matter has been looked at. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distinctly possible. Based on their edit histories, they are never logged in at the same time. HexTokis first edits were to the Knights Templar talk page to defend LK. IrishGuy ^talk 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks strongly possible, and it will hang over this whole affair (not to mention HexTokis' account) until it ceases to be an open question. Regards, cDeacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Elonka's report for 3RR was denied by me. There were only 3 reverts, and she showed 4 reverts when she included a consecutive revert as two separate reverts. It does appear that Lordknowle has been quite incivil, but I don't think such blocking action is warranted in this case. Nishkid64 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User TruthComesOut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has vandalised the article Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford with offending and unsourced material at different times (see [94], [95], [96], [97] and [98]), which contradicts WP:NPOV, WP:LIVING and WP:ATT. He was warned four times not to do this (see [99], but has removed these warning and uses now his talkpage instead to spread this material (see [[100]]).

It is only speculation, however I think, he could be a sockpuppet of User Ghost rider1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User Oracleatdelphi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who have shown similar behaviour on this article. ~~ Phoe _talk 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

I've deleted the talk page as it clearly breaches BLP policy. If anyone thinks he should be blocked, feel free to press the button. -- Nick ^t 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, having spent time going through all of the edits, they're exceptionally controversial (some also included edit summaries which could be considered libelous in their own right) so I've deleted all of them. I've indefinitely blocked the user until we can decide on a suitable length of block or whether a community ban would be more suitable. -- Nick ^t 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No further action required, I'd say - the username is a dead giveaway. WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Leyden (who used to edit as User:Israelbeach and numerous other sockpuppets) appears to be canvassing off-wiki support for a concerted push to "send Arab propaganda anti-Israel news groups and blogs to AFD", apparently in revenge for the deletion of the Wikipedia article about his own website. He's using his Yahoo group to coordinate this push with "several Israeli and Jewish groups." It would be worth keeping an eye on AfD for a week or two to see if this amounts to anything much. I'm not going to dignify his rants by linking to them, but look on a certain kooks' forum (which I think we all know!) for "Arab Propaganda Sites to be Deleted - AFD's, Israelis To Create AFD for all Arab propaganda sites". -- ChrisO 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be too hard to recognize suspicious AfDs that might pop up...--Isotope23 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be related to the recent spam blacklisting of his site. Leyden is not above petty spite, I think. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had posted an in-good-faith message to User:FeloniousMonk/Talk. An anonymous IP 151.151.73.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) user removed this message and in the edit summary claimed I was a troll and "chronic" history of PA. Well, the "Attacks" he's referring to probably include those that FM accused me of making earlier this week, or the ones Guettarda accused me of over a week ago -- both of which were misunderstandings and through which my posting was attempting to resolve:

I feel this would let me recover lost faith, and of course, bolster my arguments that my other pages were done in good faith. (me)

Since this IP user has several warnings on his page (one of which is from me, but that was made after his above removal, before I noticed it. It was a warning to another removal of his, but one that I cannot complain about here.) and since this move was blatanly vandalism and required experienced use, I propose he blocked for at least 48 hours. --Otheus 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure blocking would be the correct thing to do, but I don't think the IP's actions are suitable either. Even if someone has made a personal attack in the past that is not a reason to revert every talk page edit from that editor afterward, unless they are personal attacks. What might be relevant to one edit is not always relevant to another. Yuser31415 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of full disclosure, is this what you're talking about, when you refer to his first infraction for which you warned him? Because this really seemed unnecessary, and I can certainly see someone watching everything you say afterwards far more carefully.

Ultimately, I did regret posting that; I should have and ultimately emailed my condolences privately. --Otheus 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't to say that he was right to remove your comment from FeloniousMonk's talk page, but it certainly suggests that he is not a simple vandal. I'm not entirely sure what you think a block will accomplish here. There's no (supplied) proof of a desire to disrupt wikipedia... so... what's the point? Bladestorm 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point. I was careless in not noticing the correct sequence of events here. I only noticed that the removal from FM's talk page came before my warning on his talk page, so I assumed the removal from FM's talk page occurred before the removal from Guettarda's talk page. I was careless. I apologize to all. Furhter, my repost to FeloniousMonk's page still stands, so I guess no real harm done. --Otheus 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read all of Geuttarda's comments to Otheus' talk page over the last few weeks. He's been trying to get Otheus to stop making personal attacks. Then when Geuttarda leaves in disgust Otheus removed the redirect of his talk page to his user page Guettarda made and left an oblique personal attack in which he gloats at his leaving: [101] Guettarda was one of the few admins who's bothered to stand up to Otheus' chronic subtle trolling and abuse of the system, so it's not surprising I suppose. I stand by removing it and the "comment" from FM's page in which he trolls FM, again gloating over another perceived victory over someone who has stood up to him and won. Otheus has been one of the least honest editors I've come across, as his bogus framing of the issue above demonstrated. 151.151.73.169 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is the same user. Many of his criticisms above are factualy incorrect, and at best, assume very bad faith:

• The only attack Guettarda complained to me about was one he mistakenly thought I made toward him and nonetheless apologized for. (There is a caveat to that; FM AfD'd several user pages I created, which I intended for evidence pages in an ongoing dispute, "attack page"; Guettarda repeated FM's claim these were attack pages, a claim I fully contend is invalid. The pages have since been deleted per his nomination.)
• Second, I did *not* remove the redirect of Guettarda's talk page. It was still there and intact and functioning.
• Third, there was no chronic trolling! I don't know where this user gets this idea, and frankly, that's very offensive. I'm not even sure what he means by trolling here; the WP policy page on trolling certainly does not apply to me.
• Fourth, there is no abuse of the system. Wow, that's pattently offensive!
• Fifth, how can I gloat over someone who (paraphr) "stood up to me and won"?
• Sixth: "as his bogus framing of the issue above demonstrated [his being one of the least honest editors]". An anonymous IP user removes two messages I had left on User_Talk pages, and I had just been on the scalding receiving end of something similar. Removing one page was offensive, but doing it twice to different users is a pattern.

--Otheus 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, just to reiterate, I drop the dispute request. I agree with Bladestorm's response. --Otheus 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the interests of disclosure, User:FeloniousMonk has filed a checkuser request on me. CHECKUSER#Otheus Thus, if the user above also believes it to be the case that I am the IP users in the checkuser case, his descriptions (trolling, disruptive, dishonest, etc) would be rational. (I know checkuser will come back negative, but of course, what good is my word?) --Otheus 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(the same description in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek too!)

user:Darwinek was in revert war with user:mt7

• revert Nr. 1 [102]
• revert Nr. 2 [103]
• revert Nr.3 [104]
• revert Nr. 4 [105]

4 reverts in only 23 min and user:Darwinek is admin!

user:Darwinek personal attack against user:mt7

• personal attack Nr. 1 [106]
• personal attack Nr. 2 [107]

• user:Darwinek blocked user:mt7 with him who was in personal editwar

[108]

but Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used say:

Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited.

That is a very serious violation of admin rights, and after revert of another page and revert of Tamás Priskin and blocking of user:mt7 only tree minutes - a very hard working and very cautios admin.

--S.novak 07:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN/3RR to WP:AN/I. Nishkid64 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User is again making unilateral moves that are very WP:OWN. He created this article and feels he has control over it moreso than others. He tried to speedy it, and was advised that it can't be a Speedy canidate. Then he Prod'd it, and I asked him to AfD based on policy if he felt it needed to go for legitimate reasons. Then he redirects it to Wikipedia in response, puts a speedy tag on Talk:Wikipedia community, and removes every single link from a variety of articles back to Wikipedia community. To cap it off he solicits a new admin here to delete the complete history. I want to AGF but User:QuackGuru has been brought to WP:ANI on this article four times previously. here, here, here, and here, and yesterday here for similar very aggresive, speedy aggressive acts. Can someone please look into this? his idea of concensus is to throw a hand grenade, and its getting tiring... multiple editors have complained. - Denny 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=116620563 An administrator redirected it. I did not. I removed the the links to the redirect. I believed the talk was indistcriminate information to speedy delete. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you solicited him for that... after being checked by a couple of other users. His status as an admin as Conti told you on your talk page gives him no special rights/authority for content... so you instead asked him to delete the history... to cover tracks? All your edits have been repeatedly checked by others and stopped for over a week, because you are being hyper-aggressive. Why are you unwilling to compromise to the community wishes/concensus? - Denny 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Silly dispute, really, since that article contains nothing which is not inherently obvious from Wikipedia plus community. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User:QuackGuru has been rather tendentious on the Essjay controversy article (see this related MfD) but I don't see where admin intervention is needed here. Sure QuackGuru's acting a bit improperly but if I'm not mistaken he was the creator of the Wikipedia community article and in that sense it is a bit understandable. (→Netscott) 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything QuackGuru is involved in is a silly dispute, but that doesn't make it any less obnoxious of him. He has no understanding of consensus, his idea of a discussion is to go and declare things as if they were royal edicts, and he claims we're "locking him out of" articles if we revert him. I can't even figure out what his motives are any more, beyond just wanting things to be his way. --tjstrf talk 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I came into this because I came across the article. Regardless of how silly he is, it's a pretty mediocre article and deserved to be redirected, which is why I did it. There's nothing on the article that isn't already in the main one and the AfD was only no consensus because a handful of people wanted to give it a chance. It's not looking any better so I redirected. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't solicit me, I was the one who put the merge tag on the article in the first place. He removed and then readded it, then mentioned that he realized none of it was worth merging, which I agreed with. No one posted on either talk page to disagree. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else find it odd that the user creation log is flooding recent changes? Or is this a fluke of some kind?--VectorPotential^Talk 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, nevermind, it was just a database crash, for some reason the only thing that still worked was the user creation function, thus the appearance of a username creation flood--VectorPotential^Talk 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have user creations and image uploads always showed in recent changes? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, all the logs do. They just aren't noticeable usually. Prodego ^talk 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to sound like an idoiot here but has it always been that way? I have done RC patrol for several months and dont remeber it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, it's been like that for quite some time (Well, I think you can change what you see in Recent changes if you want to). Logical2u_{Review me!} 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Only since around 2004 or 2005, I forget the exact date, there didn't always used to be a visible log for user creations, which is why some older accounts don't show up on the user creation log at all, take for instance Jimbo Wales, no entry in the creation log--VectorPotential^Talk 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That must explain why I dident see it. I have a custom link to RC on my tool bar that shows only anons and the such. Thanks! I know there were user creation logs but I did not think it shwoed on recent changes. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]