Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Koavf has managed to rack up eight distinct blocks for 3RR, and 2 more for other disruptive behavior(block log). Note also edits like this.. I just extended his latest 3RR block to idefinite, as I think the community's patience is likely exhausted by now. He has had many opportunities to mend his ways. Having recently returned from a week-long block, he started edit warring again almost immediately. His behavior is unmodified despite the volume of blocks he has received. Of course, I put this possibly-controversial action up for review. Dmcdevit·t 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no note on his User or User_talk page? - Francis Tyers · 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? He has lots of warnings on his Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the lack of note on his talk page regarding his indefinite block. A note has subsequently been added. - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much possibility of recovery here. While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I don't think he has the temperament for editing here. I'm going to endorse this action, though sadly. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, harsher than we usually are. But then perhaps we are usually too soft. Endorse with the proviso that we put a note on his talk page indicating that he will be considered for a 'last chance' if he indicates that he 'gets it' undertakes to behave.--Doc^g 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that a long block of some sort is in order. Not sure if indefinite is needed, just yet (I'm not too familiar with the situation), but the long-term disruption and failure to learn from past transgressions is pretty worrisome. Luna Santin 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he deserves an indefinite block, but I think that some kind of length (maybe 3-6 month block) with the option of a "last chance" before indefinite would be appropriate. He has been a useful editor, and the disruption comes from edit warring rather than vandalism. - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin is a nice user but w/ a temperament. It is this same temperament that leads him to edit warring non-stop. If you'd ask me i'd say i'd prefer a definite ban from editing Morocco/Western Sahara related articles where he got most of the blocks. -- Szvest 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}[reply]

Agree with Svest. - Francis Tyers · 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very strict block. I have edited on the Western Sahara articles before and I think that Kovaf has been struggling with some users who only have the aim to put certain viewpoints on Wikipedia. I'm not convinced by his neutrality entirely either, but I think the articles could become very unbalanced and that we would lose a valued contributor if he were indefinately blocked.

A block of a much shorter duration should be enforced here - 1 month, 2 maximum. I definately don't think he should be blocked from editing Western Sahara/SADR aritcles (but might support a block from aritcles on Morocco). --Robdurbar 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t want to interfere in your discussion guys but Robdurbar’s remarks justifying Kovaf’s behavior as just a "a struggle with some users" oblige me to do so. I think this is simply unfair from an admin.
• There are reasons why Koavf has been blocked (no need to list them again) and this has nothing to do with any "other users". Trying to Justify his behaviour in this way is simply wrong.
• The unbalance of the topic is an other wrong argument. He had the chance to cooperate with all and he clearly did not. Now there is a real chance that the topics will be more balanced and the atmosphere among the editors more co-operative and peaceful. All he was doing is (mis-) using Wikipedia for a platform to fight for the independence of a disputed territory and discouraging others with his obsessive reverts.
• There are rules, and they apply for all, so remember which message you will give if you unblock this user; it's like telling everybody "ok, just continue with your edit-warring and reverts, you’ll always find a nice admin to defend and unblock you."

Kind regards - wikima 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Koavf has been reverting and edit-warring on many articles, and especially on Western Sahara related. Normal when he declares in his user page "I try to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR).", and on Wikime that "I will do my darndest to free Western Sahara". His talk page and contributions show that he resorts to personal attacks, and has trouble issues with a large number of users on a wide range of articles. After coming form every block, he immediately started by reverting all the changes done in his absence, even the articles he was blocked for. Short period blocks seem to "only make him bitter" as he made it clear. Koavf has not shown any change after all the successive blocks. He misuses AWB for increasing edit counts at the price of creating confusion, although he was warned and blocked for it.

As to Robdurbar's comment, I think that Koavf has made the articles related to WS very unbalanced, and in his absence you are urged to watch if the "some users" commit the same mistakes as Koavf or are the articles becoming balanced by giving both views of the WS conflict.

An indefinite block, or at least (as Francis suggested) a 6-month block after which a "last chance" is given to him to show he changed, otherwise 3RR loses its purpose and becomes a short vacation from Wikipedia before one returns to resume reverting and edit-warring. --A Jalil 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to infer any bias from most users - including wikima - though I hope he would accept that he, like us all, has some sort of inherent bias. With there being so few contributors to Western Sahara pages, I don't think we can afford to lose Koavf. I appreciate this ban is over conduct, not content, but when banning we do need to consider what a user has contributed to Wikipedia. Equally, I agree, that koavd's contributions have been far from neutral but they have been in good faith. Can we agree to at least reduce this from an indefinate ban? --Robdurbar 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a fairly even split so far between endorsing and not-endorsing, is 50% sufficient for an indef ban to be upheld? - Francis Tyers · 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only had bad experiences with Koavf. When things haven't gone his way, he has tended to run off to an admin, which has backfired on him each time (example 1, example 2). Lifting the block would be a bad move, in my opinion, which I'm sure will be proven if it happens. Several of his past blocks were reduced in length, only for him to pick up where he left off, which shows he disregards other people's good faith towards him. - Dudesleeper 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather difficult question, as he's mostly editting in territory which is *very* prone to POV-pushing. I'm fairly certain he has done it on occasion, too, and he's certainly revert-warred, but an indefinite block seems a bit harsh... Apart from all this, someone neutral should take a good look at all the Western-Sahara-related articles, as almost all of them contain either a pro-independence or a pro-Morocco POV. —Nightstallion (?) 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, many others and me have been doing just that. We had experienced a very lenghty and hot debate at Talk:Morocco recently and i am sorry to say that among around a dozen of participants, only Justin was the most tendious. The participants had reached a concensus but Justin kept arguing against that. This is what makes Justin's case a bit torn. On one side, we need to keep all the articles free of POV and on the other side, we need no tendious editing and edit warring.

However, as i am not for a permablock, i'd still suggest a ban from editing Morocco/WS related articles as his POV pushing has reached limits. Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Fayssal said, I would also oppose a permanent block. Koavf is an obstinate user regarding matters relating to his personal views but he has shown willingness to follow dispute resolution procedures. I know this is not the point but Koavf truely believes he's doing the right thing most of the time. Regarding a topic ban or a revert parole, these matters would have to be decided by ArbCom. If anyone wants to take this to arbitration, I am more than happy to express my views on the issue. Personally, I feel a bit guilty as I was informally mediating on the WS/Morocco articles but eventually left these aside because time restrains. Koavf has been with us for long enough to deserve a proper arbitration process instead of a fast-track community ban. Regards, Asterion^talk 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Well said Asterion. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those opposing a permanent block are doing it out of good faith and kindness rather than out of rational and reality. This is a very clear case of someone for whom 3RR means nothing, blocks mean nothing, and edit-warring is a style. He has proven it again and again and again. There is no hope at all that he will change. I am quite sure many users have been indef blocked for much less than Koavf's record, and if this case were to end in a no-indef ban, it will serve as an argument for warring-editors, and as a blatant failure to enforce Wikipedia's most basic rules.--A Jalil 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you have been here for under 3 months, I find it hard to believe that you've seen enough of Justin to make that call. Furthermore you have edit warred from the opposite POV to him. It is in your interests for him to have an indefinite block. Hardly the right person to be commenting on this. - Francis Tyers · 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If three months is a short period, I have actually seen during it koavf racking up so many blocks, using aggressive language, and disregarding Wikipedia's most basic rules, I have seen him promising admins he will obey by the rules but did not hold his word. I have seen 3RR losing its meaning in his case. A bad example for newcomers, like me, Isn't it?. Moreover, you can "see" all one's history of talk and contribs, even if you've been for just one week. So, one's opinion is not weakened (nor strengthened) by how long he/she has been on Wikipedia. You can't help Koavf by trying to redirect attention from his unjustifiable abusive behavior to other users, it is an insult to the admins' intelligence. You (Francis) have been recently blocked for edit-warring. As to my editing on WS, Koavf has reverted me , and would revert you , and everyone who writes anything that does not go his way. Is it enough that I support the WS articles to be filtered from POV by neutral editors (like you), as has been suggested above?.--A Jalil 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf is currently a problem editor, but not a vandal. I suggest a long block to give him a chance to mellow out, but not an indefinite block. —Michael Z. 2006-11-14 16:16 Z

I'd agree with that. He has put a lot of time into editing up until now, so I wouldn't want to see all that negated by an indefinite ban. A time-out would suffice, in which time he'll hopefully expand his horizons. - Dudesleeper 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I can see now, the topic of Western Sahara for instance is like recovering in his absence, already. There is a sort of peace coming back and the atmosphere is likely to become cooperative and productive again.

• I would prefer to see more people join and also feel encouraged to stay longer, than only koavf “owning” the pages and pushing others away with his possessive way.

• His obsessive, always instant and systematic reverts and his extreme edit-warring discourage anyone who wants to do the tiniest change that does not fit his POV.

• He certainly edited a lot (may be sometimes too much), but all his edits and article creations are POV and propaganda and it takes others always a huge effort to overcome his edit-warring and reverts in order to balance.

• Wikipedia is not about quantity. Articles that are shorter, neutral, concise, let say encyclopaedic, have much more value than long stories that are nothing than a fight in favour of an ideological organisation and against a country that is seen as enemy of this organisation.

• This sort of behaviour clearly damages the topic areas in question and it damages Wikipedia as a whole.

• He had many chances but he just ignored all and he didn’t care about using one single of them.
• It’s time now to protect Wikipedia and these topics and for their sake I would plead for keeping the indefinite ban.

Thanks and kindest regards - wikima 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to make it a personal vendetta against him. His misgivings are clear to those who care to look. The admins will act as they see appropriate. - Dudesleeper 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Koavf is currently a problem editor, but not a vandal" - I think this describes the situation best, thanks Mzajac. This is why I think an idefinate block is counter-productive and a long-but-not indefinate one could 'solve' the problem. Of course, any user - myself included -who is arguing for a long-but-not-indefinate would be happy to endorse a full block if his bevahiour did not improve upon return. --Robdurbar 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair enough to me. But i'd prefer that we agree on what problems we are refering to when we say a "problem editor". Are there many problems? Is there a particular one? I say this because i know for some of us or even for Justin, this may be debatable and could lead us to the same situation if he is back. Could we be more concise? Szvest ····> ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 13:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude, nothing personal, and I am most serious about it.
• Rob, of course we are talking about a problematic editor and not a case of vandalism.
• Koavf had already received the warning of an indef ban [1] when he was blocked for a week and he ignored it.

Rgds - wikima 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. The indefinite block should remain permanent. No amount of reasoning or disciplinary action has made Koavf alter his behavior, even if some of his contributions are worthy. BGC 12:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorsing: 8(3) BGC*, Kylu, Dmcdevit, A_Jalil*, Argyriou*, wikima*, Dudesleeper*, Doc
• Endorsing a partial ban on Morocco/Western Sahara related articles: 2(1) FayssalF, Francis Tyers*
• Endorsing a long block: 3(3) Michael, Robdurbar, User:Luna Santin
• Endorsing a short block: 2(2) Nightstallion, Aldux
• Endorsing a topic ban or a revert parole: 1(0) Asterion*
• Not endorsing: 1(0) Arre*

• • Total for not-endorsing indefinite ban: 9(6)

* indicates non-admins.

- Francis Tyers · 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I endorse the "partial ban", I'm not sure if this can be done without ArbCom intervention. Can anyone advise? - Francis Tyers · 12:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the ArbCom should be informed i believe. Refering to the Appeals process i understand that everything should follow that path. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I believe Koavf can still be of help to this project, and would agree with Nightstallion's idea of a short block. Probably the best way to resolve the problems concerning Koavf would be to put him on a revert-parole; but since this can be done only by the ArbCom, maybe we should bring Koavf to the arbcom.--Aldux 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be reminded that user Koavf was warned by admin William M. Connolley, when he blocked him for a week, that in case he continues edit-warring and reverting he will be blocked indefinitely [[2]], but that warning had no effect on him.--A Jalil 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be late for this, and I'm not really into how the process works, but I would be very disappointed if Koavf gets a full-time, all-time, permanent block. As someone said above, his breaches of Wikipedia rules are almost all the result of a single POV battle, where I agree he has been playing rough at times, but he has hardly been the only one to do so. It has been about him trying to fend off Moroccan editors Wikima and A. Jalil, who have for a long time worked in tandem trying to change the tone of Western Sahara-related articles (for better or worse, that's up to anyone to judge). Tellingly, they're both arguing for an indefinite ban above. Perhaps equally tellingly, I'm arguing against it: I haven't edited much lately, but I was generally on Koavf's side in those same battles. So I realize I'm not necessarily more or less credible than his opponents, as I've been part of the same battle.

Now, with that openly declared, I think Koavf should get a second chance, not because we've generally (not always) been on the same side on that one topic, but for the following reasons:

• His edits have been in the grey zone, and he has broken 3RR. But his editing hasn't been malicious in the way I would expect is needed for an indefinite block. He's tried to stick to the rules, and I can't imagine he willingly broke 3RR -- that would just be stupid. There should be a sanction for failing to notice it repeatedly, but come on ... an indefinite ban for scraping up a handful of 3RR breaches over some thousands of edits and tens of edit wars?
• Koavf has edited a myriad subjects apart from Western Sahara (something, I may add, which isn't the case with his WS opponents, who are clearly here on a mission), and has made a gazillion edits over a very long period of time. Apart from a good job expanding various odd topics, he has also done a lot of cleaning-up on his free-time, systematizing articles and correcting punctuation etc, which I think shows that he's no single-topic POV pusher: he's in fact a prolific and very serious editor who has unfortunately during this time also dirtied his hands in a few nasty, mostly interrelated, edit wars.

Koavf has made a zillion edits of the sort of blanket changing China to People's Republic of China, (or Russia to Russian Federation) without careful checking that the change was appropriate in context. I spent some time cleaning up after his messes on my watchlist, and he is utterly unrepentant of that behavior, too[3][4]. I'm happy to see him blocked for that behavior. (Incidentally, I've not been a aprt of the Western Sahara edit wars; I haven't even read the article(s) in question.) Argyriou (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On Western Sahara specifically, he has done a great job, even if at times his opinions shine through. It's mostly thanks to him that this topic is so well-covered, and he's done a tremendous work filling gaps and editing non-political articles in the periphery of that conflict: not just fighting the battle over flags and sovereignty. He was working diligently and, for the most time, with no apparent bias, on the subject long before these battles even started, and I think it would be a shame to see him blocked after having put all that effort into it.

Well, those are my views. I do have a history in this battle, that's no secret, but hold that against me: not against him. Ciao. Arre 22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arre,

• What you are saying is "mea culpa, the others are guilty". As I don't handle the art of telling something by pretending to say the opposit I will answer you in a strait way.

• You accusation against Jalil and me having a "mission" is grave and baseless. Truly, one can say that you and koavf have a mission in the Western Sahara subject. Koavf had defined this himself for instance when saying he tries "to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR)." He even "spoke at the United Nations' [...] on the situation in Western Sahara" [5] and everyone knows that he is "fanatic" about the independence of the territory. And based on what I read from you in discussion I can confidently say that you are an activist for the same cause who has visited the so called "Free Zone" and probaly Tindouf as well and who has met with people like Aminatou Haidar etc..

What you do togther with koavf is a clear abuse of Wikipedia for your political mission and aim.

• There is almost no article on Western Sahara in which you have not been involved togther with koavf, one supporting the other. All your versions of these articles reflect the polisario political and ideological position and are written to fight Morocco in Western Sahara. These articles only become somewhat balanced when other people have made a huuuge effort to overcome your intransigence and koavf's systematic reverts and agressivities before changing. I have the feeling most of them just hate the topic after this, feel discouraged and leave.

Together with him you build a constant tandem in this topic (and to a certain extent in the Morocco topic as well). Both of you, obsessive activists for the independence of the Sahara, made all topics on Western Sahara look just like a Polisario made web site.

This kind of practice has generally severely damaged Wikipedia.

• You can't plead for the xth chance for kovf as his he had already and his block log seems to be full. As you can clearly read koavf had been blocked several times before this, not only on the topic of Western Sahara and not only because of Jalil and me. Koavf has problems with many other users and in other topics as well. Some of them have given their opinion here. In the topic of Western Sahara other users (Daryou, SteveLo, Khalid Hassani etc.) had to face the extreme intransigence of Koavf enjoying your ideological support.

• The support you provided to koavf has been systematic and you could become aggressive, using vulgar words and personal attacks against others who don’t share you POV [6][7](in both links just search the f** word).

• Koavf has indeed been doing much effort on the WS topic, incl. spelling corrections etc., but what you don’t tell is that he was permanently present, like a guard to instantly and systematically reverted anyone who dared to touch any of the Western Sahara pages in a manner he didn't like. He dealth with Western Sahara as if it was his little garden, his property.

• As I state above, accuracy and neutrality have more priority in an encycloaedia than just quantity. A just large nr of edits is meaningless or even negative when they are all POV and ideological propaganda. It does not necessarily matter how much people write or edit, but it does matter how they do it. It's better to not handle a topic at all than to present it in such a biased and propaganda manner like you do togther with koavf.

• I din't have the intention to to write off-topic, but I simply felt it's my right to answer you.

Rgds - wikima 20:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my efforts to dialogate with User:Thulean and try to be constructive with the infamous disputed article White people (see talk page and mediation page, and despite having only one single warning (and a totally clean historial before this awful conflict), I have been blocked by administrator User:Shell Kinney on very unclear grounds.

She wrote (sounds very emphatic but there are no grounds):

You've been asked multiple times by many people to stop being incivil, stop attacking other editors and especially to stop harassing Thulean. Unfortunately you've now continued this both in the mediation and on my talk page. I've given you a short block - please stop the behavior and try to approach the mediation in a civil manner - without attacking and belittling other editors whom you disagree with. Shell babelfish 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (there's no PAIN case, no diffs, no nothing) she could have been decided that I was making a persona attack on the following items (all based on what is written in her talk page)

1. My comment inside a large discussion (almost unilateral teaching by my side) on European genetics (as per the diff provided by Thulean in Shell's talk page) that read:

Aditionally, I think you should check this map, from a previously sourced paper, where it does make a rather conclusive division between Neolithic (Near Eastern) and Paleolithic (Basque) ancestry. It's probably better than going around Cavalli-Sforza's maps, as it is a much more modern paper.

You want to play with geneaologies... like the Jewish skinhead of the BBC article, you may get burnt. --Sugaar 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. My attempt of protest at his abuse on this kind of accusations that read:

LOL - that's not an attack. I'm just saying that you really have no clear idea of where your ancestors may ultimately be from (and this is only in realtion with European genetics, a discussion on which you have shown very poor understanding).

Stop whinning for everything (this might be a PA, who knows?). --Sugaar 13:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (diff)

So where is the personal attack? I wonder. There's no such thing anywhere.

I am a little angry and sarcastic, maybe. But there's not a single personal attack in all those sentences (nor in anything I've written in a good while).

There are also no such repeated warnings that Shell talks about. I just have only one warning from Shell herself and surely two dozens of pseudo-warnings (harassment) by Thulean. Nobody else has said anything about my behaviour, much less in a formal manner.

The first comment must be contextualized in a longer debate between Thulean and I on European genetics (Talk:White people#Just for the record), where Thulean made also despective comments like:

• LOL. By your "logic", the "European genome" is found mostly in Saudi Arabia...I dont want to dignify your other claims with more responses but I suggest you to read about this subject before making absurd claims.
• What part of this can't you get into your head?

And I was patiently replying in length, providing sources and all that can be done to reach an understanding, exposing carefully my understanding (based in many genetic studies) that European and West Asian genomes are strongly linked and that is dificult to find what is specifically European if anything...

He just made those short disdainful claims, no sources, no ideas... but specially no constructive attitude at all.

And then I bring up another source that suggests that Scandinavians are 50% West Asians and make that comment about playing with genealogies and the next I know is that he's writing to Shell to complain.

I protest and what do I get? A block.

...

I request:

1. To find out wether any of those comments actually constitutes a PA and why. I just don't see it. I was trying to be pedagogical and hoping he might learn something of all this mess.

2. If nothing is found that the block is reverted retroactively, just for the record.

3. To recuse permanently Shell Kinney from any future case that I may be accused of. At this point I have not the slightest trust in her ability or neutrality and I am doubting seriously of her good will.

...

Additionally I have disconnected myself from the White people article, discussion and mediation. This has crossed all red lines and I just can't bear this anymore. The article is a collective responsability of Wikipedia (that means in abstract: all wikipedians) and I have done much more than my share, getting as reward only an unbearable witch-hunt and some scars that will take some time to heal.

And I am not the only one, I believe. This one-sideness of Shell Kinney is causing problems to all wikipedians of good will, as far as I can see. Soon that article will have only one editor and that one will be Thulean (and maybe ideologically akin Dark Tichondrias too). I have done what I could but I can't keep that push if the Wikibureaucracy, impersonated as Shell Kinney, is so hostile against me and other veteran serious editors. --Sugaar 07:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this kind of complaint is better suited at request for comment. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited slightly so you can see better where the request is. The first part is basically explainatory for unaware admins to understand what happened (as far as I can understand it myself) --Sugaar 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugaar, on first inspection of your pages, the mediation, and Shell's talk page, Shell is right that you have been crossing the line into personal attacks. You seem to be extremely resistant to hearing that, but please listen: it's not ok to attack people on Wikipedia. What you're doing is beyond the limits of what the community feels are ok. The things that the people you're arguing with are doing aren't going across the line. Please, calm down, and listen to people in the mediation and elsewhere. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the PA? I am not attacking anyone, at least not since the warning.

And I'm not getting again in that rat-trap of White people article. I fell in that by accident and is not my area of interest. If it is of your interest, you can join the discussion and the mediation yourself and feel in first person how it is like. --Sugaar 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's no PA anywhere. But more important: there are not the many warnings that Shell claims. I have just one warning and, as far as I can tell, I have not just not repeated the error but also tried to be as constructive as possible (with no results but disdainful comments and this unjustified block).

Block is according to WP:NPA a measure against extreme cases:

In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial.

Obviously there's no such grounds in this case and all the procedure is highly irregular and unclear.

I am also worried about ALWAYS being judged by the same administrator and precisely by the one who seems most heavily biased against me. I hope not to get involved in any more PAIN cases now that I have detached myself from the conflictive article but you never know and, just in case, I request that the next time the administrator judging my hypothetical case is someone different. I think it's a very reasonable request. --Sugaar 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the admin who declined your unblock request. I'd say that comparing someone to a skinhead ("like the Jewish skinhead of the BBC article, you may get burnt") is a personal attack. I for one would have been quite offended, had I been the subject of that comment. At the very least, it's a serious breach of civility, especially in a content dispute in such a contentious article as white people. Additionally, you actively mock your opponent's knowledge of genetics in your second comment, and even admit that it may be a personal attack. That right there shows me that you know exactly what a personal attack is, and that you know when you're making one. For my part as a neutral, uninvolved party, (I don't think I've ever edited white people in my life) I must support the (now-long-expired) block. ♠PMC♠ 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a PA and that's why I feel that this is a witch hunt. It wasn't meant to compare with an skinhead but I mentioned the case earlier in the conversation (what seemed funny to Thulean, as he replied with one "LOL") and I thought the comparison was appropiate not because I may think this or that about his ideology but because the skinhead that found out that he was Jewish seemed a good comparison for a person who is claiming that Scandinavia has no West Asian heritage (my documentation suggested it is c. 50%), hence the "Nordic Semitic" irony.

You can't decontextualize the phrase in such manner. It's absolutely out of place.

Also you said that my unblock request was wrong because "I had many warnings" what is not true. Check it. --Sugaar 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its very disappointing to see this come up again. When Sugaar was first calling Thulean a nazi, he opened an Arb case, tried mediation and finally posted here complaining because I had warned him. He was told every place he went that it was a personal attack; he continued the attacks on the mediation page and was warned there by the mediator. He refuses to accept that warnings from the aggrieved party are valid as he has many of those as well. I spent more than a week discussing personal attacks and civility in great detail with Sugaar and gave him many ideas of how he could avoid this problem in the future. He is now following Thulean around and making belittling and rude comments where ever he goes - I hope the two agree to stay away from each other since they cannot work together. Shell ^babelfish 18:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to discuss with Shell. She has shown to be strongly one-sided and I doubt her sincerity and good-will at this point. I ask Shell to recuse herself from any further cases involving me, LSLM or Thulean, or anything related with the problematic article. If I can recuse her, I do it.

Still, just for the record:

• I have not persecuted Thulean anywhere. I had Shell's talk page watched, as it activates as such when you write in it. So I protested his irregular pseudo-PAIN demand. Was it rude or just somewhat sarcastic? I sadly can't trust Thulean or Shell. And it is not a PA in any case, much less an extreme case that requires a block.
• I opened the ArbCom because I got confused on what procedure to follow and misread Shell re. mediation. Later I admitted she was partly right and retrieved the case myself. We went to mediation as per her suggestion and the case was rejected as pertaining to ANI. I posted here and some administrators clarified my doubts. Fine: case closed (I hoped).
• Andronico (the mediator) only said that Shell's only warn was right regarding the PAIN, something I disputed then. He did not warn me for any other thing but the same that she did. So it's not any additional warning in any case. Just that he agreed with Shell then.
• The warnings from Thulean are as valid as any warnings I could post in his talk page. I am not so easily "offended" as he is, so I have not intiated any sort of action against him nor ever visitied his user page. I don't think that what he's doing is right and I don't want to fall to the same type of lawyering harassment. It would be against my own feeling of dignity and good will. Anyhow, Thulean's "warnings" are just his personal opinion and I consider most of them insulting and harassing. They are not official nor any thing of the like.
• I don't agree with Thulean in almost anything, no matter how hard I try. But I have decided for my own emotional and mental health to disconnect permanently from that article, that was what Thulean wanted from the beginning anyhow. I hope not to find that element ever again in my life... but you never know. As he feels his tactics are successful, he may want to expand his area of action and we may find each other in any other article. I may also be unlucky enough to meet with someone else with his same more than dubious methods, or any other case, like I myself being attacked by another user, as happened in the past once and was solved to my total satisfaction and with remarks of having managed the case very well by the involved administrators. I believe that would Shell have to manage any other case involving me she would have a clear.

Finally I find quite offensive the a priori attitude of some administrators that read: "this user has a warn" and seem to understand "he's systematically problematic", without even looking at his/her historial, that in my case was perfectly clean until I stumbled with that element and his favorite administrator.

If the case is not reviewed, next time (hopefully never) they may say: "this user has a block: he's a convicted dangerous criminal", no matter I never had a proper trial. As blocks are only suppossed to be issued in very extreme cases, they could even have some reason to think so in principle, and that's why I am requesting that the case is throughtly reviewed to see if the alleged personal attacks actually constitute reason for a block. What I think is clearly abusive interpretation of the policy and dangerous abuse of power. --Sugaar 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugaar, it's this simple: You have to abide by our community standards, as interpreted by us, or you're going to get blocked for abusing people. You don't set our standards - we do. You're welcome to disagree in principle, but how you act will be judged by our interpretations.

You came here to complain, and you've got a number of admins and editors telling you that you're in the wrong. If you don't listen, your future here at Wikipedia is going to be short.

It's up to you to listen. You've had plenty of chances. Please start doing so. Georgewilliamherbert 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shell seems to have this about right. Sugaar, we are supposed to bend over backwards to be civil here, not engage in uncivil discourse then Wikilawyer about whether it technically crosses the line into personal attacks. Just treat other editors with courtesy and you won't keep getting into trouble. Metamagician3000 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also as administrators, maybe more than anyone else have to abide by our community standards. And it's clear that, if there was any fault (what I question strongly), it wasn't such a severe case as to generate a block. Read WP:NPA please:

In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial.

Can you point out which is the personal attack(s) at all and, if it exists (that I deny), why is it so extreme as to justify a block? Else, can you proceed with the review, as requested? Thanks.

Note 1: my impression is that you're just backing each other (out of mere corporative solidarity maybe) without putting forward anything that justifies the application of such clause.

Note 2: I have never rejected the norms of Wikipedia, I may have violated them out of ignorance and maybe arrogance in the past, not in this case, but I accept that I must abide by them. Can you do the same and apply the policy correct and justly without prejudice against me? That's what we, the users of Wikipedia, expect from you: fairness and justice. Nothing more but nothing less. --Sugaar 01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aditionally, I don't mean to "wikilawyer". I just mean justice. I believe that the one wikilawyering was Thulean and that he does have bad faith whatever you may think. The common of us mortals has not the steel nerves he has to be so calculating.

I have 100% dropped any relation with the article in question voluntarily. I am not risking a heart attack for that. But I believe someone should investigate a little and find that Sugaar has a totally clean historial before this nasty problematic, two years editing Wikipedia productively (I don't know how many edits I may have but must be over the thousand or more), not a single conflict other than the typical POV riff-raffs (and not many). I am not any extreme case and your severity and lack of imparciality seems totally out of place.

I think honestly that some among you should step forward and try to see my point of view. I am no wikilawyerist. I have only filed a single RFI before this awful situation, I took attacks and hostility for one month before doing it, and that single case was ruled in my favor with all blessings (he did got a block, but only after repeated vandalism). I have never ever been accussed of anything by anyone before Thulean stepped in out of nowhere. So what's the problem?

For you I am not (apparently) but just another quasi-anonymous troublemaker. But I had a completely clean and productive historial and your lack of fairness and seriousness in investigating the case is dirtying it.

And some among you even dare to make threats, without even studying my appeal. This is total madness. I have no other name for this. --Sugaar 02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just let it go, Sugaar. You were blocked for a mere 6 hours over an article that you've repeatedly said you're not going to edit anymore. The block is done. Your relationship with the article is done. A bevy of respected editors has told you you're in breach of civility. Just let it go. ♠PMC♠ 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't let it go. I would be failing to my duty as wikipedian if I would allow administrators to abuse the policy.

Personally this doesn't feel nice but it is not my feelings what are at stake. When administrators here pointed out what I had done wrong previously and how it was a clear violation of NPA I accepted and tried to redirect my efforts in a constructive way despite the huge difficulties.

But now is not my fault. I have been punished for non-existent faults and beyond all measure (as per NPA). It is somebody else's fault (no need to name, we all know) and it is this person and collectivelly the administrators of Wikipedia who must correct the wrong.

It is blatant abuse of power. --Sugaar 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew what would satisfy you. Many different people have come along and given there opinions during this saga, but that doesn't seem to sway you. Please read the blocking policy - persistent personal attacks is considered a non-controversial block reasoning - that's precisely why templates like npa2 warn you that you may be blocked if you continue. There has been nothing in my behavior over the past week that has been an abuse of power or policy - if you feel the need to continue making these accusations, please open a request for comment on my behavior; otherwise, please stop making snide comments about me in multiple places. Shell ^babelfish 04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack, nothing at all since that warn and the subsequent discussion. I was trying to discuss with a person that has very marked ideas on what he wants and is not used to Wikipedia working style (though he's getting addict at PAIN and your user page). I was trying to be pedagogic and constructive and the whole last section of Talk:White people page and Talk:White people/Mediation are evidence of my constructive and positive behaviour (though not of Thulean, but anyhow).

There were no Persistent personal attacks. Not since the warn and what you took as such isn't but a touch of irony and then a little more angry sarcasm. But no major nor constant PA, nothing that might justify a block of any sort. I was just discussing genetics, census of Latin America and future possibilities for the article structure and discouraging LSLM from keeping his tone of political denounce, as it seems to be problematic.

Besides WP:BLOCK says:

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure.

...

Caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith.

...

Blocks may be damaging when consensus proves elusive. Examples include:

• blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block
• blocks that, while possibly wise, lack policy basis.
• short term or cool-down blocks, e.g. if a user is angry about something controversial, blocking that user will rarely cool him or her down

Obviously you ignored all that.

You are claiming a justification that does not exist and, meanwhile, you ignored all the rest of WP:BLOCK. You used block as means of punishment, you took no cautions but acted on impulse (I deduce), you blocked an active user with a substantial history of valid contributions, you blocked without any policy basis, you tried to use the block as a "cool down" block.

You broke all the rules.

My appeal is more than justified. And it is not just for my name but specially for the good working of Wikipedia that I am appealing.

Besides I insist that you recuse yourself or get recused otherwise on intervening in cases affecting my person or the controversial article (where I won't be anymore anyhow but you may cause more damage than good), as you have clearly shown strong bias and misuse of policy. --Sugaar 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I don't see where the RfC fits in. The right place to appeal a wrong block is ANI, as per WP:BLOCK. RfC is for articles, users' editing or civility behaviour (maybe Thulean or you, Shell, should had started with that) and policies and conventions. Not for appealing a block or, it seems to me, recusing an administrator.

I think everybody would gain if you would recuse yourself voluntarily. And I have no questions about the validity of my appeal as such and, the more policy I read, the more convinced I am that the block was absolutely wrong.

Additionally, I have no interest in persecuting any direct confrontation with you, Shell, and, definitively, I won't be disturbing the peace of your campaign for ArbCom or your user page. Personally, I have no problem if you and I don't talk to each other for a while. But I can't trust you after this. I don't know how you expect me to trust an administrator who instead of appliying the policy and guidelines applies martial law, that uses wrong (I'd say "false", but maybe it's too harsh) justificactions for her actions, that has clear prejudice against one side of a very complex and difficult conflict, that assumes that if I did wrong once I will always do the same without any comprobation. No: I've seen other admis recussing themselves on much weaker grounds but you insist in staying in charge and admit no error.

I don't know what you expect from me. I strongly believe in Wikipedia's principles, independently on wether I may agree or disagree, be aware or not of some particular aspect, and I am each day more convinced that you have broken all them with this totally unjustified block.

I understand that you can commit errors. We all do. But I also think you should meditate on this and accept what is your part of fault. That's actually much more honest and respectable than just castling on your unjustifed position. --Sugaar 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugaar, your complaint here is bordering on stalking Shell. Please give it up and move on. Georgewilliamherbert 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to stalk anyone. I just mean justice done. If the common user must abide to policy, much more administrators.

I have tried to avoid direct discussion with Shell because at this moment doesn't really seem helpful. I have unwatched her talk page and any other case related pages apart of this one.

But I am right and you are not applying policy as you are suppossed to be done.

I insist you do your work and stop protecting each other: study my appeal, determine if the block was right and say why. I have put forward many reasons so far why this block was totally wrong.

As I said, we all commit errors but we must be able to admit it and fix them. It is my right and my duty as wikipedian to appeal an unjust block. I must not renounce to it and you should not abide by other reasons than policy: that's why you have been named administrator, not to protect each other but to protect Wikipedia and good willed wikipedians as I believe I am.

I am astonished that no administrator here has said: you have a point Sugaar, policy was violated in your case and your appeal is at least in this or that way correct.

I am also disappointed because Shell, on whose good will and seriousness as administrator I once believed in, doesn't seem to be able to admit her error. I'm not calling for the head of anyone, just for justice and due prudence.

And personally I have felt stalked myself by Thulean and this attitude protected by Shell and other administrators somehwat. I am insomniac, I am smoking double than normal and I am quite worried at some "irregular" trends inside Wikipedia only now I am realizing.

I have a great trust in Wikipedia as such and, if I dropped the case I would be betraying it and Wikipedia itself. It is a very good case but I am still waiting for any of you to step forward and admit even a small part of the great deal of reason I do have. That also worries me, sincerely. You have a major responsability as administrators: you are the custodians of the integrity of Wikipedia (and its policies and spirit). I want to think you will be at the height of the enormous trust that Wikipedia has deposited on you.

And this is the place where I am suppossed to appeal my unjust block. I still have to see my appeal rejected with any good reason. Just calls for dropping the case, for giving up without any grounds. ::I am very worried at Wikipedia's system of justice. --Sugaar 10:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to say few things. Of course I'm hugely biased but hear me out. First of all, Sugaar called me Nazi many times, among other PA's. I warned him unofficially and then officially and then reported him and he got a warn. After all this he continued and was even warned by the meditator. [8]

And even after all this Sugaar went to Shell Kinney's page and even managed to continue his PA's while appealing. See User_talk:Shell_Kinney#You_are_not_being_just

An example:

"But that page has been under consistent attack by (mostly anonymous) vandals of clearly nazi/racist ideology. Thulean and Dark Thicondrias have been the only ones in that spectrum to do it with a username."

I've also made a response there, at the bottom of that section, trying one last time to tell how I feel. But afterall this he likened me to a jewish skinhead. So I believe the block was just. Shell Kinney has been very patient with him despite continuous accusations from Sugaar:

1) He claimed Kinney refused meditation. [9]

2) His answer when told that he was wrong: "You are right: you accepted the mediation request but I misread you because of your patronizing tone and threatening questioning of my terminology." [10]

3) His meditation was rejected and he moved it to ANI. But he accused Kinney of misleading him again. [11] which was wrong: [12]

4) After ANI, he accused Kinney of not mentioning the correct policy [13] which was also wrong [14]

He also directed PA's to Kinney, one of which was pointed out by another administrator:

""we can hardly struggle against such one-sided admins as you, really." ... ...That would also qualify as a personal attack, per WP:NPA. So far as I can see, that's all Shell has been trying to tell you. Crimsone 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC) " [15] And still he is talking about how his comments werent PA and how he wasnt warned enough after all this:

User_talk:Shell_Kinney#You_are_not_being_just
User_talk:Shell_Kinney#Brought_the_case_to_ArbCom
User_talk:Shell_Kinney#I_was_thinking...
User_talk:Shell_Kinney#Mediation_rejected:_moved_to_ANI
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#PAIN_case_mishandling Thulean 12:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was advised to knock off name calling even in here: [16]Thulean 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading here Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#The_elephant_in_the_room, it's clear he implies me and anyone who follows the link to White people, which he gave, can understand he implies me. And besides "For instance, I have been warned for descibing one POV-pushing editor's ideology as "nazi" and "racist", which is blatantly true", he managed to say this:

"This is just allowing certain twisted people to gag others."

And he said this AFTER his block.[17] Amazing...

And his refusal to apply wiki policy of "commenting on debate, not on editors" seems NOT only towards me:

"If not in the ANI, where admins seem to behave like a wolfpack..."

"Ironically Shell Kinney is running for ArbCom herself. Guess that her campaign is something like "Wikipedia needs an iron man and that's me" of Thatcher. I don't know. I'm voting a more promising candidate." [18] Thulean 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to disengage from Thulean. All mentioned above has been said previously and I have discussed all point by point. The only exception being my private note to user LSLM who is also very disappointed at the running of Wikipedia justice system and is yelling despair. It is anyhow decontextualized and if he wants to persecute me despite my attempts of disengagement, he should do it somewhere else. As it is irrelevant for the block or my appeal.

I have not asked anyone to come here to comment as I see it just as a matter of application of policy, not and RfC. Hence I request that Thulean's comments, along with my reply are deleted as irrelevant.

He is chasing me and looking for any error I might commit (not the other way around, as some seem to think). --Sugaar 02:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth hurts, doesn't it? So long as you can stand around yelling that someone else is at fault, you seem to be happy, but when faced with facts, you back into a corner and attack. Not a single person who has ever looked at this case agrees with you. Perhaps I'm not the one that needs to take a hard look. And yes, WP:RFC is the correct place - please see "This is not the complaints board" up top. Take it to RfC if I'm so horribly overstepping my bounds. If you continue to attack and harass me at this point, I will ask another administrator to step in. Shell ^babelfish 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Thulean may say does not hurt me. What hurts is that you and the other admins accept his activity as valid. That was my private comment to another user that has been also witch-hunted by Thulean and you (though he's much more stubborn in ignoring NPA) and was only intended that way. Not for you to read, not to cause harm to anyone, just to express my feelings at all this.

I really want some other administrator to step in, anyone cannot be less neutral than you. If I would not want other admins to take note and act, I would not be appealing at ANI but probably just quitting Wikipedia.

But I want that other administrator(s) to take a look at this appeal first and resolve clearly on it. Nobody has done that yet.

In any case, if you or Thulean think that's a fault, it should be a separate case, it can't afect my appeal because it is not cause of that block but a comment on how unjust it is and how I feel treated here by the admins who are suppossed to review the case. But it has no relevance to the case as such. It's only loosely connected.

If you are such a good and fair administrator as you and others seem to believe, you should accept my part of reason, what this appeal is about. And therefore you should remove a block that is so clearly against policy.

You cannot pretend that I have not done my best to correct my error on ideology as cause of PA. It is clear that I have, but you are ignoring it. You cannot ignore that since the first warn was made and clarified I have not made any personal attacks against Thulean or anyone and that what you are taking as such are just totally decontextualized irony (and anyhow an isolated case).

That's the problem: you tag someone as "troublemaker" and he/she seems to have to carry that mark forever and ever no matter how hard one tries. Now by applying unjust emergency measures against me you have tagged me as "convicted criminal", no matter that you are judge, jury and part and I never had any sort of trial. What I want is that trial, even if a posteriori.

I can't renounce to that because that would be betraying the values of Wikipedia and as member of this community I feel strongly about defending its values. You should too and therefore you should not have abused of your power nor violated policy. And, as you actually did, the less you could do is admit your errors and revert your wrongdoing.

I have read twice or thrice RFC by now and nowhere it says that administrators' actions are to be dealt with that way. We both must abide to policy and hence I stand that here is where this appeal belongs. --Sugaar 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something more of certain relevance: I just stumbled on this: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Guide to blocking times. It is clear that my case could only fall under one case:

'Personal attacks which place users in danger — Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l@wikipedia.org) and Jimbo Wales (jwales@wikia.com) of what they have done and why. See also Wikipedia:Oversight.

Obviously I wasn't placing anyone in danger (and I deny it was any personal attack). But that's the only case that is admitted by the policy. Please, Shell or whichever one is in charge. Admit the error and undo the block, else I will have to go to ArbCom, what for me is a waste of energies but surely that's also something that nobody here wants. I don't know how ArbCom would in practice rule this, but every single piece of policy supports my case (and by now you should know I'm not leaving this abuse standing). So let's not make it more difficult, Shell, and please let's fix it in voluntary good-will terms: you delete the block, you recuse yourself from any further case involving me and the White people article. I decline to intervene in that article anymore (I have already done it). Let's close the wound but let's do it well. Else, unless some other admin intervenes here and accepts my appeal in its due terms, this will have to go to ArbCom and it is a very clear case of abuse of policy and sysop powers. --Sugaar 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a couple about harassment and disruption. Focus on content, not other editors. —Centrx→talk • 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor is expected to follow the policies developed by the community, not pick and choose which parts they feel apply to them or wikilawyer their way out of trouble. You appealed the block by requesting an unblock on your talk page and to the mailing list, both were declined. If you cannot accept the fact that no one has seen fit to agree with your contention that the block was improper, feel free to take it to RfC or ArbCom. As I mentioned to you once before in this now almost two-week long dispute, I would highly suggest you use RfC first this time instead of going straight to ArbCom and have another case dismissed outright for failing to follow procedures. I look forward to giving the community the chance to review both our behaviors. Shell ^babelfish 09:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your block falls under this: page: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_to_block, section Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_to_block, sub-section Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Protection:

"A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• Personal attacks which place users in danger (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks)
• Persistent personal attacks
• Posting personal details
• Persistent copyright infringement" Thulean 13:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was no persistent personal attacks. I had stopped that (ideological identification) after the ONLY WARN and Thulean knows it well, as all the late part of Talk:White people and the Talk:White people/Medietion pages show clearly. Besides it was no personal attack but just contextualized irony and that's why I wrote "stop whinning" under your totally unjustified complaint.

I am not wikilawyering (that's Thulean, who likes to jump to the throats of people who dispute his POV). I am extremely concerned, every day more, about possible abuse of policy by Wikipedia administrators, as happened in this very clear case.

As per WP:BLOCK, it is here where the appeal belongs. I am not opening an RfC but, if you think I am acting wrongly, you may want to open an RFC on me. Thanks. --Sugaar 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, I've opened an RfC in the hopes that this can reach some kind of ending after two weeks - if anyone who's commented here would like to review the entire case or comment on the RfC, its at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sugaar. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the RfC should not interfere, I think, with this appeal, on which I am still waiting for a resolution. --Sugaar 17:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several identical, offensive personal attacks on an editor at David Bukay. Although some users and IPs have been blocked, others are quickly established or used. These attacks have been made by User:198.172.203.223 , User:132.74.99.84, User:207.67.145.171 and User:Bucket6. They appear to be linked to offensive edits in the same article, and at Steven Plaut, Roland Rance and User:RolandR, by User:Bejeebers, User:Asskick, User:Fumigate, User:wczto, User:193.225.200.93, User:Beckerman, User:84.109.62.205. The most recent such attack has been made by User:207.67.145.222. Dealing with this is like fighting a Hydra; there's always a new head growing.RolandR 02:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further identical attack by User:Runce at 08:02 GMT), 20 November 2006. RolandR 14:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a further identical attack by User:Rancidity at 17:25, 20 November 2006. This vandal is apparently chosing user names close to my own in order to pursue his vendetta against me. Please help put a stop to this. RolandR 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further vandalisation by User:Rancidity at 15:29, 21 November 2006. Can someone please help put a stop to this.--RolandR 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again by User:Rancidity at 07:28, 22 November 2006. What do I have to do in order that someone will take notice of this?--RolandR 13:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once more by User:Rancidity at 14:54, 22 November 2006. This user is just laughing at us; please put a stop to it. --RolandR 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked all the name accounts above and semiprotected David Bukay against further IP vandalism. Your userpage was already s-protected. I have a feeling you probably haven't mentioned all the pages with IP vandalism problems; please do so here, and I hope somebody will s-protect them. I'm going to bed myself. Bishonen | talk 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Other attacked accounts have included Kurt Nimmo, Steven Plaut and Roland Rance, there probably are others I haven't noticed. I think they have all been semi-protected already. I'll note if there are others. --RolandR 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In early October, NorbertArthur (talk · contribs) was blocked by Alex Bakharev for personal attacks (after coming off a one-month block by Mets501 for this comment). I unblocked him later that month because he assured me that he would not make any more. Since then, Arthur has made comments such as, pizdaFATHERFUCKER Named: KHOIKHOI whithout testicles now he becamed a fucked admin after liking everybody's ass wants to intruce his shit of russians policies here. my words: FUCK RUSSIA AND UK, TO FUCKED COUNTRIES THAT SUCK OUR DICK. Fuck your mother all here. Bogdangiusca had to warn him to stop, or else he would get "get banned and this time for good". About a week later, Arthur made the following comment in an edit summary: i told you all mtf provide a source for your fuckin 21.5 mil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When I unblocked him last month, he promised me here that I can re-block him if he makes other personal attacks...but how many more blocks should he be given? I say, one more, and hereby propose that NorbertArthur be blocked indefinitely. Comments welcome. Khoikhoi 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no admin, but repeated posts like that, after multiple warnings and blocks, certainly seems to warrant an indef block. This one either doesn't understand our framework, or is simply uninterested in working within it. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support an indef block in this case. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the last offense I reblocked him for 6 months. If this is an age problem; let us see in 6 months whether he grows up. Only this time without parole. `'mikkanarxi 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's unlikely to grow up at 23 years old. Two years older than me. Grandmasterka 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Standard 24 hour blocks, one for each set of personal attacks from now onwards should be more than sufficient to get the message across (unless there is an actual problem, e.g. vandalism). Also, if you do permanently block him, don't forget to delete his userpage; it contains personal information.--Euthymios 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, I think a one-month block is more than enough of a message, and I consider personal attacks to be an "actual" problem. Besides the fact that Khoikhoi was the one who unblocked him. Grandmasterka 23:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Play nice or play elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks like that aren't even subtle; he even promised he could be banned for such behavior. Khoi, you say one more attack gets ban, I say negative one more attacks gets a ban. This kind of personal attack is not OK, and clearly a 24 hour block does nothing. Give him 6 months or indef. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly see the point in any more chances, and aside from the personal attacks, his editing itself has always been problematic at best; a permanent block seems the only reasonable action at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely block now. And caution User:Euthymios that inappropriate comments like that will lead to a block of his own. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Khoikhoi, he never bothered using English to curse me out. Believe it or not, he's said even nastier things in Romanian than the example cited here. Concur with indefinite block. - Jmabel | Talk 08:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I would like to add my comment: NorbertArthur has for sure been asking for it, and he has been repeatedly engaging in inexcusable behaviour - the worst part of it was in Romanian. I was the target of such an outburst after I had asked him (for a second time) to write family name first in category brackets for articles on people (where he kept intervening). Judging by other users' talk pages, I see that he has done most of his trolling in Romanian.

Let me add that there is not a single piece of writing which could be cited as valuable from this user. In fact, all he has done was to create forks, use personal guesses to replace data, and create a problem in many articles by confusing and confounding Romanian people who live abroad with Romanian-born citizens of other countries and with Romanian ethnics who have lived their entire lives in foreign countries. Refusing to pay attention to guidelines, he has also uploaded copyrighted material - knowing full well that it was not public domain (this IMO, equates vandalism). As far as wikipedia is concerned, he is merely a habitual troll. Dahn 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking through the edit summaries of his 30 or so contribs this month I find

1. Joffrey Lupul is Romanian at 100%, you stupid!
2. MOLDOVAN NATION DOESN'T EXIST STUPIDS!!
3. i told you all mtf provide a source for your fuckin 21.5 mil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And more, he's already evading his block: [19] Khoikhoi 00:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE:

1. what a fuck is your problem mtf KHOIKHOI TO REVERT MY EDITS????? SUCK MY DICK
2. YOU JUST SUCK MY DICK MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!

Ba da ba ba ba... Khoikhoi 04:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just feel the love? I think he's got a crush on you : ) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Threeafterthree has, for many months, been attempting to remove any designation on biographical articles of individuals as "Jewish", particularly famous and respected people like Albert Einstein,[20] though he apparently has no issue with it if the person happens to be Harold Shipman, the U.K.'s worst mass-murderer.[21] In addition, he has been insisting on removing "Antisemitic" categories from various individuals considered antisemites, but insisting on adding the "Racism" category to various Jews and Jewish groups, and insisting that people like Leo Frank were not "innocent", but merely "convicted on circumcstantial evidence". All in all, it adds up to something quite ugly. If that weren't bad enough, he's been edit warring as an IP editor, for which he has been blocked 3 times in the past week and evading his blocks and sockpuppeting as a third editor. I've blocked all the accounts for a month, but I'm wondering if a permanent block is more in order. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, reading your comments here, I would support an indefinite block on this user. Suggesting hatred towards a religious group is just not on. I think you have done very much the right thing here. --SunStar Net 00:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of suggesting hatred towards a religious group?--131.109.1.41 15:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd. By what definition is a convicted murderer, whose conviction was never overturned, "innocent"? And I don't see any edits by this user to Harold Shipman at least as far back as 2002. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd response. Frank is infamous for having been falsely convicted and, in fact, being an innocent man: The Leo Frank case is considered one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in the legal annals of Georgia... The degree of anti-Semitism involved in Frank's conviction and subsequent lynching is difficult to assess, but it was enough of a factor to have inspired Jews, and others, throughout the country to protest the conviction of an innocent man...Slaton reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents, visited the pencil factory where the murder had taken place, and finally decided that Frank was innocent. He commuted the sentence, however, to life imprisonment, assuming that Frank's innocence would eventually be fully established and he would be set free... etc.[22] As for Shipman, did you bother clicking on the links provided? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, do you think that prior to your block Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was avoiding accruing a history of blocks through puppetry? It seems rather odd that he'd never been blocked before under his user name. (→Netscott) 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, Leo Frank isn't innocent in the eyes of the law. You don't seem to have picked the best edits to criticize here. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case is a famous miscarriage of justice according to everyone who's written about it extensively, to the best of my knowledge, and so there's no reason to keep removing the category. Threeafterthree has e-mailed me to say that the two other editors are people he lives with. I assume he means User:68.9.116.87 and User:Backroomlaptop.

There are similarities in editing style, articles edited, and general interests. Lots of Jewish-related interests, and specifically removing that people are Jews, even from well-known Jews such as Steven Spielberg (Threeafterthree removed that) and Elie Weisel (Backroomlaptop's first edit was to remove from the first sentence that Wiesel is Jewish, then add to the end of the lead that he's of "Jewish decent [sic]". [23]) Threeafterthree even removed "of Jews" from a quote which said that Martin Luther's work had tragic effects "on later generations of Jews." He twice removed "of Jews," [24] [25] saying he was correcting the quote, but the quote does say "of Jews." [26]

Also, Threeafterthree enabled 68.9.116.87 to evade 3RR at Kahanism. The anon added Category:Racism at 21:51 Nov 16, and reverted three times; then Threeafterthree arrived to revert at 02:57 Nov 17, despite having not edited since September 1. There's also one distinctive thing that Threeafterthree and one of the others do, which I won't mention here. I'd say they're all the same person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are two versions of this document on the web. The one you link to from Canada has "of Jews", the American one does not [27]. His edit is correct for the reference at elca.org which was actually being cited in the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the article is dead, so how do you know? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the article is to the elca.org domain, even though they may have moved the page. So now you are saying User:Threeafterthree has psychic powers? Or are you saying he hacked that website and removed the words from the WP:RS just to make you look foolish? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, mentioning someone's religion first thing in the lead is really a matter of taste. I'd view articles starting "Antonio Banderas is a Catholic actor" or "George Bush is a Methodist politician" as fairly silly. Are you seriously complaining about this edit [28] on Steven Spielberg? -- Kendrick7^talk 11:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "complaining" about any particular edit. The question is whether the accounts are run by one person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why block for one month? Why block backroom indefinately? This seems really excessive.--131.109.1.41 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the paragraph he removed was an unsourced tirade calling Steven Spielburg a worse anti-Semite than Mel Gibson, no? You have completely mischaracterized this as User:Threeafterthree "removing that people are Jews". When you are wrong about things that can be checked, it makes it harder to trust you on things which can not be checked. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then instead of relying on one link, why not spend a few minutes looking through his contribs? Then you'll see the similarities for yourself. And please review CIV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is Kendrick being uncivil? Because he caught your mistakes and mischaracterations of this user? This case is beyong flimsy. What did this editor do to you to warrant this? --131.109.1.41 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a strange understanding of American law, Frank was murdered before all the flaws in his case were properly analyzed. "The eyes of the law" see these flaws even more so.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the cabal, and its usuall members who have shown up here together, again, have anything better to do than to witch hunt and block editors? Seriously guys, and gal, you are so transparent!--198.176.188.201 12:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are an insulting troll. Thank you for your for insults, please go back to ED or Wikitruth or whatever hell you come from. An infuriated Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin is harassing me. She blanked my comments on a talk page see this and subsequent edits without providing an edit summary or any other explanation. When I asked for an explanation [29] she blanked that too, and then left a message on my talk page [30] threatening to block me. I do not believe that my comments violate BLP or any other policy. It is proper for me to ask editor Cberlet whether his edits violate an arbcom ruling, as I think they may. I especially object to SlimVirgin trying to keep the whole matter secret rather than allowing the community to observe and make their opinions known. --NathanDW 01:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if you were harassing user:Cberlet.[31][32] -Will Beback · † · 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not threatening you, thats warning you that what you are doing is a blockable offence. There is a difference. Viridae^Talk 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is worth stating that the approach taken here was sub-optimal. In almost no instance is blanking text without an edit summary going to accomplish anything, the page protection(s) was/were probably uncalled for, and the talk-page warning was a little Draconian. No point using a steamhammer to crack cashews, really. The body of NathanDW's complaint reads as more about how it was handled than any objections to the idea of having negative statements well sourced.
152.91.9.144 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLP. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. It's the second sentence in the policy. It appears to me that SlimVirgin is trying to save you from being permanently blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of nonsense on that talk page for a long time, conducted by various editors, including LaRouchies. It was mentioned during an ArbCom case (I believe it was Nobs01), and it was decided that material not directly related to the article could be removed. Editors need to understand that they can't leave snide comments for the subject of the article on the talk page; if they want to speak to him about his real-life persona, they should contact him off-wiki, where he'd be able to ignore them more easily than when they're pestering him on the article talk page. Also, it's incorrect that I left no edit summaries; the summaries were "archiving," "blp issues," and "see your talk page" to NathanDW, followed by an explanation there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no beef with the results and agree with your stand regarding using using the page to communicate in "real-life." However:

• Semi and full protection should be used sparingly. Here dealing with the editors directly would have been preferable to the slightly brute-force approach. Looking over the history of the talk page, there does appear to have been a fair bit of frippary, but not to protection-requiring levels.
• Atempting to "tidy up" discussion without transparancy usually only ends up in having it spill out elsewhere. Replacing the material with an expository paragraph reminding users of their "living person" obligations would have had a better chance to succeed in the longer run.
• I was referring specifically to this edit when I spoke of not using edit summaries. Further, the "archiving" edit was also a bit non-standard as there already existed two "page move" style archives.

I'm not trying to yank your chain Slim, simply observing some ways that misunderstanding might be avoided next time.
152.91.9.144 04:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to recant on "draconian" from before, that was too strong. Something like "brusque" would have been better said on my part.

Something like "necessary and entirely appropriate" would have been better still. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, maybe I'm a bit slow. I suggested to Cberlet that his edits to the article may have violated an ArbCom decision. I agreed with an earlier editor who said that his decision to change the word "liberal" to "progressive" was POV. And, I pointed out to Cberlet that statements he had just made on the talk page were contradicted by his own real life published statements. Can someone please explain how any of this violates WP:BLP? It seems to me to be normal talk page activity. --NathanDW 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean other than your unsourced and borderline libelous claims regarding what Berlet is supposed to have called "prominent conservatives", nope, can't see a violation of WP:BLP here. --Calton | Talk 02:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than harassing the real person on the talkpage of the bio, not a thing. The talkpage is for discussing the article. If you think pestering its subject about his real life is "normal talk-page activity", perhaps you missed the post from SlimVirgin above? It makes it very clear what bio talkpages are not for, so let me quote it for you over again: "Editors need to understand that they can't leave snide comments for the subject of the article on the talk page; if they want to speak to him about his real-life persona, they should contact him off-wiki." It's quite simple, really: don't "suggest to Cberlet" and don't "point out to Cberlet". You're doing it in the wrong place. Bishonen | talk 03:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Pointless sarcasm aside, there are (at least) three issues here. Going in reverse chronological order:

1. How it was handled it (per above),
2. How to handle editor/article duality in cases like this, and
3. How these talk page edits relate to the living person's guideline.

It's best to pretend the editor is not the article subject as #2 can get messy quickly. So instead of saying "and you never tire of calling him a fascist" say "and Berlet never tires of calling him a fascist." This would help to make it more clear what's normal talk page interaction and what's out of bounds. This approach also makes it a sourcing issue rather than a civility issue. Which leads nicely to #3... Provide citations for these claims and there is no problem here. I'd prefer to avoiding re-hashing #1 above, but NathanDW is (clumsily) addressing a valid point, that this guideline should not be used to stifle debate, and that it's neither required nor productive to "vanish-ify" discussions of this sort.

152.91.9.144 03:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And can someone lift the protection of Talk:Chip Berlet while we are at it? - 152.91.9.144 03:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving the page semi-protected for a few days, because some of the problematic material was restored by an IP address within a range often used by LaRouchies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject heading is not a new one.Kiyosaki 12:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently blocked this user for 24 hours after noticing these two personal attacks [33], [34]. Bishonen then upped the block to a week and more personal attacks ensued after the blocks such as calling Bishonen a "facist" and Calton "sociopatic". Swedenborg's accomplishments here inlcude little more than incivil remarks, personal attacks, spam, edit warring, and attempts to solicit meatpuppets off site. Upon my review of Swedenborg's contributions I am inclined to extend the block to indefinite, but would like some other opinions first. DVD+ R/W 19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. These edit summaries ([35] [36] [37]), not to mention comments such as this, are pretty uncivil. Even assuming good faith, I see little evidence that this user really wants to have a constructive and enlightened discussion. I would support a longer block, but not sure about indef, as it seems there has been some provocation. Again doing my best to assume good faith, perhaps after the edit war dies down the disruption will improve. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...perhaps...the disruption will improve I don't think that's what you want. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Swedenborg losing his temper when blocked is a big deal, I wouldn't extend his block for such a thing as that. But the lack of constructive edits and the lack of comprehension of what the encyclopedia is for is extremely concerning. As for the edit war "dying down," edit warring is what he does; what makes you think it'll ever die down? Swedenborg seems convinced, from many comments, that he has a moral right to spam articles, that anyone thwarting him (such as Calton) is evil, and that any admin warning him (such as me) is Calton's evil sock. But there's no hurry about extending the block, as he just stormed off in indignation at the amount of evil in the place. I suggest we consider the indef issue when/if he and his edit war return. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Calton's evil sock Or maybe Ambush Bug's evil sock, Argh!Yle! ("an argyle sock with a Dr. Doom-like complex, complete with metal mask"). --Calton | Talk 01:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidcannon has twice recreated GetWiki, refusing to accept its AfD nomination or participate in the already ongoing deletion review. Admins must use deletion review to challenge AfD closures, same as everyone else. I have already redeleted it once per WP:CSD G4, whereupon he re-recreated it and threatened to continue wheel warring until he gets his way [38]. Much as I would like to not waste other admins' time when policy is clear, someone other than me needs to be the one to respeedy this as I'm not going to be accused of wheel warring myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted again. Furthermore, I will block the user if he engages in wheel-warring. He is an admin and should know the rules. Joelito (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He undeleted it twice, which is pretty bad form IMO, but I assume he's gotten the hint now. If for some crazy reason he were to undelete it again perhaps some action like that may be in order. Friday (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll go through the proper channels this time. But is it acceptable to delete an article when there are 7 votes in favour and 7 against? Similar votes have always resulted in a "no consensus" verdict. David Cannon 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you ever get the idea that AfD is a vote? Deletion Review is thataway -> User:Zoe|(talk) 03:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non Admin Comment - Given the fact that Davidcannon participated in the debate (supporting a keep decision) it seems to me like he should have asked an uninvolved admin to examine the case and perform (if deemed appropriate) the undelete. →Bobby← 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Looks like an isolated incident (other than User:Davidcannon/List of born-again Christian laypeople which is a deleted article he restored to user space). Hopefully no more will come of it. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scratch that: he did the same thing with Editing Category:Ba, Fiji, wheel-warring with Nickptar and Mets501; rainbow.jpg which probably has a perfectly reasonable explanation; I'm not sure what this one is about [39]. Probably nothing, but the category wheeling looks bad. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I'll be more cautious in future. The other incidents you named : the Ba category incident was over a template that somebody else moved, breaking numerous double redirects without making any effort to redirect them. I didn't feel like fixing all the broken redirects myself, so I just undid his page move. When it became clear that he wouldn't accept my reversion of his move, I ended up accepting that, and fixed all the broken redirects - without any help from him. As for the image restoration: My memory is foggy, but if it's the event I think it was, that was tagged for deletion by somebody who had previously vandalized my user page (or at least, had the same IP address as somebody who had). But I can't remember the event accurately now, and thought that water was well under the bridge. Anyway, I think I have been a bit arrogant lately, and apologise. I will be more cautious, and will take care to follow the proper channels, from now on. David Cannon 00:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just scratched part of the above comment. I was confusing that image issue with a separate event. At any rate, I regret my high-handed manner and will not make unilateral decisions in future. David Cannon 10:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Raumud (talk · contribs)
• Kevin9 (talk · contribs) (just committed borderline 3RR on Kurt Nimmo)
• Fumigate (talk · contribs) (blocked for 3RR on Steven Plaut)
• Bucket6 (talk · contribs)
• Rancidity (talk · contribs) (note from me on talk page about BLP)
• 207.67.145.222 (talk · contribs)
• Runce (talk · contribs)

All edit similar articles; several use the "reverse vandalism" edit summary. Articles affected:

• Justin Raimondo
• Kurt Nimmo
• Steven Plaut
• David Bukay

As an aside, article on Kurt Nimmo was edited by Nimmo (talk · contribs) and may have been started by a sock/meatpuppet, Wolflegal (talk · contribs).

Unfortunately don't have time to investigate further, 3RR, AFD, or apply for protection on those. I'm doing what I'm hoping is the second best thing by bringing it up here. --user:Qviri 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Raumud (talk · contribs) briefly for repeatedly violating WP:BLP in Justin Raimondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite warnings. -Will Beback · † · 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried reporting this user on WP:AIV but was told (through an edit summary that I had to search through the history to find) that he had "no final warning". However, I already told him that if he continued I'd report him, and he did continue. His images at least need to be deleted. Was I correct to take it here, or is there a better place? I would have thought AIV was appropriate, but it seems bogged down in bureaucracy. --NE2 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's back at it. Someone please help. --NE2 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've deleted the orphan images and told him to provide sources and copyright information for the remaining ones. If he doesn't provide those, those images will be removed pretty soon. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --NE2 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fu kinell (talk • contribs), who opened an RFA on his/her seventh edit, may be editing through an open proxy if this edit isn't just more trolling. I'd have reported it on the open proxies page, but I don't have the ip address ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to someone with checkuser such as Raul or Jayjg. JoshuaZ 00:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account for its username ("Fucking hell"). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is alleged that there was once a racehorse by the name of Norfolk Inchance... Guy (Help!) 16:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Finder (talk · contribs) is at it again. He's written comments on my user talk page falsely accusing me of deleting his comments when in fact the deletion was done by Bobet (talk · contribs), and consisted of reverting Fact Finder's edits to archived project and talk pages that weren't supposed to be forums for further comments. He's also made even wilder accusations in other comments, such as accusing Wikipedia editors and admins of sending computer viruses to his company. *Dan T.* 01:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've dropped a warning on his talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was about to start an RfC, but looking into the situation in more detail I find this:

• The user admits being connected with Ecopave
• The user's sole remaining edits in mainspace after deletion of spam are a series of WP:POINT violations at Eco-cement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The user has been excessively disruptive in his determination to obscure or delete the word Ecopave wherever it is written (e.g. [40], [41], [42]; there is no credible explanation for this other than keeping the Google results for Ecopave "clean"

• The user is incivil, e.g. [43]

• The user has responded to requests to cease disruption with aggression, denial and no change in behaviour
• The user's Talk page currently contains a quite meritless personal attack on me: The real irony here is that Guy Chapman who is a Wikipedia administrator, appears to be running he's own spamming and PR campaign in Wikipedia by using 3 seperate IP addresses which are clearly designed to assist in bringing consensus into arguments against users who's article (ideology) is not in par with his - this is an absurd assertion. I did note that I use three separate static IPs, in response to Fact Finder's assertion that to use a static IP is "insane" - the fact that I edit from multiple locations, each with a static IP absolutely does not mean that I am in some way gaming the system, it simply means that most of the places where I edit have static IPs. Anyone who wants to register an RFCU is entirely welcome to do so. Frankly I don't have time to edit as other accounts as well!

All in all, I don't see much evidence that this user is here to build an encyclopaedia. I suggest giving them the bum's rush. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His initial block, as one of a series of socks on the Ecopave AfD, was perfectly valid. Since he was unblocked (on the kind-hearted theory that he'd try to be a productive editor) he's just trolled, edited other users' comments, made legal threats, attacked other users (including kind-hearted Guy, whose idea it was to unblock him in the first place), made the bad-faith speedies of Ecopave's competition Guy mentioned, and filled his talk page and others with increasingly paranoid rants about the army of sock-admins out to get him. While his silliness was confined to his talk page I was content to let him stew, but his renewed propensity to wage his pointless war elsewhere leads me to believe we've indulged his trolling long enough. His initial ban was valid, none of his (hundreds) of subsequent edits have been contributions to the encyclopedia, he's not interested in anything more than whining about his spam campaign being thwarted. Restore his block. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Overdue. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Sam. We gave him a chance, he chose not to take it. Not our problem, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For last eight hours or so, his user page and talk page has been blanked by many different ip addresses (between the two pages 18 times in the 8 hours). I applied for semi-protection and was told the user should ask for protection himself. User seems to think he knows who's doing it, but am concerned about the very strange ip blanking. BusterD 05:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is a pain and I would like semi-protection. thanks Rjensen 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been dealt with. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the abuse has spread to a number of user and talk pages, I've given both of the involved ranges a brief block (anon-only, account creation allowed, what I think is a pretty friendly block message). 48 hours does the trick, I hope. Luna Santin 07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the help. BusterD 14:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice while lurking from time to time that User:Snow Shoes (contributions) seems to be an obvious sock puppet of User:Thewolfstar. She is, however, acting a bit more clever. Moreover, what seems obvious to me might not be to the next person, and everybody deserves an initial benefit of the doubt. I'd just like to suggest that an admin familiar with this issue should keep an eye out. --AaronS 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a sock of somebody, but if it's the wolfster, she's gotten a lot cleverer. I'll keep an eye out. Bishonen | talk 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I am very concerned about the first edit to User talk:Stud24wi which I immediately deleted. It appears to be an attack containing personal info of the accused. I think this merits the attention of an admin, possibly the page needs to be deleted. Thanks. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and warned. Thatcher131 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher is far too quick some days :) And feel free to slap a {{db-attack}} on anything you see like that. Shell ^babelfish 07:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(second edit conflict with Shell, I lost both) Good job. If I make an extra donation to WP, will you get a raise out of it? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I didn't even think of a "db" at the time. The content really freaked me out a bit and I just ran screaming to the nearest admin :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, if you make a big enough donation, Thatcher will make 10x the salary ;) There's nothing wrong with posting issues like that here either - sometimes this page gets a bit clogged, so I just thought I'd mention the speedy idea as a backup. Shell ^babelfish 07:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a generous mood. I'll throw you a 20% commission (less taxes of course) Thatcher131 08:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, let's see...ten times nothing...carry the nothing...that comes to...um. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 08:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, sir, we can give up this life of crime. --Golbez 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paid? That's a sleeknapper! lol --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. However, this person has persisted in editing numerous pages across wikipedia simply by avoiding registering an account. Here are just some of the IP address that has been used in recent days by this same individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.152.216.25

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.153.41.223

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.155.146.226

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.157.66.36

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.153.40.19

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.153.42.120

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=217.44.166.127

On my userpage, this unregistered individual pretty much admitted to being this banned Leyasu character. Gothic metal, Folk metal, Tiamat (band), Diabolique (band), Paradise Lost (band) and London After Midnight (band) are just some of the pages that this individual has been editing despite being banned from doing so. Someone suggested that I should mention this here so that is what I just did. Cheers. --Anarchodin 10:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IP (British Telecom). No point in blocking more than 24 hours at a time since he can change them faster than we can block them. Any new account he uses can be listed at WP:AIV. Explain that it's Leyasu and hopefully the admins patrolling there will be familiar enough with the situation to block (otherwise his edits look like a content dispute). Or you can list here I guess. Thatcher131 12:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Felix Portier has uploaded copyright images Image:Women's fiel hockey chile vs australia.jpg, Image:Las leonas vs India.jpg (and others, but it's over these I've had most dealings wih him). I have listed them at WP:CP and informed him. I then removed the image links from the articles where he had inserted either of them: Field hockey and Las Leonas. He later amended the image licensing information slightly (still clearly non-compliant however) re-inserted the images into field hockey, and I then gave him 2 hours to remove them again, which he failed to do. So I reverted the addition. Overnight (UK-wise) he has attempted to claim that the images are logos (!) and again inserted them into the field hockey article, and also converted women's field hockey from a redirect into a stub primarily consisting of the copyvio images. I have again reverted the addition of the images - in both articles. I am not clear if his actions constitute vandalism, and hence if I'm covered by the exemptions to 3RR. It does appear that he may now be a bit more prepared to enter into dialogue (he has just left a message on my talk page about the women's field hockey article). I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look at his actions (this is not the first time he's run into trouble over images before). David Underdown 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Women's field hockey is a red link and doesn't appear to have existed (neither as a redirect nor as an article). Are you sure that link is correct? 0- Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, try Women's Field Hockey. That'll teach me to remember to preview things more often (thanks also to Future Perfect at Sunrise for sorting out the image links for me, shows how much I've done with images in the past). David Underdown 11:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The user appears to flout copyright rules. Uploads are from websites, all mistagged as either logo, or GFDL when it's clearly not free. I need help deleting all this stuff. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• All I need to do now is clean up Women's Australian rules football and then I'm done. Please let me know if Felix does this again. I gave him a warning. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THanks MGM. Could you or someone lese jsut clarify the situation on 3RR, reverting repeated addition of unfree images doesn't seem to be specifically covered by an exemption - would I be OK to carry on reverting the images if they get re-uploaded? I notice from your edits that i didn't actually manage to remove them from field hockey this morning anyway, I got side-tracked by the changes to Women's Field Hockey, and some constructive intervening edits on Field hockey and didn't get roud to tidying them up. David Underdown 13:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently come back from a 10 day block for "violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA." and for recuting "...meatpuppet editors off-site", User:Will314159 has now issued not-so-thinly-veiled legal threats against User:Isarig here, here, and here. Armon 12:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Isarig had been blocked on 13 Nov for "Personal attacks on Juan Cole" -all the threats have been after that, 14 November 2006, 21 November 2006, and 22 November, respectively) Armon 13:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will didnt make legal threat. All what he did was warning isarig not to WP:LIBEL. I think Isarig should be blocked instead because he libelled Juan cole here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Cole&diff=87446122&oldid=87402322 Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig's opinion is unlikely to be enforceable as libel in the US -especially as he would be able to point to published charges of antisemitism/antisemitic comments made by others against Cole. This does not mean that Will, as a lawyer, could not make life difficult for him via a frivolous lawsuit. Isarig has been blocked for violating NPA, however, that was apparently not enough for Will, and his legal threats amount to harassment of his "opponent". Will should be blocked, ideally permanently, as he's shown no acceptance of WP's mission, culture, or processes -or any progress towards it. Note the accusation below that I am Isarig's sock or "meatpuppet" because I find his behavior unacceptable. << armon >> 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should avoid libel whether or not it is technically actionable - armon's claim that a libel claim may not be enforceable in one particular country is hardly a reason for Wikipedia to endorse libelous statements. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly held that opinions can be actionable as libel -- the case Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. held that opinions can be libelous insofar as such opinions "may often imply an assertion of objective fact." (In this particular case, the "opinion" certainly does imply such an assertion and would be actionable if someone chose to pursue it). I find armon's insistence that Will be blocked permanently to be distasteful, as he appears to be trying to use Wikipedia policy to remove an ideological opponent. Will's statements that Isarig should avoid libel do not appear to me to be threats or personal attacks. csloat 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

csloat accuses me of using policy to silence my ideological opponent. I have no problem with "ideological opponents", I do however, object to the non-stop page disruptions since May 06 which both csloat and Will have engaged in. csloat is rightly worried that Will being banned will further isolate himself on Juan Cole, because without him, csloat will be the only intransigent party, regardless of "ideology". Further to the charge, if I really wanted my "ideological opponents silenced", I would do better to "go after" those who present a real challenge, not those who troll and produce low-quality, POV edits which have no real chance of remaining. << armon >> 06:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any page disruptions that I have been engaged in since May 06 (or any other time). I've been a very constructive Wikipedia editor for a couple years now. Will's participation is not my concern, but I do object to demands for permanent blocks against users who may be misguided but who clearly want to improve wikipedia. csloat 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That he wants to improve WP is problematic in itself. His improvements entail scrapping NPOV. << armon >> 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My computer has been out for a while because of a worm. I have previously warned Isaig of a gross violation of civility and libel. I have had no respone from him or others on this matter other than this preemptive action from Isarig's sockpuppet. there are some other complaints I need to make against other persons for gross incivility. if this is the proper place to make it then here goes. It is the grosses violation, and entirely uncalled for. Because it is in the edit line, it's permanent and can't be erased. It's for keeps. He's constantly noticing people and wikilawyering. i think Armon is his meatsockpuppet.

WP:CIV for calling Cole a "jewbaiter" in an edit log.

• • (cur) (last) 01:21, 13 November 2006 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (Cole is a jewbaiter, so his jewbaiting quotes are in. thsi was moved to v&C, but you've deleted V&C, so it's back here) Unless somebody else has already done it. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Some claims are so laughable they need no response, but i got suspended for another laughable claim for which i never had an opportunity to respond. So I better respond to this one. I deny I made a legal threat to Isarig. I advised him that he had subjected the Wikipedia foundation to libel with his namecalling and he needed to stop it. And I also said that if others didn't report him that I would. I put it on my talk page because he has a habit of deleting warnings on his talk page. I put it on the Cole talk page to get feedback to see if somebody had already noticed it because I had no feedback from Isarig about it and I didn't know how to notice it. And I will tell Professor Cole about this because he is a friend of mine and it's funnier than hell that Isarig would get so vulgar. Here is somebody that is wikilawering and turning people in all the time for the slighted imagined rule violations and going aroung libeling people in the grossest way. He can't be allowed to get away with this. Maybe he's already been punished for it, I don't know. Please advise. I have had no feedback. And as for Armon, to each his own. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about how you would "inform" Cole about the matter together with the other comments seems like a legal threat. Please stop. JoshuaZ 21:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will asserts that he is a lawyer- see here, therefore the phrase: I will advise Professor Cole if the Wikipedia community fails to discipline you. suggests a more credible legal threat than simply telling on him. << armon >> 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I suggest a block. << armon >> 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will may be a lawyer, but it is a stretch to claim that "advise" is being used in such a legal sense in that sentence. It is doubtful that Will is Cole's lawyer and it is unlikely that Cole would accept Will's counsel under the circumstances. But I believe the problem here is not Will -- if Wikipedia is sued because of a statement that Isarig published, it is Isarig and not Will who is at fault, whether or not Will is the lawyer who initiates such a lawsuit. csloat 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If was pretty obvious what was being implied. How else would a person (Juan Cole) who has no professional or personal contacts with another person (Isarig) do anything to negatively affect the second person other than through a legal matter. I really don't see how Will can deny what was clearly being insinuated.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "advised" is very common and is often used in non-legal settings. As a university professor, for example, I often "advise" students. In another example, I often "advise" friends (or seek "advice" from same) on personal matters. I believe this may help clear it up. I have no way of knowing whether it was Will's intent to use the term in a particular way, but I assure you that it is even possible for lawyers to use the term "advise" in a non-technical sense. Will may have simply meant that he intended to send Dr. Cole an email. That doesn't necessarily excuse the action, but it does make it a lot less sinister than is being implied here. I would add, again, that the legal problem, if there is one, lies with the party posting illegal content, and not the party who takes action (or who informs someone) of said content. After all, we don't need a legal adviser to expose something that has already been posted to a public website.csloat 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then Will's threats were utterly unnecessary other than for trolling and/or harassment. As for the "ultimate meaning" of "advise" or "inform", we might as well argue about what the meaning of "is" is, rather than putting it in the context of Will's posting of WP talk page debates on Cole's blog to solicit POV warriors, his "ends justify the means" approach to editing here, and his complete lack of regard for any policy other than WP:IAR. His "deniablity" is far too implausible. << armon >> 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contacted to step in, as the blocking admin, but I am home with my family for Thanksgiving, and will have no time to step into this dispute today. I am sorry. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are clearly legal threats, regardless of the apologetics, and should not be tolerated. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As such, I have blocked the user for 45 days, considereing that legal threats are a fairly dramatic step up in poor user behavior and will not be tolerated. As always, I appreciate admin review of my block, and will abide by any changes the community suggests. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous ANI discussion regarding activity by this editor under his previous username is here. He has also been blocked under this user name for incivility. Yesterday he issued this warning to a new user for making and reversing their own test edit. He then contacted User:HighInBC, whom he thought was an admin, and asked for the new user to be blocked. HighInBC correctly responded that a block would be inappropriate given the nature of the test edit, and instructed Ring modulator that use of the blatant vandal warning was inappropriate in this circumstance. Hoping to not scare off the new user, HighInBC removed Ring modulator's warning, replaced it with a welcome message on the new user's talk page, and told the new user the message was placed in error. Today, Ring modulator placed this message on the new user's page, even though the new user had made no further edits. This seems to be harrassment in my view. The message was properly removed by User:Dina. Dina contacted Ring modulator, told him she removed the message and why. Ring modulator responded to Dina with this uncivil edit. Ring modulator has continued to use the blatant vandal warning inappropriately here. I feel Ring modulator should be blocked again for incivility and biting new users. Accurizer 12:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk:Mikinthy has been blanked twice by the owner to remove warnings. I'm not sure I used the correct template for a warning on that, and can't quickly find the specific Help page discussing that. Admin intervention -- or advice on my talk page -- appreciated. --DAVID SPALDING ^Talk/_Contribs 13:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that can be done I'm afraid. The templates were taken off because they were judged to be contrary to our policy on harassment. The best thing to do is to make sure your edit summaries say what level warning they're up to, that way a quick look at the history says it all. yandman 13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent suggestion. It's a good WikiDay when I learn a neat new method. Appreciate the thoughtful explanation and quick response. Case closed. DAVID SPALDING ^Talk/_Contribs 13:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Myrtone made a series of unhelpful edits to warning templates, such as this one directing joke-minded users to Uncyclopedia and this one describing circumstances in which Wikipedia is censored in a template stating that Wikipedia is not censored. I don't know that talking is likely to produce a positive result, since he's been involved in problem edits to templates on numerous occasions in the past. Ideas? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He obviously knows what he's doing, so a warning would not do much good. Since technically blocks aren't meant to be punitive I suppose all that could really be done is to issue a harsh warning. He has been blocked before for disruption, I remember clearly. – Chacor 14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this user needs a bit of a preventative timeout so that he'll cease using active templates as sandboxes and understand not to do so in the future. (→Netscott) 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, not again. Yes, he has already been blocked for this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that he's had any warnings left on his talk page, even after the flurry of these he did yesterday, for the record. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we warn him again? He's not an IP that might have changed hands, he's an account, and I'm sure he can remember why he was blocked three months ago. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing it out; it seemed odd to me that there was this discussion going on, but no indication that the user under discussion had been informed of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Mytone is *still* editing templates disruptively today. I'm blocking for 24 hours to prevent the continuance of this behaviour. And warned him not to continue when the block expires. pschemp | talk 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been keeping an eye on User:Myrtone86 for many weeks but never interacted. This is an editor that makes some useful contributions, but does not play well with others. Not at all. Somehow she skates on the thin edge of acceptability all the time. I'm still not sure if a block is warranted, but her activites definitely tend to be disruptive. Perhaps an official warning and a good "talking to" would be sufficient. At least it would establish some official presence on her talkpage for future reference. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"She?" As far as I can see it's a he, at least the word "he" is used on the user page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain of gender, but this editor was once addressed as "Mr. Tone" and went to great lengths explaining the feminine history of the name. Color me confused. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well the editor once tried to tell me that Wikipedians couldn't die (after one did) because "Wikipedian" is an office. I still haven't got the logic of that one. pschemp | talk 23:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user was warned before. Just because those warnings aren't still visible doesn't mean they don't apply. The block is short and contains another warning. That is sufficient. Certainly if he continue after the block expires, a longer block will be warranted, but talking to this one does little good, he's been around long enough to know better. This isn't a new user by any means. (Though there was a name change a while back if you are confused). pschemp | talk 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I made my initial comments based on previous experience, without checking for more recent developments. This editor has indeed been warned and blocked repeatedly for a variety of disruptive activities. At the very least I think an admin should monitor this one closely, and further disruptions would certainly warrant longer blocks. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashibaka unblocked claiming this user was being blocked punitively and without attempting to discuss the block with me, or posting here. I can't say I'm impressed with his actions considering he *always* seems to be the one unblocking, and the edits were clearly disruptive. pschemp | talk 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an administrator investigate this username, Jimmo bobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It appears to be very close to Jimbo, and, at any rate, appears to be a vandal/trolling only account. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough for a username block in my opinion, but if they vandalise again after the warning I gave them, block indef. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, assume good faith its just a user with a similar name per Sam :)  Glen  16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the user has been given an indefinite block. —Malber (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked MisterB4390 (talk · contribs) indefinitely. In the past 7 months, the user has created a vanity autobiography 6 times at Brandon Mathewson. The user has previously been warned not to recreate this page and had a blatant vandal warning on his talk. In addition to the block, I protected the article as a deleted page. Can I just get a review of this since this is one of my first significant blocks as an admin? Thanks, Metros232 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. Edits like this make this essentially a vandalism-only block. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THEBLITZ1 (talk · contribs) has changed a large number of articles, mostly by replacing or adding images. A number of them are incompletely labelled and will be deleted, leaving a "hole" in the changed article, I'm not sure whether it's correct for me to revert those or wait for the image to expire. Others have been labelled as created by him, but of those, several appear to be copied from websites. I've reported a couple of them, but when I do, he games the system by removing the image from the article. It's very time consuming tracing the images, and trying to find where they really came from. A number of his edits have been reverted by me or others. I'm tempted to revert all of his changes. He's also generally disruptive and not co-operative, probably violating WP:CIVIL, including edit warring on Breast. He's been blocked for 24 hours, but I think the penalty needs to be more severe. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a couple pictures, in particular Image:F22-R.jpg and Image:FB-2235.jpg are taken from F-16.net. Their piracy policy can be found at [44] and does not allow for these pictures to be used in this way. I thought I would mention this here, since I have little time right now to post them at WP:PUI. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whedonette (talk * contribs)- something needs to be done about this guy. He's being disruptive, and also very annoying. --Deskana talk 19:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this guy is a policy wonk. Which is amazing for a new user. I think we nee a block here but I'd prefer to get some support from other admins before any action is taken. --Deskana talk 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors, myself included, participate in a number of aactivities besides article contributions. However, this editor has never made a single edit to any article, ever. A few deletion debates, and much nonsense on the talkpages of other editors. Since it's not overt vandalism, I'm not sure that a block is in order, but is this user really contributing anything to the project? Maybe a block is in order after all? Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now all the user is doing is aggravting other users by overciting policy. --Deskana talk 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to think a "new" user acting like this is a sockpuppet with experience. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even need to prove sockpuppetry. We can block for disruption and trolling if the community so wishes. And I believe he has met both criteria. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, as this user has been around for two months and not contributed to a single article or even discussed the content of a single article. Users who are not here to contribute to the Encyclopedia in any way are candidates for blocks.--Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Trolling, disruption, and no useful contributions at all. This editor does far more harm than good; blocking is appropriate. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask Physicq210, ArmadilloFromHell, Ryulong, and so on a question. I have been contributing towards cleaning up some areas where Wikipedia talkspace and wikispace is being misused, as opposed to articlespace. I'm labeled as "overciting" policy when a user removes a speedy delete tag I placed — something classified as vandalism. The user responds incivilly by stating I don't know what I'm doing, then removes the entire section from his talk page — and shows no sign of putting it anywhere else. Something that my brother, on his anonymous IP account, was blocked for 24 hours for. I tell him he's not supposed to do that, and all of a sudden, you gentlemen here are talking about blocking my account? And as a "disruptor" or a "sockpuppet," moreover -- or, worse yet, a "policy wonk"? What the bloody heck? — Whedonette (ping) 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not that it honestly really matters on Wikipedia, but one might ask you to consider what the "-ette" suffix usually implies about one's gender. — Whedonette (ping) 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DDWTMAP: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Cbrown1023 20:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel you can consider enforcing Wikipedia's vandalism policy as disruption. Disruption seems to be an extremely flexibly defined offense: if you don't like what the user's done, ban them for disrupting. Disrupting what ... a peaceful state of mind? The way things should be under an administrator's subjective viewpoint? The reason policies exist is so that people have metrics by which they know whether they're going to get punished or not. If any behavior a particular admin doesn't like can be slapped with a "block due to disruption" label, then why do policy pages exist here at all? — Whedonette (ping) 21:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of throwing walls up around yourself and covering your ears and shield yourself away from truth, perhaps it will help if you actually listened to others' advice and start actually contributing to the encyclopedia instead of ramming what was a trivial complaint into all of our faces. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who brought it to the noticeboard; I hardly was "ramming" any of this "in your faces." — Whedonette (ping) 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SUIT and this thread prove otherwise. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you should be glad I brought this here- my first instinct was to block you. --Deskana talk 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all your wikilawyering, you seem to misunderstand a few key points. First of all, it's not the action that constitutes vandalism, it's the intent behind the action, y'know, in a Kantian sort of way. Secondly, the "removing warnings is bad" thing really has no significant backing/consensus at the moment, so it's generally discouraged to bug people about that. Also, you should know that userspace is generally exempt from most of the rules governing encyclopedic content. Hope that clears up a few things for you, and I hope you stop harassing people about the contents of their userspace and actually build an encyclopedia. (By the way, this is addressed to Whedonette, not Cbrown.) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whedonette, this would be a great opportunity to avoid blocking by taking these comments to heart and making some productive edits. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not today. What with being called a wikilawyering disruptive sockpuppet policy wonk (boy, you boys sure know how to make a girl feel real welcome!), I can't say that I'm precisely in the mood to be a productive and beneficial member of Wikipedia today. So in the best spirit of m:Don't be a dick, I shall not be a dick and get some air and some turkey in my stomach before I approach Wikipedia again. (I got to get myself some friends like SUIT.) — Whedonette (ping) 21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"then removes the entire section from his talk page -- and shows no sign of putting it anywhere else." - complete bollocks. One needs only to read User:SUIT's talk page to see that this is a total lie. When this user was told about this the user started ramblinb on about SUIT using multiple accounts, then cited WP:AGF, which as a quick read of WP:AAGF suggests, is one of the worst defenses in the world. I'm totally sick of this person now. --Deskana talk 21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where on User_talk:SUIT does it say "warnings or other talk pages will be archived at User_talk:Atomic-Super-Suit/Warnings"? And I cited WP:AGF to Nemu when I was told I was "acting high and mighty" and doing it to "make myself look better." Interestingly enough, that section now says I'm going to "get what's coming to me." — Whedonette (ping) 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the illusion that WP:AGF is an answer to all accusations when it is not. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I believe that this user doesn't know that WP:AGF can only go so far until community patience wears out. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows... the two pages involved in the dispute are

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SUIT&oldid=89501766
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AtionSong/World%27s_Longest_Poem&oldid=89494171

Cbrown1023 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ...we need to get some of this guy's actions and use as an example in the wikilawyering article. He is appearantly operating under AABF and Always Assume Others Are Idiots. Anyone considered running CU? It would be interesting to see what turned up. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment: I have to sign off now to catch a train; I am heading out of town to visit family. If you choose to block me for a limited time, fine. If you choose to block me on a permanent basis, I would simply respectfully ask that, at the time of your blocking, you also advise me as to the appeal procedure for such a decision, as I don't feel it's warranted given my behavior and intentions. To ignore Elaragirl's insult and instead sift through all of what's been said above for positive comments, it appears that my reputation would be better enhanced if I were more of a contributor to articlespace. I will endeavor to do so in any future time I spend on Wikipedia. I also ask you to please assume that I mean it when I say that I have no intent to purposefully disrupt Wikipedia simply for the sheer sake of disrupting Wikipedia. To conclude, honestly, have a great holiday with whomever you're spending it with. — Whedonette (ping) 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Elaragirl: run CheckUser, do. Like there's ever been a newbie who Wikilawyered like this. A block is not merited but a reminder to the editor to quit harassing people, let people who know more about policy take care of that, and to actually write some articles would not go amiss. Just my 2 cents. What is more, it wasn't even SUIT who removed the Speedy Tag, as far as I can make out. Moreschi 22:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin but this user seems to be violating WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Harassment. Please, block this user. All he's doing is violating policy and causing disruption. Yuser31415 ^{reply!|contribs|help me improve} 02:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bad feeling about this user, based on the language & attitude that I've seen: Whedonette reminds me of a specific user whom the Arb has permanently banned & who also showed a similar flair for aggressive Wikilawyering & disruption. If it's not this person, then Whedonette should be given a firm warning for the imitation alone. -- llywrch 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One word [45] ... Wiki-star... There, I said it... -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite difficult to prove that you are not somebody. I'm not this Wikistar user you linked to, but I can't really effectively prove that to you, can I? — Whedonette (ping) 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a respectful offer to any administrator who's currently dealing with this: if it will help everyone concerned with the issue instead be at peace with it, block me for a day, a week, a month; I merely ask that you not ban me permanently. That, I would respectfully fight. When I come back, I will try to do some articlespace edits to somehow cement my reputation in better form in case this ever happens once again. I honestly don't admit to any guilt. The phrases thrown at me here are very incivil ("wikilawyering", "troll", "disruption", etc.) and have rushed, with no proof, to poor assumptions of me — I find the irony darkly humorous that I am being accused of assuming bad faith and being incivil in a manner that in and of itself assumes bad faith and is incivil. And wikilawyering is a rather humorous way of saying, "Damn it, Jim, she's citing policy at us! How devious!" But, practically, at this point, what can I do? Obviously, the tide of opinion feels differently than I do, and I can hardly change all of these editors' opinions. If it will make peace to accept a punishment, fine, then let's do that. At this point, I'm just amazed that this has exploded so quickly, and so universally against me. It makes no sense for this to be a battle I (figuratively) die for, so do what you like; I concede to whatever you like, short of permaban, that will just end this "SHE SUCKS!" montage. — Whedonette (ping) 04:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's annoyed at you, yes, but no one is going to block you unless your actions ask for it. About others "falsely" calling you incivil, please note that we also find it ironic that you are so quick to accuse us of incivility and impropriety while shoving WP:AGF down our throats. I don't see why you are so willing to turn a discussion that was only discussing your actions into some sort of us launching a crusade against you. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, then, the purpose of this discussion seems fulfilled: if I'm not going to be blocked, then I think we've discussed the issue enough, and I think further discussion will just aggravate both parties. I will try to start focusing more of my work in articlespace (although I won't begin that campaign this weekend, most likely). — Whedonette (ping) 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if I ask, Whedonette, but did you miss your train? Yuser31415 ^{reply!|contribs|help me improve} 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing from the folks' house. — Whedonette (ping) 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that this user expects us to seriously look at their actions with good faith is insulting to my intelligence. We don't have to AGF when we all see evidence to the contrary. And Wikilawyering means "to deliberately twist policy to your own means rather than the letter and spirit of the law to game the system" , which you're doing. Stop. And yes, this all does seem eerily familiar. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 06:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "you" referring to? I'm not the grammar police, but... --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith (2nd nomination) needs input from unbiased non-SPAs. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 19:56Z

New User:DropkickMurphys18 has recently edited the article Dropkick Murphys. Your thoughts? Regards, Asterion^talk 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• From the quick glance I saw there's nothing autobiographical or POVish going on. The edit did break naming conventions, so I left a message about that and redirect to help him out. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alec - U.K.'s disruptive edits on a number of topics, and probable use of a sockpuppet previously reported to WP:AN/I (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#Disruptive_and_inconsistent_editing_-_Alec_-_U.K.) but was time-guillotined with no admin commenting or taking any action. Alec is back on respiratory/asthma related topics, acting outside of consenses with attempts by several editors to engage him in discussion to reach consensus (particularly ArmadilloFromHell).

Today these edits to Asthma with unencyclopeadic personal speculation as to what asthma might be misconstrude with, this attempt to again claim on 'Category:Respiratory agents' that asthma is not a disease (consensus clearly set out on Talk:Asthma#.22Disease.22. Also again trying to fragment topic with attempts to distinguish asthma, asthmatic, asthma attacks with switching of "asthma" for the term that redirects to this of "asthma attack" in Respiratory failure (see [46] here).

Could an admin have a look at previous WP:AN/I posting and the above items. Please either act, or if not appropriate for WP:AN/I then advise us of how we should be trying to proceed :-) David Ruben ^Talk 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also of interest is User_talk:87.194.35.230 which is a suspected sock puppet. The editing style is identical pushing the same POV. Regan123 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop him permanently, I've no idea what his agenda is, but this is worse that blatant vandalism. A vandal you just keep reverting, since it's clear what's going on, in this case, by mixing valid edits with nonsense, it becomes much harder to deal with and becomes so time-consuming that his edits are left as is. I'm sure as a result, a lot of misinfromation has been added, this has gone way beyond WP:AGF - it's now a case of WP:ABF (and it's not the least bit funny) --ArmadilloFromHell 00:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.194.35.230 has made a further edit last night again stating the Asthma is not a disease which has been reverted by multiple editors on many pages before. The editing style remains identical. I am convinced this is a sock puppet. Also see here for an example of a circular redirect that I had to issue speedys on. Regan123 10:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User_talk:Aminz#Moved_from_WP:ANI

Can someone please block Dropscone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he seems to have been creating multiple sockpuppets as seen here: here.

Thanks, --SunStar Net 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, log shows that this user was behind today's round of briefs trolling. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the rest of the socks on that list. Well spotted, SunStar, I'll have to start checking that log next time another of his sockpuppets comes calling. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same user as the indefinitely-banned User:EddieSegoura, see this. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the vandal latches on to current controversies - it may have been Exicornt then, but one of the sockpuppets today faked a message from Jimbo saying Homeontherange was unbanned, and there have been others. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:WTF YEAH I happened to run across this username and found it very offensive. Pet Of File 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, but so is yours, apparently. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Pot... kettle... black. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked indef. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, in both cases, you beat me to it by seconds ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name is not offensive, as it is based on my school days with a teacher we used to call "Mr File" because he was thin and scaly. He always let me do what I want while constantly undermining the confidence of the other kids. Just like that Pink Floyd song. Well anyways, since "Mr. File" always gave me my way I was considered the teacher's pet. As a result,this is the ego shattering nickname my classmates gave me.P.O.F. 00:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but its homonym violated WP:USERNAME. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't see it, but the pronunciation of your former username turns out to be the same as "pedophile." Or maybe because I have a dirty mind. ;-) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about a newcomer whose first two edits are to ANI. Is this considered "typical behaviour" for a new account? Only, I'd been editing over a month before I even heard of ANI...I'm feeling like a slowpoke now. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absent evidence to the contrary, we try to assume good faith. Many editors wait and get experience under their belts before registering an account. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand (did the same myself actually). It just struck me as a bit odd that an editor with a questionable username makes their first edit an official complaint about a questionable username. I didn't mean to sound accusatory, but I do find it curious...Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It did raise eyebrows ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folks we can be pretty sure this is the "ANI troll" reappearing. (→Netscott) 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe well, let me just say that a checkuser linking the reporter and reportee herein wouldn't surprise me a lot ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, even if I'm a suspicious bastard, at least I'm not a lonely suspicious bastard...there's a whole club. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys.

User:E104421 and User:Karcha were recently blocked as sockpuppets of each other since the checkuser investigation have shown they both use IPs from the same University. Later User:Future Perfect at Sunrise found some evidence suggesting that they might be different people [47] and unblocked them, then DMC found the evidences to be unconvincing and reblock them again. Now I had an E-mail exchange with both users. I know their real names and University IDs as well as the official University E-mail addresses. They appear to be separate people and the victims of a terrible coincidence and claim they even did not know each other before the incident. They work on different departments and have different status within their University. There is a small probability that one is a meatpuppet of the other, but it seems to be unlikely.

As I understand from DMC's messages on my talk page the checkuser only confirms that they both are using the same University IPs, there is no other hidden indication they are the same people not available to all Wikipedians, so it is essentially a judgement call.

I think in this case we could assume WP:AGF and believe the editors, rather than lose two notable editors. I there will be no objections I will unblock E and K in a couple of hours. Alex Bakharev 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any tools to verify it myself, your explanation sounds quite reasonable, as does your unblock. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the guys Alex Bakharev 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, there was somewhat of a consensus to have Karcha remain blocked here. This user is extremely disruptive, with 90% of his edits being reverts, and the rest being personal attacks like "Kill Persianism". I don't see what good to the project we'd be doing if we unblocked him. As I said previously, I have no problem with E104421 being unblocked, however. Khoikhoi 07:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Khoikhoi: Khoikhoi, i want you to prove my "kill persianism" claim. Where did i say this. You are manipulating persons. I didn't say "kill persianizm".--Karcha 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you prove this i will go out from wiki but if you can't prove this we have to think about your neutrality as an admin.--Karcha 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karcha, don't be pushing your luck. It was "Kill Paniranism", and it was in several edit summaries on 15 November. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was kill paniranism and if i say persianism this consists of racism. I'm not a racist. However paniranism is different, this is a political manner.--Karcha 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion on Karcha on my side, but I'll second Alex' opinion that E should be rehabilitated. Like Alex, I've been in contact with both users and found what I consider pretty strong evidence that they are different individuals (in addition to what I posted earlier). If there's consensus for a community ban on Karcha, let's get this clarified here - although my impression is his disruptiveness so far has not been quite up to the level where community bans have been handed out in other cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody. As I said before, I have nothing against the unblocking of E104421, as in case of doubts, as Alex noted, we should assume good faith. As for Karcha, I can only reiterate my belief that he should be blocked; and please, spare us sophisms like "oh, I didn't say kill iranism; I said kill paniranism: it's different". Was also calling Khorshid "Khorshit" a "political" position?. What I see, is a constant pattern of disruption.--Aldux 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reblocked Karcha, as I was under the impression that there was somewhat of a consensus to not unblock him/her in the first place. If we want to unblock him, there should be some support here to do so. Khoikhoi 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, I am not sure that I can post my oppinion here or not. If not. Please cancel it totally.
• Why am I here; I was a kind of mediator.I contacted with these two users by mail and by phone later.I tranferred mails to some admins which they are take place in this discussion. I know the details, and something disturbed me in this matter.

1. The major reason to block these users was allegation of puppetry. E104421 blocked temporarly for puppetry, Karcha blocked indefinitely for puppetry plus some distruptive behaviours.
2. Now, allegation of puppetry is failed.
   1. E104421; no crime-no penalty, Unblocked. Ok.
   2. Karcha; no pupetry crime, there is distruptive edits.
      1. Karcha, now indefinitely blocked;Reason: distruptive edits.
3. Lets take a balance; lets put this crime one side and punishment to other side. If there is a balance, everything is ok.If not then no punishment/or another punishment is suitable.You can see also other users'(like as Korshid) distruptive edits/bad words.

• I posted a message to Karcha some hours ago, to keepaway from edit-rv war.
• also I posted a message to Khoikhoi to invite showing good faith.
• Thanks a lot for your tolerance to my intervene. Regards to all.Must^TC 19:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am second to Mustafa that it is kind of illogical to clear an account from the sockpuppeting allegations and permablock another one for been a sockpuppet. I am not a great fun of Karcha as an editor but since he is blocked for been a sock and the base of the allegations appear to be doubtful we should not probably reblock him. Maybe we could put him on Community Probation per Wikipedia:Community sanction? So any admin who would find him disruptive could permablock him? The situation starts to look like as a Wheel War so I would not repeat my administrative actions, but I would be great if an uninvolved admin could review the situation. Alex Bakharev 11:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's page needs looking into. A warning and maybe a blanking of his user page is in order. This display resulted from a serious of events surrounding the Talk:Michael Richards (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Michael Richards|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article talk page yesterday. This version of this user's talk page covers some of the details. (→Netscott) 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose the blocking for personal attacking this user recieved from Blnguyen after calling me a racist yesterday didn't seem to get the message across. Now I'm being called a "shameful Muslim" and "punk". Go figure. (→Netscott) 05:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not up-to-date on policy but is deleting block notices ok these days? (→Netscott) 06:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I extended the block for removing those warnings from his page. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hopefully when that user returns he'll be a bit more reasonable. Thanks Mgm. (→Netscott) 09:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page about the Russian language needs to be looked at. Here is an excerpt.

"Russian is not actually a language. It was invented in 1943, by dr. Egor Stravinski, during the second world war. It was originally German propaganda. They invented a race of monsters just like the catholics, which they have been known to persecute for the past 6 million years. Russians do not actually exist, they're just a myth, designed to sdcare children. In 1979, Andreas discovered this but was crucified before he could tell anyone. However he wouldn't have been able to tell anyone, because he doesn't have any friends."

This person is spreading hatred and should be blocked from ever editing Wikipedia again. "Pandra 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

"Spreading hatred" was never, and thankfully is not, a criterion for permanent blocking. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, just a routine case of vandalism. The IP source of the above nonsense has been repeatedly blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion: The following discussion of a few days ago was archived too early. Emboldened by the failure to get any action over his blatant dishonesty, Shamir1 has now repeated the same stunt with help of his side-kick Amoruso. To summarise: Amoruso and Shamir1 are completely aware that there is a major unresolved dispute over the article but each of them individually asked for unprotection on the false claim that it was resolved. Edits [48] and [49]. As soon as someone unprotected the article, Shamir1 did a massive revert to his preferred version [50], vastly more than the minor point he had conceded on the talk page. Of course he hopes that next time it will be protected the way he likes. Is this sort of abuse of the system allowed?

I ask again that action be taken to stop this behavior. The Arbitration Committee shouldn't need to be called on in such an obvious case. --Zero^talk 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion:

Palestinian Exodus is the scene of a long-running content dispute (but that's not what this complaint is about). Admin User:Steel359 protected the article on Nov 12 for this reason. However, User:Shamir1, one of the main warring parties, was unhappy about which version was protected so on Nov 18 he claimed on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that the dispute was over.[51] Since the argument was continuing ferociously on the Talk page, with Shamir1 involved, this claim was a deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article. And in fact Steel359 unprotected the article in good faith, only to be forced to protect it again soon afterwards. I respectfully request action against Shamir1 for this dishonest behavior. --Zero^talk 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, User:Shamir1 has not edited the article since November 11. Do you have the wrong user there? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been protected since Nov 12 except for the brief unprotection on Nov 18 that I mentioned, that's why he didn't edit it. Look on the talk page to see his continued involvement in the dispute (8 edits since Nov 12). --Zero^talk

I think what Zero is saying is that he had the intent of doing so, and ought to have action taken against him. An attempted crime is almost as bad as a crime itself. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article" is a crime. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:User:Isarig did similar thing to Neo-Fascism. he requested unprotection, deleted the section in dispute, and then had his version protected. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 08:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Shamir1, if you look at his contribs he requested unprotection several times this week. He kept coming back each time after unprotection was declined [52], and yesterday (his third or fourth request) I decided to AGF and unprotect. It was promptly reprotected when the edit warring started again. I can't say I was surprised. -- Steel 12:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say they should both at least get a severe tongue-lashing, and, if it checks out on Isarig, the version should be reverted. If it happens again, they should be temp-blocked for disruption. I would do so myself, but I'm not an admin. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody acted in bad faith it was User:Zero0000 himself. Note that this is not a content dispute per se - it's simply Zero0000 deleting mass sourced material. Amoruso 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not debating here the legitimacy of the changes, we're debating the fact that this user seems to have made a bad-faith request to get the page unprotected, so that he could get his own version back before it was reprotected. Regardless of the legitmacy of the claims, that's breaking faith if it was true. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero is being delusional. I asked for page un-protection because the debate over Habib Issa (you can see it was the only debated issue) was settled with me and Shamir accepting not to argue over it anymore. We were actually willing to not add a sourced WP:RS WP:V WP:CITE material in order to end the edit war - and we didn't add it ! And now he complains ? Zero is obviously abusing the system by filing bogus reports. We all have a right to ask for page unprotection whenever we feel it's right. Amoruso 06:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened on other articles too, Amoruso ran out the number of reverts he could make on the Third holiest site in Islam, and he got Humus sapiens to revert it to the version he edited a long time ago, which had an old AfD message even. IMHO Admins shouldnt indulge in this behavior. And further goes to show the nature of WP:OWN by Amoruso.First, there was this revert -> [53] and then This message on Humus sapiens talk page by Amoruso [54] after which followed this very disruptive revert [55] thestick 10:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeff3000 has gone on a disambig streak changing every instance of the word British to point away from the disambig page, yet in this case, the disambig page is the only place where the adjective is explained. The links he is pointing British too make less sense than the disambig page. He's also left some rather nasty notes on other editors pages when they use the word British. Could someone more familiar with disambig issues look into this please? Right now it seems he's making more confusion by moving it away from the content of British. Thanks. pschemp | talk 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though British is the only page at which the adjective is explained, it is surely appropriate that we point links to the nation to which the adjective refers (see, e.g., our general treatment of American qua adjective of nationality, viz., the piping [[United States|American]]); many of Jeff's edits appear to be of the former variety, such that they are probably appropriate disambiguations (although I share in pschemp's assessment that some changes have been inexact/confusing and ought perhaps to be reverted). Similarly, whilst Jeff might perhaps have been a bit a more decorous in phrasing his don't link to Britain boilerplate—the tone in its prescriptivism is perhaps a bit high-handed (and the substantive submission is not completely accurate; there are instances in which one properly links to a dab page generally and to Britain in specific)—he doesn't seem to have been disruptive or incivil here; indeed, concomitant to his boilerplate has been a welcome to several new users, and, in general, though terse, his messages have not in the least, been, to my estimation, nasty (apologies if I've overlooked something a bit more untoward). Perhaps this issue has been addressed to Jeff on the talk pages of other users to whom he has written, but it surely hasn't been mentioned on his talk page, and I wonder whether this issue, to the extent that there's anything about which the community ought to be concerned (I don't know that there is), ought first to have been addressed to the user in question. Joe 04:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of at least one user talkpage where he left a less than civil message and then did not answer at all when the issues were pointed out to him. pschemp | talk 04:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British was the colloboration of month during the September disambiguation project, see WP:DPL, where over 3000 links were disambiguated. There were multiple editors, including User:RussBlau (through his dab username User:RussBot) and others who all worked over weeks to disambiguate the term, as well as other links. In fact, the country terms are one of the links that come up the quickest, and a set of users have been set up to disambiguated them before they become a problem; see WP:DPM, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages. I am not the only one who is working on this project. As for the ambiguity, when the term is ambiguity of a term is being discussed, I link straight to British (disambiguation), which makes it clear that the term should not be disambiguated. Note from WP:DPL, "Ideally, Wikipedia articles should not link to disambiguation pages (with rare exceptions where the ambiguity of a term is being discussed); instead links should go directly to the appropriate article".

Now in regards to my messages, they are not uncivil at all, but informative, and the vast majority of people thank me for informing them; they are just unaware that linking to disambiguation pages is not preffered, and in this way the tireless work of the people disambiguating is lessened. You can see all my dab messages at User:Jeff3000/dab.-- Jeff3000 04:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving comments for established users who are well aware of exactly what British links to is not very polite. However, not answering them is much more so.pschemp | talk 04:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know if a user knows of the dab page recommendations? I am not a mind reader. I, also, reply to editors who respond to me to my talk page; I don't keep watch of others' talk pages. -- Jeff3000 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF you make a post to another's talk page, it is your responsibility to then answer objections raised there. You don't get to just ignore everything not on your talk page, especially when you posted on theirs! That's awfully condescending of you, again. pschemp | talk 04:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now its not. Some users do so, but the vast majority do not, and expect people to respond on their talk page. Of the people who have asked me something on my take page (in the past couple days), they can be categorized as:

• Thankful: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]
• Thinks that I offended him: [62] (explained to him that I did not, and that I was just pointing out why linking to disambiguation is not so good.
• Questions my statement, [63] (responded to him on his talk page)

The vast majority thank me for informing them of the disambiguating work. -- Jeff3000 04:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. You still didn't answer why you are so important that you can ignore responses to statements you post on other's talk pages. pschemp | talk 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already mentioned, I do not watch other people's talk pages, as is standard practice for Wikipedians (those that expect a response on the talk page they wrote to, state so on their own talk page), and given that I do not know of any responses, thus I am not ignoring them. -- Jeff3000 05:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that that is standard practice is not true first, and second, you don't know of any responses because you haven't been paying attention at all obviously. IF you leave a message for someone, it is your responsibility to answer them, plain and simple. And *most* people answer on the same talkpage the message was left. You attitude here that you aren't responsible to responding to others is terrible. Communication is important, and you are ignoring half of it. pschemp | talk 05:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with you. Look at your talk page, you have a note that mentions that you will watch other talk pages; if it was standard practice, you wouldn't need such a note. Regardless, I've stated my opinion about my actions, and unless others have any comments or suggestions, there's not much more to say. I would also like to note, that you could have asked me to change my message (which I believe is not uncivil in any way) or asked me to respond to some message on some talk page, but instead you came straight here, without even informing me. Instead Joe had to inform me of this thread. -- Jeff3000 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF you had been communicative and paid attention to the responses to the messages you left, you would already have been aware of this. Ignoring responses to messages you leave is not acceptable. You already ignored responses on others' talk pages so then why would I think you wouldn't ignore one on your own talk. Im sorry, but if you leave messages, it is your responsibility to respond to answers you get. Burying your head in the sand deserves a post here. Besides, I have every right to ask other people to look at a situation. Posting on your talk page does not accomplish that. pschemp | talk 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still disagree with you. Can you find a policy page that states that one must watch a talk page one posts on? Regardless, I went through all the talk pages I posted on. The vast majority had nothing posted on them. Two of them had thank you notices [64], [65] and one, which I assume is the one you are talking about [66] where she states 1) would have been nice to know where she did not disambiguate, and 2) disagrees with the dabbing. True, I could give the diff, but most people are thankful just for the tip, and the few that have wanted the diff have asked me on my talk page. As for the second point, the standard practice is for disambiguation of these country terms is to disambiguate to the country of origin, unless there are specific reasons not to. In the article in question, the ambiguity of a term is not being discussed. -- Jeff3000 05:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff3000, you can add me to your list of those who found your message to be mildly insulting. I was going to post a pithy retort on your talk page, but decided it wasn't a good idea to respond at all since it could only leave me looking bad.

Next time you correct one of my links, I don't really want to know about it. I'm not trying to disrespect your work... ---J.S (t|c) 06:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the contents of Jeff's boilerplate message, I do think that disambiguating links to British is consistent with Wikipedia policy and ought not to be discouraged. There are exceptions but they are relatively rare. And I think it is usually a good thing to provide some form of notice to the editor who originally created the link, since they might want to see what has been done and might even suggest a more appropriate target for the link. (Or they might not, in which case they can just ignore the message.) I offer to Jeff my own boilerplate text (which I'm not actually actively using) at {{dablink notice 1}} for his consideration, although it was designed for a slightly different context. --Russ (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note on this - British and United Kingdom are different things. For example, a company may be British but is subject to Scots Law - there are more but too many to go in to. Surely it would be better to rewrite British so as not to be a disambig page? British needs adequately describing and should not be simply a "click on" page. Regan123 21:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent I disagree. I think this is an example of an occurence where we need more than a disambiguation page, but where a full article would be repeating detail from elsewhere and not reflecting the fact that the majority of links to the page will be intending to go to, say, the United Kingdom, rather than to article about British. I think the current halfway house works best. --Robdurbar 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashibaka had unblocked User:Myrtone86 against consensus developed on this page [67] and without so much as trying to discuss this with me, the blocking admin. I clearly stated the block was to prevent further disruptive edits yet he is claiming it was "punative". This is not the first time he has done this and seems to be protecting the user. The user was clearly editing disruptively and has been warned in the past. I really have a problem with Ashibaka's actions here and total lack of even trying to discuss it. pschemp | talk 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is applicable here but the top of the page says, quote:

This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If you came here to complain about the actions of a user or administrator, or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.

Cheers, Yuser31415 ^{reply!|contribs|help me improve} 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, the block was a result of a discussion on this page and this is a continuation of a discussion already on the page if you read carefully. This is where we discuss behaviour *between* admins. It does need the attention of other admins, since only they can stop admin actions. Mediation is not needed for people who wheel war. pschemp | talk 04:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. Sorry for bothering you ;) Yuser31415 ^{reply!|contribs|help me improve} 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, Ashibaka should know better. Not appropriate. – Chacor 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Notice Myrtone86's block log, where Ashibaka continually saves him from preventative blocks that were the result of his actions. My good faith has run out for Myrtone and we don't need more enablers around here. Grandmasterka 05:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, while it's possible Ashkiba was unaware of the discussion here, there was a clear consensus to block. I therefore support pschemp's reblock as well. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey look, I'm famous.

Ashibaka had unblocked User:Myrtone86 against consensus developed on this page [68] and without so much as trying to discuss this with me, the blocking admin.

And you first complained about this user on ANI, then complained about me on ANI, without so much as telling the user (in the first place) or me (in the second place) about it. If you're going to report an incident here, how about you tell the people involved that they've caused an incident?! Maybe you wouldn't have even had to block Myrtone if you had simply told her about this page!

I clearly stated the block was to prevent further disruptive edits yet he is claiming it was "punative". The user was clearly editing disruptively and has been warned in the past.

I rearranged your justification, hope you don't mind. The user did this once before, like six months ago or something. I got the idea the user doesn't quite understand what the templates are for, but she's not abusing them and she was not at all likely to cause further damage.

This is not the first time he has done this and seems to be protecting the user.

The user e-mails me every time she gets blocked. I guess she found me because I'm close to the top of the list of admins. I check over her block, decide she is being a nice person making a lot of good contributions and just a few mistakes, and let her edit again. She has not once gone back to causing trouble, and frankly you are the first person to complain, not because the user was a danger to the encyclopedia, nor because I negatively impacted the project in any way by reversing your block, but apparently because I didn't respect your admin authority.

I think this user poses no danger to the project, you disagree. That's okay. You posted on my talk page telling me that I was totally and obviously wrong and you were going to reblock, and I didn't argue with you. You obviously know better than me. I yield. But you seem to have your panties all in a knot over a relatively minor disagreement. What's up with this "Don't be so flipping disrespectful to your fellow admins"? I didn't say you were doing a bad job adminning. My chain of thought was, "good user, well-intended block over a legitimate mistake, user wants to get out of jail and edit again, I'll just fix things up for everyone". I even checked and noticed I had unblocked the user a few times before, so I left a warning.

I really have a problem with Ashibaka's actions here and total lack of even trying to discuss it.

If you are so up on discussing things today how about you try discussing this with the user responsible rather than huddling around in the admins' Masonic lodge to decide what to do, then simply telling the user "bam, you're blocked, problem solved". Also, maybe you could tell me when you start a discussion about me. Maybe this would solve some problems as well. Ashibaka tock 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think conflicts such as this can be avoided if an admin, whenever undoing a block made by another, notifies the blocking admin of having done this. The blocking policy also recommends that. (Radiant) 11:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh God, not again again. Now we apparently have two incorrigible editors. Endorse reblock - I would have if Pschemp hadn't - and I strongly suggest Ashibaka refrain from unblocking this particular user anymore. "The user e-mails me every time she gets blocked. I guess she found me because I'm close to the top of the list of admins" - no, it's probably because you've twice and now three times shown yourself to be a soft touch who won't bother doing the courtesy of checking with your fellow admins before you overturn their efforts to protect the encyclopaedia just because Myrtone can be polite when he/she wants. You're 43rd in the list of administrators, I doubt Myrtone has chosen you at random each time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say this isn't really about Ashibaka per se - Myrtone is hardly the only user who effectively cannot be blocked because a sympathetic admin will overturn any such blocks by default. This perennial issue seems to stem from wikiculture. (Radiant) 14:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sam Blanning-- you're right, and I've asked Myrtone to use the {{unblock}} template in the future instead of e-mailing me. Ashibaka tock 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtone used to mail me a fair bit as well but since I've never unblocked, has cut way back. I've never unblocked because I found the blocks to be justified, this user, good intentions or not, is disruptive and blocks seem to be the only way to get a change. Support reblock, suggest that Ashibaka should post here, email or otherwise contact the blocking admin in future before unblocking. Overturning another admin is something not to be done lightly and merits discussion. ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HolocaustResearchProject (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear per their userpage to be a role account, which I understand to be problematic. Their only contributions are to linkspam articles with their URL — added to the top of the 'external links' list, as is typical. What can be done (reverting 20+ articles isn't exactly 'fun'). The Crying Orc 06:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Unless you're lucky enough to have ADMIN ROLLBACK!!! Reverted and warned. (And watched.) Grandmasterka 06:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user page was a copyvio and I've deleted it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can read more about HRP here. --Sergey Romanov (blog) 16:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would seem to be the same person as [69], at [archives]. Martinp23 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I requested spam blacklisting. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User is a new account with obvious familiarity with Wikipedia offering article-for-hire services. I have no real problem with article-for-hire businesses in theory; HOWEVER, one of this users first major actions was the creation of an AfD discussion for Arch Coal which was the subject of a contentious scandal involving ANOTHER Article-for-Hire business, called MyWikiBiz. See the Signpost article dealing with this issue The similarities seem TOO MUCH for coincidence; an article-for-hire account that is trying to involve themselves in an article that was the main point of contention for a prior article-for-hire scandal? Not sure what to make of this, but it should be watched CLOSELY. --Jayron32 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She just left what I interpret is a taunt on my talkpage. We may need to get Jimbo Wales in this unless the MyWikiBiz incident is considered a precedent and the community responds. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the user is now blocked. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's one of our usual trolls (Rainbowwarrior1977, Courtney Akens, etc. etc. ) Antandrus (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume so -- who the heck would hire someone who misspelled their own handle? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, What a shame, I was just working up a really good, frothy head of wrathful indignation. The response to this whole situation, including the initial comments, deletions, and block...makes me kinda proud to be a wikipedian :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the taunt referred to by Physicq210 above contained the phrase "Why the long face, pussycat?", which was also used in a post yesterday by now-blocked User:Isitcozimblack of "Short Shorts and High Heels" fame above. Newyorkbrad 06:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"She" left word on my talk page as well. This in-duh-vidual has obviously been here before (he said, stating the obvious). - Lucky 6.9 06:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing a disturbing trend on new pages patrol. I've seen at least a half-dozen new accounts create a plausible title, leave an edit summary stating "Created article with..." and the only "content" was those godforsaken, idiotic echoes of the title or unrelated nonsense. The style is the same on all of these. I am simply going to start blowing those accounts out of the water on sight. Thought you all should be aware. - Lucky 6.9 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's a relatively new feature of the mediawiki software. When certain changes are made without an edit summary, a summary is automatically added. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_there_a_new_vandal_tool_out_there.3F. Alphachimp 07:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL. This new thing has caused quite a stir...this is the third or fourth comment I've read about this new feature. Hbdragon88 07:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha! Just when I thought a new, improved breed of vandal came along, it's something we did! I love it! What a great way to clobber nonsense!! - Lucky 6.9 07:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Zowie! Just clobbered three nonsense articles and was able to skip over a legit new article from a longtime user who forgot to summarize it. Didn't have to open 'em first! I repeat: I love this. - Lucky 6.9 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yah. A little bit of surprise and WTF? at first, but when I realized the deal, I was quite happy. Yay! More turkey fighting! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NRen2k5 (talk · contribs) sent me an email requesting unblocking and unprotection of his talk page to appeal the block. I protected the page and extended his 24-hour NPA block because he was continuously removing warnings with abusive edit summaries. He said:

I was justified in my actions because I have been suvbjected to harassment, threats, stalking, constant reverts, personal attacks, outright lies and appeals to authority over the past 48 hours.

I also notice that my usertalk page has been protected, which will interfere with the appeal process. please remove the protection and the block.

Would I be right to ignore this, or is he just not adept at properly reporting abuse done to himself? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone considering this please do fully review this editor's recent contributions and note how he's been repeatedly uncivil to not only myself but admins that have been counseling/warning him. The block message and warning blankings are just the last in a series of examples of problem behavior (including using his user page -since blanked per G10- to attack me) by this editor. This ANI thread is illustrative as well. Thanks. (→Netscott) 13:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mendoza was for some time a mess, with large amounts of unsourced text based on stuff heard on the radio. At some point the real Mike Mendoza, who is now editing from User:Mike mendoza (identity confirmed) started removing material. After some back-and-forth, during which I got involved, the article now contains only sourced information - or at least, none of the unsourced information is under dispute. Unfortunately, Mike mendoza is continuing to remove the following paragraph.

Mendoza is Jewish and has co-founded a London-based Jewish radio station, Shalom FM, in order to provide, he says, "some balanced reporting about the community and Israel."[70]

The source seems legitimate and we haven't been given any reason to believe the contrary. User:Mike mendoza's only justification, expressed solely via edit summaries, is "i am no longer connected in any way with shalom" - which we don't say he is, but it seems undisputed that he founded it, and for a notable DJ that's a relevant fact. Despite repeated requests he's never communicated via Talk:Mike Mendoza or User talk:Mike mendoza.

I'm asking someone to warn him that he may be blocked if he continues, then follow through if necessary - not as punishment, but in the hope that being unable to edit will force him to communicate. I can't do either as I've been active editing the article. The only other route I can see to stop the edit warring, apart from the unacceptable one of continuing to revert until he gets bored, is to suggest mediation - which he will almost certainly ignore - and then go to Arbcom, which would be a massive waste of their time, in my view. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• He appears to take offense to the implication he's still connected to the station. What if you added the fact he left at the end of the sentence? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any reliable sources that say he has no connection, or that say that he says he has no connection? If not, this "fact" has to go. What an anonymous user says isn't really reliable. yandman 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an anonymous user, however. I'm assuming that when Sam Blanning states that he has confirmed the identity of this user, we can take that statement at face value. (Sam has been around here for a while, and is both technically competent and not prone to fits of gullibility.)

I see no reason not to add "Mike Mendoza is no longer associated with Shalom FM" (per Mgm) and slap a {{citeneeded}} tag on it so that everything is kosher. This really doesn't seem to be a particularly controversial point, and I admit to having trouble seeing why the individual would want to lie about this. I'm assuming – and if there's more backstory than is immediately visible, please fill us in – that he's busy full time with Talksport, and just doesn't do the Shalom FM stuff anymore. (I note that our source supporting Mike's link to Shalom FM is almost three years old, which is an eternity in the entertainment industry.)

In other words, I see no reason why we shouldn't let individuals update uncontroversial biographical and career information in their articles. I also agree with Sam's point that blocks may be necessary to encourage discussion; the correct way to deal with Mike's change of jobs isn't to delete the reference to Shalom FM, but to note that his affiliations have changed. Per WP:AUTO, individuals about whom Wikipedia has written are strongly encouraged to use the talk pages when they encounter conflict. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been the subject of a report at WP:AN/3RR. I suggested there that attempting to enforce as a blockable 3RR violation would be inappropriate. It's more appropriate to look at it under WP:BLP and WP:COI together. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed no reliable source, so far as I know, that would show that Mendoza has left Shalom - in fact, he's still listed on their website [71]. We could say he left anyway and leave it unsourced, but a) that's sloppy article writing and b) as long as he's still listed on Shalom FM's website anyone would be within their rights to challenge the sentence.

And yes - Mendoza confirmed his identity to me and to the Unblock mailing list, which led to him being unblocked by Netsnipe before I did. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be solved by changing "has co-founded" to just "co-founded". The former connotes continuing affiliation, the latter does not. - Jmabel | Talk 19:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked MM for 3h for 3RR, and left a note encouraging him to talk, in the hope he will stop simply reverting William M. Connolley 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joeshawuk removing speedy deletion notices from Panic prevention disco - [72] & [73]. User uncivil on my user talk page - [74] - and vandaliseed talk page - [75], [76]

In future, you should use WP:AIV for blatant vandalism such as this. yandman 14:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This IP Address is of Chaska High School in Chaska, Minnesota. It has shown consistent vandalism, not just to the Chaska High page, but to many others as well. Anyone in the school can access Wikipedia through this IP, and as such, are truly anonymous. If someone at the school wants to edit Wikipedia that badly, they can get a user account and contribute that way. I would propose a indefinite block on the IP, as it has been shown to cause more harm than good. Reference the Chaska High School article to view this IP address and its 'contributions' to Wikipedia. --Pseudolus42 14:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a long term block on that IP. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 14:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that it's not, but, as is always the case with this site, there are plenty of people on-hand to disagree. So I'm bringing Poop deck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here for review. -- Steel 15:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say so. pschemp | talk 15:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 3 in 5 minutes, but no have you asked the admin who protected about it, they may know more or may have made a genuine mistake. --pgk 15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please bring requests for page protection to WP:RFPP. In this case, I'd say protection isn't needed. (Radiant) 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think he's requesting it (a could initiate it himself anyway), it's a description of what has already happened --pgk 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. I'd not look to protection until I saw twice - 3x that in one day personally  Glen  15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I go for more than that. If it's a popular page, there should plenty of people watching to rvv. A few times a day is nothing - your average sports team article gets that much on average, esp. during the season. There's VOABot II as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected. -- Steel 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where has this file gone? Image:Buddha-Sarnath-sepia.jpg Lots of pages link to it. There's nothing in the deletion log. There are no deletions in the history. Has it been killed and all revisions oversighted? Am I missing something obvious? Is this a database blip? A lesson in the transience of all things? Most strange. Antandrus (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image of that name is referred to by many wikimedia projects, implying it is (or rather was) on commons. I can't, however, immediately see it in the commons deletion log. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they did delete it: [77] - "05:11, 23 November 2006 Loco085 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Buddha-Sarnath-sepia.jpg" (missing essential source information)" -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I guess if a commons image is deleted, it leaves no trace on the projects which may use it. "If you meet an unsourced Buddha on Wikipedia, kill him." Antandrus (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Disko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as the account seems to have been used only for vandalism and other disruptive edits. —Angr 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just received an email from User:Iwazaki asking me to delete his sandbox (here). This user, while not being the most diplomatic person on the planet, has in my opinion calmed down since his first altercations with Shell and myself. He seems to have turned the page, and I can understand why he wants to delete his sandbox and its history (not being an expert in MediaWiki syntax, he used it to prepare a retort to one of his "opponents"). Would anyone care to oblige? Thanks. yandman 21:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't he just tag it with {{db-self}}? semper fi — Moe 21:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so, but in the future {{Db-userreq}} should suffice. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought about db-self, but I think it's only for articles. I didn't know about userreq, though. We live and learn. Thanks for the quick reply. yandman

Dvac (talk · contribs) created a large number of very similar articles on shopping malls, all of which were (quite by chance I'm sure) operated by the same company. I have nearly finished nuking all those which are of the style Foo Mall is a mall in Foo, Bar, built in 19xx plus a list of anchor stores, the official website, and a link to the property company. About thirty of them were created in alphabetical order, so help me. Many notes were left on the user's Talk page, I don't see any evidence of responses. In fact, I don't see any evidence of any activity other than adding directory data to malls. I blocked the account. I am a heartless bastard with no appreciation of shopping as a leisure activity. Or something. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what was up this afternoon when there were so many malls in the speedy queue. I didn't touch any of them because the mall debate is one I'd like to stay out of (much like the school debate). Thanks JzG for wiping out them all and a huge thanks, as well, to Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) who tagged them all. Metros232 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few (a very few) good subjects may have been swept up among the cruft. Apologies if so, any admin should feel free ot resurrect any such. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What reason is there to block this user and delete all his edits? They (the ones I can see) contain verifiable content and are written from a neutral point of view. Yes, it's unfortunate that they all belong to the same company, and yes, the writer is probably part of that company too, but damn. Do we encourage people to write about what they no about, and then block them because the material is outside one's area of interest? — CharlotteWebb 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went ahead and tagged a few of the malls with speedy deletion tags which were removed by CharlotteWebb so I will make a group nomination for AfD. They seem to me to all be clear-cut cases of both A7 and G11. Pascal.Tesson 02:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do it as a blanket case as what has happened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000 here. In this case, many notable articles that meet general Wikipedia requirements are nominated for deletion based on little to no evidence. As with the ones in this case, I cannot see a reason to delete all of them since some are written in a neutral point of view and contain verifiable content. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deleting the articles and blocking the account is that he created several tens of articles on malls operated by a single company, in alphabetical order, all of which were directory entries and linking back to the property company's website. Numerous messages were left on Talk in an attempt to engage the user, but all were completely ignored. This is what we call WP:SPAM. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also what we call a conflict of interest and an autobiography. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• An article of the form Guy described really isn't that helpful. In my local mall I've seen at least 4 shops leave and new ones coming in their place. A long list of shops in a particular mall is simply not encyclopedic, and when you get that out, it's merely a substub with more links than actual content. Perhaps we need an example of what a featured mall article would look like, just like the few School FAs we have. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup. And WP:NOT a directory - the articles I deleted were directory entries. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this username offensive enough to merit action? -- Donald Albury 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blocked. I can't see any instance where the word Nigger in any form isn't going to offend someone. pschemp | talk 04:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I sent an article he created to AfD earlier today. Ah, well. I've got his talk page on my watch list, and my e-mail is activated. -- Donald Albury 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with a little better detective work take a look at Talk:Kingdom Hearts? It looks like DiamondDragon (talk · contribs) tried to create archives and it didn't go so well. From what I see, the user simply copied and pasted into archive 2...but I see no evidence of archive 1 being made with content, just the pages created for them. That's what drew me to them, the blank archive page for Talk:Kingdom Hearts/Archive1 was tagged for speedy deletion as empty content. Can someone figure out what happened? Metros232 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look better? Key was that the first archive was put into Kingdom Hearts/Archive instead of Talk:Kingdom Hearts/Archive1, i.e. no Talk:... —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of shit is hitting the fan right now at Talk:Evolution, and it's really dunb shit. Please lock this page for an hour or so to let folks cool off. If not, things are going to spiral quickly and badly, possibly resulting in blocks for otherwise good editors. Consider this a 9-1-1 call. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to have a talk page locked? It looks like people are being a little hostile back and forth, but locking a talk page is pretty extreme... Georgewilliamherbert 07:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know a bit about this group; things are getting ugly and it would be a serious shame for any of them to get blocked. The talkpage hasn't hosted any serious discussion in the past hour, just an increasingly tense situation. Just an hour's protection, to let things cool down? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I am not an admin, but...) It's not just procedural that first, you should contact people on their talk pages and ask them to calm down and take a bit of time off (which I just did to one of the parties). Protecting a page should only happen after other approaches including warnings to users and short blocks if necessary have failed. I can't blame you for wanting to try to calm it down a bit, but start at the right starting point: ask people nicely, on their talk pages, to calm down... In overall seriousness, this is nowhere near as bad as many other flame wars which we've let run without locking a page. Georgewilliamherbert 07:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully your comments will take care of it then. Thanks for your help. There was a crazy blaze of comments on the talkpage, coming so fast I kept getting edit conflicts when trying to appeal for peace. I guess I just panicked :( Thanks again. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, that's what a flame-war looks like, eh? I'd never been close enough to one to feel the heat! So I yelled for help, and it was a false alarm. In my city there's actually a hefty fine for calling in false alarms, so...who do I make the check out to? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 08:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fine for this incident is that at some point in the future, when you see an argument break out and get too heated on a topic you aren't personally involved in on Wikipedia, you have to go to the heated debaters' talk pages and leave them friendly messages asking them to calm down and be patient 8-)

Have a good night. Glad the situation calmed down. Georgewilliamherbert 08:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mandarin_Emperor_style_dildo please look into this right away ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 08:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a note on the Chinese noticeboard and asked someone to comment on the content of the Chinese sources of the article in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is more then that, there are multiple users, in the voting, lodged fake votes, 3 user all of whom registered today and have only contribution relating to this hoax article.
• user:WeiWei11 [78]
• user:GVixen [79]
• user:MingNei [80]

▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 09:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that non-English language sources are frowned upon in the English Wikipedia? Anchoress 09:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 4

• user:MangonelMan [81]

has nothing to do with "non-English language sources" its a hoax. ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 09:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were you responding to me? Because I was responding to the note about inviting evaluation of the non-english language sources. Anchoress 09:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Anchoress, that not what I meant, there is something more then just a afd going on here, i'm not exactly sure what but it's very fishy, I was hoping someone would like into what is going on here look at the history of this afd and what some of the users are doing▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sirex98 is right about there being something fishy; MingNei is running quite the sockfarm trying to influence the AFD. I've blocked the underlying IP for a week (until the AFD is over) and will strike the votes from the socks, but I somehow expect this won't be the end of the socking. Essjay (Talk) 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone would like to block them, the socks are as follows:

• LionelNailer‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MingNei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎WeiWei11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MangonelMan‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GVixen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)‎
• Fredsavage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've already blocked the IP and struck the votes, if someone feels like tagging and blocking the socks, please do. Essjay (Talk) 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All socks are permablocked Alex Bakharev 12:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First see AFD [82] here: three articles were deleted at AfD: Advanced commando combat system is now up as a repost. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion and have warned the perpetrator User:Teacherteacher on their talk page. However, it IS a sockpuppet creation of a deleted article. Does this warrant a block for teacherteacher? Note: Teachteacher also spammed his link on CQB and Martial arts, which was how I found it, as I monitor CQB (note: awe and the AfD was one of my first too...look how noobish I was!) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't block someone for a single repost. More than one and it becomes a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear: I wasn't suggesting it for the repost: it was for the new account creation, afd avoidal and reposting, and the linkspam combined. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How are you so sure it's a sockpuppet? Was the other account blocked? I'd try a block for linkspamming if they persist. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe putting the word "admin" in your username is a no-no. Also appears to be a sock puppet created to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinosaurus Vs Rex. -Anþony (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Glen S has made a totally inapprobriate block here. Please Unblock. There are Two very good reasons. 1- The users are not the same and 2-Just as Important the reason given was evading of block! But the the previous block of 31 hours had already EXPIRED!! 3- As far as I know users do not always choose their ISP address so it wouldn't be intentional (this is moot since these two people are not sock puppets)

Please see time diff: (over 31 hours had pasted even for the sake of argument it was the same IP address user which it clearly was not) [[83]] [[84]] Please unblock User 119.60 and notify/Warn User:Glen_S of his terrible mistake. Thanks

I have reason to believe that Glen_S's block of this user therefore was a pretext and possible racially motivated for attempted contributions to the Michael Richards article, which would be a is a serious violation of WP. Thank you. 71.111.117.65