Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
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. 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

Lingeron (talk · contribs)

This user persistently uses Wikipedia discussion pages as a means to advocate, propagate, and debate her political beliefs, as though they are mere blogs, thereby disrupting the editing process and violating Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. For evidence, one only needs to check some of her recent contributions, particularly her ones to Talk:Anarchism and Talk:Anarcho-capitalism. I've told her on several occassions that her use of disucussion pages for general political debate is unacceptable at Wikipedia, and that she should comment contructively on the content of articles, only. She responded to those notices by denouncing them as "assinine", "total crap", and "harrassing"; by removing them from her talk page; and by personally attacking me: removing this assinine bogus warning from a non-admin airhead, [1] removing further total crap left by a delusional editlor. [2] I admonished her personal attacks using the appropriate template, but she removed it.[3] Needless to say, virtually all of her comments to me and other editors (except those who agree with her political beliefs) have been uncivil.

She has told me that "I really don't much give a @#!& what you think and I can't for the life of me see how any of this is any of your business." She has also told me not to comment on her talk page again. [4] Accordingly, any form of mutal dispute resolution, including RFC and mediation, is out of the question, as those processes are reliant on the editor's respect for the opinions of others.

In summation, her disruptive conduct is analogous to that of a troll and likewise obstructs the improvement of this encyclopedia. And, unfortunately, her evident intransigence, incivility, and disregard for the opinions of others suggests that any type of personal reform is unlikely. I believe that immediate punitive action, at the very least, is in order.

(Please note that I have only worked with this editor for a few days and have already experienced two personal attacks.)

-- WGee 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: The user has been blocked indefinitely as an obvious reincarnation of the permanently blocked user user:Thewolfstar. It took me a while to get a handle on the procedures, as I'm not usually the block-forever kind of person, but Wolfstar is someone I'll learn the methods for. Geogre 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Although I have not personally worked with Thewolfstar, her disruptions to Wikipedia have gained a sort of infamy. Thank-you very much for dealing promptly and effectively with Lingeron; your assistance is greatly appreciated. -- WGee 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  I think we have more than one thread about this user, I'll repeat, I support this indef block. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

-) If we needed more proof that it's Maggie Wolfstar, the fact that Lingeron has managed to get three complaint threads going on AN/I at once would be fairly conclusive. Few manage to be that nasty without being instant blocks the way that she can. De nada on the block. I don't like issuing blocks, but this person is richly deserving. Geogre 01:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same about blocks (even though I'm not an admin), but you're right, it was called for in this case. Thanks for all of your help, everybody. She was disrupting a lot of the articles I work on. --AaronS 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support this block. The sock alone has caused too much disruption in the Wikipedia community, primarily to the RfA process. — Deckiller 03:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• • That is, assuming that I look through the evidence and agree that a connection can actually be made....— Deckiller 03:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a comment in the other section pertaining to this user but I will also comment here. I would appreciate it if somebody would produce some evidence linking Lingeron with Thewolfstar. The fact that Lingeron might be doing some things inappropriately does not mean we arbitrarily select a former, banned user and pretend like they are "obviously" the same. The differences look pretty clear as far as I can tell: Lingeron is an anarchist capable of writing legible text; Thewolfstar was a borderline psycho Democratic ideologue prone to emotional rants. If you all want to give more ammunition to the critics of our community who say we arbitrarily ban people who rub the right people the wrong way, then by all means keep up this behaviour. — GT 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I just noticed that "new evidence" wasn't dug up; this is still based on the old speculation. A checkuser should be performed before the block. I'm withdrawing my support of this action until a checkuser (or something to a lesser degree) is performed. — Deckiller 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed, this isn't enough to go by. I'm unblocking this user until solid evidence can be obtained. This isn't necessarily an obvious case. — Deckiller 03:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, all. Those differences are important. Lingeron is by no means a Democrat. She has, after all, accused me of shadowy Communist subversion and sedition. --AaronS 03:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was out of line to support the block without even checking to see if new evidence had been obtained. I hope I have redeemed myself. George, I understand why you blokced the user; but it's going to take a bit more process and time to come to a conclusion. Now, I will leave you guys to come to a conclusion as to the user warrenting another block outside of sockpuppetry (which has yet to be proven). — Deckiller 03:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here, and agreed. --AaronS 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the first to observe that Lingeron appeared to be Thewolfstar. It's certainly fair to ask for supporting evidence though. I don't have the time or energy to do a full job right now. Here's a little:

• Political stance: GT said " The differences look pretty clear as far as I can tell: Lingeron is an anarchist capable of writing legible text; Thewolfstar was a ... Democratic ideologue prone to emotional rants". Thewolfstar was no Democrat: see [5] for example: "I'm a life-long anarchist and environmentalist... I already stood up to an administrator and a huge troop of drooling, controlling idiots in this place. They're mainly Democrats." The confusion may stem from the fact that Thewolfstar spent her time editing articles on the Democrats, but she was mostly inserting stuff that the Democrats there didn't seem to care for. Example: [6].
• I believe they also both frequently discuss Thomas Jefferson; here is an example of that from Thewoldstar.

More to come if I have the time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

More:

• The Lingeron account had had I believe no interaction with Bishonen at all before Bishonen made this post on her page. It's fairly cryptic, and not a direct accusation: "You're making yourself increasingly easy to recognize. Again." How does Lingeron respond? At first, reasonably. A little later, though, she deletes the section with edit summary "and removing this nut case personal attack and lame, senseless accusation". I just don't see that kind of reaction occurring unless if she knows Bishonen knows she's Thewolfstar.
• After Bishonen warns her more directly, Lingeron posts this, including the fascinating "I am currently looking through (Maggie)Thewolfstar's contributions, pages, etc. and do not find this user to even be abusive". Forgive me, but if Lingeron's investigation was even cursory, that statement either makes her insane, or Thewolfstar. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that Thewolfstar's last contribiton may be recent enough for a checkuser. Think we should set up a request? — Deckiller 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I suppose we need to. Care to do the honors? Hopefully a simple pointer to this thread will be all the evidence needed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. Again, I apologize if this all turns out to be confirmed and I look like the paranoid idiot here — I've seen some strange things happen in the past, after all. — Deckiller 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has been disruptive, see the warning I placed on their page. I think it is a Bad Practice to overturn a block without seeking consensus first, that leads to wheel warring. I'm not sure I'd characterise the correlations reported by several admins as "old speculation" either. So I oppose lifting this block of a disruptive and incivil editor. ++Lar: t/c 04:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and believe me, either way I was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one — I continue to endorse the block, I get in trouble. I unblock the user for further discussion, and I get a few people mad at me. The block was for sockpuppetry, but nothing had been proven; and the last thing I want is to see a huge embarrassment case made out of this if we're wrong. Either way, bad practice was not my intention; I just want to keep this resonable. By old spculation, I meant the speculation that I already read about (meaning, nothing new was proven prior to the block). — Deckiller 05:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's thewolfstar, although I only had a small number of dealings with that user (which is funny since my talkpage is linked as evidence of thewolfstar calling herself an anarchist. how did you find that btw?). I actually tried to avoid her after her second post to my page. Thewolfstar never edited the anarchism articles as far as I know, which has been Lingeron's main area of editing. There do appear to be some similarities though, both politically and behavior wise (the constant ranting against socialism, saying it's just fascism for example). It looked like they might be wising up after our discussion a few days ago, but based on some of their edits to their talk page I'm not quite so sure. I say that we wait and see what happens with checkuser and with her future edits before taking such a drastic action as indefinitely blocking, but regardless of if they are a sock or not, they are on thin ice. The Ungovernable Force 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do you think a shorter block would be in hand for the other, non-sockpuppet allegations? I think so; but, given the current circumstances, I am no in position to do the blocking myself. — Deckiller 06:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is more likely than not that Thewolfstar's most recent contribs are too old. Be sure if you file an RFCU to list other confirmed socks that are more recent. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron's first edit was June 18, and Thewolfstar's last edit was May 9 (I believe). Is that still too much of a gap? — Deckiller 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We have records on Thewolfstar; I'll check into it. Essjay (Talk) 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

IP evidence is consistent with previous Thewolfstar socks. I'd call it  Confirmed. Essjay (Talk) 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm a bit surprised and sorry to have been critical of Geogre and others before. Admittedly I didn't do much more than a short review of Lingeron's contributions. But at least it is, apparently, all settled now and in my opinion this Checkuser should have preceded any indefinite block. — GT 08:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If, in the opinion of the blocking admin, the sockpuppet is obvious, then checkuser is not required; we routinely decline such requests under the rubric "Obvious sockpuppets may be blocked without the need for checkuser." If someone disputes the position that the sockpuppet is obvious, then a checkuser can be requested. To my knowledge (I haven't checked RfCU) no checkuser was actually requested by either side; it was mentioned above, but if I hadn't decided to do it sua sponte, it would not have been done. Essjay (Talk) 09:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well not that it's necessarily my interpretation that means anything, but to me "obvious" is quite different from "probable" or "likely" or "strongly suspected". — GT 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so is someone going to redo the block? The Ungovernable Force 09:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Having handled hundreds of such requests (possibly thousands, I'd have to go look), I don't feel particularly conceited to style myself as somewhat of an authority on the subject. Had the immediate reaction been to list this on RfCU rather than block, and had I been the checkuser who handled it (until about a week ago, it was about a 75% chance I would be), I would have rejected it as obvious. Additionally, we do not generally perform checks of this nature (that is, to clear up questions about a block) until someone asks us to do so; given that RfCU is the appropriate location to do so, such checks are generally not done until listed there. Essjay (Talk) 09:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reblocking indefinitely, referencing this thread, and I welcome review of my actions. I got an email from Deckiller explaing that s/he felt s/he had no choice but to lift the block. I guess I sympathise with the prudence, but don't agree it was warranted. The lift seems to have not taken, which is fortunate, no harm done, but in future, really, I think taking the word of other admins and asking for further investigation before lifting a block may be a better approach. An obvious sock is just that, obvious, and when several admins come to the same conclusion, engaging valuable Checkuser resources, while arguably prudent, and understandable, might be reconsidered. Admins need to, by default, trust each other, and to assume we're all here for the same reason, to build an encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 09:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's perfectly fine with me that the block was lifted. The actions that followed were all by the book, and I'm pleased that there were questions, that they generated a check user, and that a block has been reinstated. We should be skeptical when indefinite blocks are involved, and I welcome any review of further blocks. (In other words, no hard feelings at all. I'm glad that there were questions and that the questions prompted precisely appropriate actions.) Thewolfstar is pretty dedicated and...upset. Geogre 12:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think questioning, skepticism, asking for clarification and all are fine but I don't see the need for rash action, there was little harm and some considerable benefit in leaving the block in place (or reducing it to a definite one for the disruption caused) and none in lifting it, in my view. As I said, we could have discussed this without one admin overturning another that way. we were fortunate this user didn't cause more disruption, but that was luck. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification: For the record, just so folks know, Wolfstar wasn't a Democrat: she was an anti-Democrat. Her campaign, pursued with the kind of monomania that's scary, was to alter the article on the Democratic Party to make it "socialist." I.e. she edited it a lot because she wanted to tell the world the secret truth about Democrats -- that they're all socialists. Lotsa edits doesn't mean interest. :-) Geogre 12:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this ban against Lingeron. It has not been proven that she is a sockpuppet of TheWolfStar. A checkuser must be run, and the IP results made openly available. This ban is out of process, and appears to be negatively motivated. I request that the out of process and ill-considered ban be removed (again, it was already removed once by a discerning user) until and unless it is publicly proven that the user is a sockpuppet. - MSTCrow 20:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• You do? Gosh. Check user was run. Puppetry confirmed. Folks are free to take a look at user talk:MSTCrow to decide for themselves whether this objection is motivated by due concern or prior hostility. Process was followed. Geogre 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Prior hostility to whom? I have not interacted with anyone involved in this entire issue previously, save Lingeron. I do not understand the thrust of your argument, and it damages your own character to stoop to questioning my motives. It is not enough for someone to claim that a checkuser was run, I'd like to see confirmation that a checkuser was run, and that the IPs matched. As banning a user is the ultimate action that can be taken against a user, the process must be as transparent and open as possible, to prevent abuses of power. - MSTCrow 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As I've been saying ad infinitum on User talk:Lingeron, Essjay saying above that "IP evidence is consistent with previous Thewolfstar socks. I'd call it  Confirmed" IS the confirmation that checkuser was run. Essjay is one of a very small handful of people with the Checkuser right on wikipedia. He ran a checkuser, he gave us our results. The fact that they aren't in WP:RFCU is absolutely meaningless unless if you want to try to set some world record for Wikilawyering. As far as "seeing confirmation" -- the report of a checkuser is always like that, just a few words about the results. We don't get to ponder the full dump, both for privacy reasons and to try to keep sockpuppeteers from getting any better at what they do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what possible privacy reasons could be involved, or how it would help sockpuppets improve, but I see that per WP:RFCU, not much else can be done at this time. What isn't in WP:RFCU that is supposed to make one capable of wikilawyering? - MSTCrow 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • A full raw dump of a checkuser request would be akin to revealing private information about a user, most notably their IPs used and thus their ISP. Beyond that, revealing the methods by which sockpuppets are caught is akin to revealing what you need to avoid being caught as a sockpuppet. It's not hard to understand.--Rosicrucian 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Until recently, only things where the request was made at WP:RFCU did it get listed there anywhere. We just started trying to catalog results by checkusers that weren't requested on WP:RFCU over there. (Check out WP:RFCU/SORT if you want to leave a note that checkuser was used somewhere) Go check out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thewolfstar. Evidence from here is documented there now. I'm to understand checkuser is used outside of WP:RFCU, esspecially by ArbCom (who holds the right to assign, and the majority of people with the permission). No need for discounting the checkuser results anymore now I hope. Unless, of course, someone wants to question Essjay's character, in which case we're in a whole new ballgame. Kevin_b_er 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page protected

Based on this diff: [7] in which Thewolfstar is manipulating official notice templates in a way to cloud or obfuscate official findings (the checkuser is confirmed, it's over, this is a sock) I have protected the User_talk:Lingeron page, and Thewolfstar will have to use email to communicate further. I welcome review of this action. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I support it completely. — Deckiller 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Maggie's "contributions" before blocking were to suggest that Democrats are socialist and then, as this account, that she knew the real meaning of anarchism and that all the rest of her input was talk pages and trying to rally soldiers around the grand old flag of "Admins are abusing me: help, help, I'm being oppressed," her talk page is the primary thing to lock. Without the talk page stuff, she's easy to spot and nearly negligible. (I.e. I support the lockdown.) Geogre 11:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Oh, Admin, eh - very nice. And how'd you get that, then? By exploiting the editors! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress..." (sorry, I couldn't resist).[8] The Ungovernable Force 06:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't support the talk page protect, I don't see any reason for it, as there's nothing the user could possibly do from her own talk page. - MSTCrow 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The user was editing her talkpage to make it appear that she was not a confirmed sock but a suspected sock, and repeatedly denying that the admins had run a CheckUser. In other words, what benefit is there in letting a banned user and confirmed sockpuppet of another banned user continue to use a talkpage as an outlet to manipulate the process and make it look as if she was wrongly banned? Once Essjay steps in on a matter like this, the fat lady has sung. He is about as official a verdict as one could hope for.--Rosicrucian 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Given MSTCrow's own experience, I suspect he already knows why user talk pages are protected. --Calton | Talk 07:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User emailed me with the following.. (my characterization: wikilawyering and wilful misunderstanding of what has been communicated clearly, several times now)

Dear Lar, Please reconsider taking the page protect off my page. I didn't actually know that I couldn't put the other template back up on this page. I put it there because it is the correct one, as I'm nobody's sock. I had put it there before with no objection and so thought it was ok. I promise I won't put it up there again. Please take the protect off my page. I just found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk_page_protected "Based on this diff: [19] in which Thewolfstar is manipulating official notice templates in a way to cloud or obfuscate official findings (the checkuser is confirmed, it's over, this is a sock) I have protected the User_talk:Lingeron page, and Thewolfstar will have to use email to communicate further. I welcome review of this action. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)" I was not trying to cloud anything, for God's sake. I was trying, if anything, to lift the cloud of confusion and false sockpuppet accusations that are being made against me. How can you say, "Thewolfstar is manipulating official notice templates" and "Thewolfstar will have to use email to communicate further" I added the suspect template, not Thewolfstar. I am emailing you, not Thewolfstar. How can you make these statements when they are blantantly false? As far as confirmation goes, Essjay's 'confirmation' is based on IP, not users. He says: "IP evidence is consistent with previous Thewolfstar socks. I'd call it Confirmed." Essjay (Talk) 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC) My apologies to Essjay but this following evidence is no kind of confirmation. According to the checkuser page Thewolfstar's IP is 24.161.22.244 -- Our IP here is 24.161.28.255 The 24.161.. is part of a roadrunner range. Roadrunner is the only cable connection that people can get anymore around these parts, and in a lot of places, as this company has bought up most of the local ISPs across the country. My cousin has told me that he noticed that their IP was 24.161.28.255 back in March. From what I can gather about roadrunner IPs, they can be stable for some time or they can change fairly frequently, and this is at the discretion of Time-Warner Co. (Roadrunner). Like I said on my page, unless Thewolfstar snuck into my uncle's house at night when they were all sleeping and used their computer, it is impossible that her IP is the same as theirs. And as I have shown our IP here is not the same as hers. As of yet, there has been no real comparison run between Thewolfstar's edits and my edits. On this page the ones providing evidence are saying that they doubt or are unsure if I am Thewolfstar. To block me indefinitely because Geogre and Bishonen have some sort of strong belief that I am this user is outrageous and so completely unfair. Like I said before it's a good thing that this doesn't happen in murder cases in real life! Lars, this whole campaign against me, with it's accusations of being the sockpuppet of a banned user seems to be more about the fact that I voted oppose at Phaedriel's rfa, than anything else. I was exercising my right to vote. Why bother to have a vote if editors are not allowed to vote in the way that they choose? Ironically, I don't even hold any grudge to Phaedriel, nor does she seem to hold one against me. I left a friendly comment to her at her rfa. I was about to leave her a beautiful picture of some peaches on her page, and was working on the image format, which I'm not good at yet, when I found I was blocked. We left friendly comments to each other at her rfa: Dear Shannon, I absolutely Assume good faith on your part; and again, stare decisis and let's not make a fuss out of this; life is too short. I just wished to make sure that the missing parts in your puzzle clicked in its place, for I humbly believe I have no reasons to be ashamed over my actions. All the best to you, Phaedriel 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Phaedriel, thank you for your response. I will admit that it was said in a kind and gentle manner. I honestly am quite appreciative of that. And I agree. I don't want to make a fuss over this either. To be honest with you I don't feel any animosity towards you at all. . Right now after some of the dumb things that have been said to me in the last couple of days, I do feel some disgust with a couple of other people, though. Shannonduck talk 23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Buchofgrapes said (on the noticeboard) "A little later, though, she deletes the section with edit summary "and removing this nut case personal attack and lame, senseless accusation". I just don't see that kind of reaction occurring unless if she knows Bishonen knows she's Thewolfstar." I removed that accusation for exactly the opposite reason. It was false. I was getting pretty annoyed at these accusations as who wouldn't? There are more editors who doubt that I am Thewolfstar than those who think that I am Thewolfstar. I can tell you unequivocally that I am not Thewolfstar. Please, Lars, in any case, lift the protect from my page so I can at least defend myself against these false puppet accusations. Please give me a chance. I am not who Geogre and Bishonen think I am. I am a good and able editor. If I propounded about the topic 'anarchism' it was only to continue a debate about whether libertarian anarchism is a legitimate form of anarchism or not. I and many others believe it is and only desire the allowance to edit the anarchism articles, and make these articles more well-rounded and more neutral. Also, this debate has been going on for years, it seems, please see the archives on the talk:anarchism page. I apologize for angry summaries. If you saw what has been going on at these articles, I believe you would be outraged at the activity of those who would dominate them, and of those who are destroying the featured article anarcho-capitalism. Compare this earlier version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&oldid=64001277 with the present one after deliberate edit warring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism with the exact mission of making it lose it's featured status. Please see here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Anarcho-capitalism I also apologize for nasty remarks I made. I will say that they were preceded with some real heavy insults and attacks on me. Still I promise to not personally attack again, even when attacked first. I mean this sincerely. Can you tell Phaedriel that although I voted oppose at her rfa, I have no bad feelings towards her at all and actually like her? Anyway, Lar, please unprotect my talk page and give me another chance. Respectfully yours, Shannon (Lingeron)

I see no reason to change anything and will not be unprotecting. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

She's not wikilawyering. I've noticed on Wikipedia that accusing someone of "wikilawyering" has become a form of name-calling without basis in fact, rather like how some people with no grasp of political philosophies will call anyone they disagree with a fascist. I do not see any willful misunderstandings present, unless they are in a non-public form. What exactly has been misunderstood? My understanding of the issue is that Lingeron was accused of being a sockpuppet with a previous user, that the IPs partially matched, but as it is on a network with a large pool of shared, dynamic IPs, it is very possible that she is not a sockpuppet, and that this possibility should be further investigated. Am I incorrect in any way here? - MSTCrow 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are incorrect in several and varied ways:

1. Lingeron is a confirmed sockpuppet of Thewolfstar, per Essjay. It's not really a debatable thing here. Essjay said so, that's it, it's over. She's confirmed. No amount of explaining IP addresses or circumstances or implausible theories can explain that way.
2. This finding has been communiciated, and the nature of it explained, at length, multiple times. Arguing against the fact that this is a confirmed sockpuppet case is not going to change that finding, but IS wasting the communities time, big time.
3. Thewolfstar through her Lingeron sock is in fact arguing against this and further, in my view deliberately twisting things around to obscure reality. That's wikilawyering, plain and simple. Sorry if you find it pejorative to call something what it is.
4. Note: Being labeled a confirmed sockpuppet is not the end of the world... (since, after all, we're not talking about murder, we're talking about at most the loss of reputation built up over time with an identity... even if the allegation were incorrect it's not a lot of damage), so why argue the point? If Thewolfstar actually wants to contribute positively here, as has been noted repeatedly, all she need do is do so. If she edits in accordance with our policies, remains scrupulously civil, avoids edit warring, and in general behaves herself, no one would ever detect her next sock. But my bet: we can count on the next sock coming out the same way this one did. Which is too bad, but a cost of how our model works here, as annoying as the cost is, it's worth it.
5. removing warnings or findings because you don't agree with them is a no no. It's just Not On. Do it when you are banned and your page gets protected. End of story.

Your tendentious arguing of this point may earn you some extra scrutiny in future as well, you might want to keep that in mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you just come off a block for abusing warning templates? That's precisely the problem here with Thewolfstar that got the Lingeron user talk page locked, she doens't get to remove warnings or admin findings, as has, again, been explained at length, and she knows this already so it's not about warning her about it, it's about solving the problem.

Hope that helps and further, hope you or she don't retread the same tired things which have been thoroughly rebutted at this point. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't just come off a block for abusing warning templates. I was blocked due to Calton's abusive personal attacks and vandalism, and then when I called him on it (repeatedly, I might add), he ran off to Bishonen, who then blocked me. A quick review of Calton's talk page, as well as the talk page history, will show that he has removed or vandalized warnings from both myself and Will_Beback. As this equals a ban, end of story, I sincerely hope you will act on this issue in an objective and appropriate manner. - MSTCrow 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Does repeatedly calling Bishonen abusive and corrupt count as a personal attack? --Ideogram 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But given MSTCrow's history of utterly transparent nonsense (see his post about me, above, which is, of course, 100% false in every important respect), he's quickly sliding down the slippery slope towards indefinite banishment. Just log the information for when that day arrives. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

{{User Modernbushido}}

Several times I have made this particular userbox template. At completion, it looked like this:

This user is a modern follower of Bushido.

However, this template keps being deleted, with no TfD or even a note to me telling me why. As a non-administrator, I cannot view the history of this deleted template, so I do know know who keeps deleting it. Please look into it; I follow Modern Bushido and I do not like to be told that an entire philosophy is not 'good enough' to have a userbox (which several people use). FOr the moment, I am using my own userspace, but I don't think it should be forced into userspace without a TfD...or at least a reason. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "As I am not an administrator" as otherwise the wording doesn't make sense. Anyway, according to template history, it was deleted as CSD's T1 "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." and G4 "Recreation of deleted material." (even though G4 does not apply to speedy-deleted pages, but that's what WP:DRV is for). Anywho, on 17 July 2006, an admin placed the GUS meta-template on this, then it was deleted on the 21st. GUS is short for "German Userbox Solution" which basically means that the userbox is considered divisive and, in order to make it not look as though Wikipedia supported the userbox, it's deleted after giving people a chance to subst: the userbox onto their page.

The short version of all that is: "The admin in question gave you the opportunity to subst: the userbox and, when time was up, deleted it." If you're wondering, no, I'm not the admin who deleted it. Take care! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohyeah, clarification: Wikipedia:German userbox solution if you want more info. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kylu. --Cyde?Weys 18:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, hold up there, Kylu. How on earth is this box "divisive and inflammatory"? So who deleted it? And is there a good, logical reason? I understand the userbox solution, but why not simply move it into userspace? And if I was supposed to be 'given time' to subst it, why was I not informed? I'm not an e-psychic. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You can see the article's deletion log entry without being an admin. Phr (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It can be considered "divisive and inflammatory" since we have this little piece of recent history: Bushido#History of the 20th Century. Note: I'm not saying that I find it "divisive and inflammatory" for this reason. -- Koffieyahoo 04:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, If you're wondering, no, I'm not the admin who deleted it. Nor was I the admin who marked the template as such, or redelected it as recreated material, etc... I was simply explaining the situation. No need to tell me "Whoa", since I'm neither involved nor a horse. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I should point out for future reference that the deletion logs are public record, and that even non-admins can see who deleted a given page by consulting them (there's even a link if you check the page that appears on a redlink!) In this case, look here to see who did the relevant deletions. And it should also be noted that technically G4, speedy-deletion-of-previously-deleted-material, does not apply when the only previous deletion was a speedy or a prod, although of course any speedy criteria that was applied the first time will likely apply again if it's really a 'substantially identical copy.' The only time this really matters is with A7, where if you follow the rules mechanically an exact recreation of a valid A7 with the word "notable" added to it is no longer a speedy candidate and must be taken to AfD... but A7 specifically notes you're supposed to do that with disputed A7's anyway. --Aquillion 06:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Cyde didn't follow procedure when deleting a userbox. Why am I not surprised? But all that aside, Bushido is not "divisive" or "inflammatory". Does the Spanish Inquisition make Spain or Christianity "divisive and inflammatory"? People today follow Bushido--I know I do! It's my philosophy. Not only that, but it IS NOT recreated material. At least, it wasn't until I recreated it after you deleted it...which I will assume good faith and say that it was obviously a mistake. So I will now restore the template. Thanks. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a "Spanish pride" userbox might be divisive, but some of the Christianity ones have been, and if you'd have put a "I support the revival of the Spanish Inquisition" userbox up, I'd delete it as CSD T1 myself. The comment "Why am I not surprised?" regarding Cyde's actions seem rather incivil, and you may want to re-read that policy page before the problem gets worse. I'd actually suggest that using the German Userbox Solution would be in your best interests at the moment, that way we don't end up with any more of an argument on our hands. If nothing else, non-project related userboxes really shouldn't be in the Template: namespace anyway, and it wouldn't be hard to put them in userspace and remove problems before they start. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jgwlaw blocked - Sockpuppet?

I have blocked Jgwlaw for 3 days for continuing to act in an uncivil way and making personal attacks. (She was blocked once in April and twice in June.) In this case she gratuitously used and bolded as indicated:

"despite your previous use of Jamming a Pair of Scissors Repeatedly Into Your Crotch"

in the Jim Shapiro DRV. It was not necessary to even mention this, as it is not the name of the relevant web site, just a section within it.

Her attacks usually come in the form of sarcasm, facetiousness and targeted innuendo and derogatory remarks, mostly under the guise of outraged innocence. They have been fairly relentless since the Jim Shapiro AfD started. Recently there was an obvious personal attack on Yanksox (and Samir in passing), immediately after she said, "I'm not attacking Yanksox", although he was in her sights.[9] This might seem relatively mild, but the cumulative relentlessness of it becomes very destructive and undermining. Here is another earlier example.[10]

I had already given her a second warning [11] after a derogatory comment posted about me by her on the AfD. Immediately after apologising and saying "I won't make any other comment", she then immediately, provocatively and needlessly reposted it on her own page under the pretence of making sure that it was the comment I was referring to. [12]

There are some manipulative counter-productive mind games going on here. However, what intensifies them is that they are often carried out in liaison with Gfwesq. They have stated that they are married. They follow each other in quick succession and alternate on Yanksox' talk page [13] and on my talk page [14][15], as well as on discussions on RfA, AN and elsewhere.

She had already been cautioned about acting in concert with her husband for joint "edit warring" by Weregerbil.[16] This refers to a conversation to be found on User talk:KihOshk, which makes unpleasant reading and starts with Jgwlaw stating, "with Gfwesq and I, it would be a consensus over the other author". This conduct is completely unacceptable, and whether they are sockpuppets or not (which they deny), their conduct is no different — actually worse, because no normal sockpuppets could get away with acting so blatantly.

However, although good faith has been assumed, it has patently been abused. In the light of this, until it is proved otherwise and until this collaborative behaviour to the detriment of the project changes, I suggest we treat these two users as sockpuppets.

I'm bringing this up here in the interests of transparency, as I've been a particular recipient recently of their uncivil treatment, not in an editing situation, but via a rumpus from CSD, through AFD to DRV. I have only commented in the latter two and have not marked for support or oppose.

PS Sorry if this is a bit long.
Tyrenius 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They're certainly exhausting my patience, but I doubt one is a sockpuppet of the other. It's just two spouses editing with similar POVs and levels of erudition and verbosity. Powers 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been appealed to unblock-en-l.

I am extremely concerned at the apparent attitude that a husband and wife cannot both be moderately controversial WP editors interested in the same subject without being accused of some sort of misdeed. The threshold for identifying Meatpuppets is far higher than this.

Tyrenius, please either justify a claim of meatpuppetry, with detailed specifics showing that they act only in concert and show no independent actions regarding these issues, or retract those specific allegations.

It is often stretching proper behavior awhen an admin blocks someone they are engaged in a content dispute with, as opposed to reporting to AN/I and asking for a review and community action by uninvolved third party admins. There are blatant cases where it's clearly called for, but the specific instance here absent the prior pattern is not clearly so to me (your mileage may vary)

I urge an independent review of the remaining user behavior claims to review whether the incivility and personal attack claims warrant a 3-day block, in the interest of having an independent review of the situation. Georgewilliamherbert 02:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

George, I think you should refer to official policy, rather than an article. In addition, "the Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A cursory examination of the user contributions for both accounts shows different access patterns, edit patterns, and some non-overlapping interests, though there are some apparently professional related similarities. "Uncertainty" does not equal "any claim of". Again: reinterpreting the meat puppet policy to cover related or real life connected people who have had WP accounts for some time, and who happen to have convergent interests and participation in a particular discussion, is a stretch of WP policy, and a horrible precedent at that.

As someone whose spouse (anon) edits WP from time to time, this issue is neither theoretical nor trivial.

If these two are functionally meatpuppeting this DRV discussion then that case has to be made with detailed edit comparisons and the like, looking at what they said, and when they were saying it. Failing to make that case but maintaining the claim is not defensible as compatible with consensus policy nor with WP's best long term interests.

I have no problem with admins taking proper action either in response to "traditional" meatpuppetry (new accounts created, not longstanding WP users), and in response to clear personal attacks and the like. I don't mind meatpuppetry claims if groups of real-life users gang up in WP on topics, if you can provide sufficient evidence. That's lacking here. Georgewilliamherbert 05:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

George, you're worrying unnecessarily. This couple were acting incredibly immaturely, being facetious and sarcastic, and showing no respect for others. It's the behaviour that's the problem, not the fact that they were a couple. Read through the diffs and you'll see for yourself, and Samir's below. Tyrenius 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made it quite clear I am not engaged in a content dispute. We are not editing any articles together. I am not even involved in a "voting" dispute, as I have stated I am talking a neutral position in the current DRV and did so also in the preceding AFD. The above notice has been on this page immediately after the block was placed, i.e. over 10 hours, so I'm sure a number of admins have checked it out. Furthermore, the block was also specifically reviewed and upheld by NoSeptember, so your request of third party intervention has already been met. Otherwise, the case is as stated. Tyrenius 03:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have been mentioned above, I'm not independent, but I give the following additional diffs that occurred after the block, in support of a continued block: Repeating the scissors in crotch line regarding Tyrenius [17], removal of block notices [18], incivility in the form of sarcasm [19], comments from uninvolved Weregerbil who tried to descalate previously [20], more sarcasm that I thought was inappropriate [21], [22], disparaging Tyrenius [23], inappropriate allegations of vandalism [24], a silly yet invivil characterization of Tyrenius as Tyranisaurus [25], and trolling [26] (and indeed I consider pretty much all of User talk:Jgwlaw as trolling). -- Samir धर्म 05:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how behavior after the block justifies the block, but ok. Obviously jgw responded poorly. I'm not defending that response, but I'm just not seeing any meatpuppetry here at all, and that's supposedly what the block was for. I'm also concerned that Tyrenius may have confused unfamiliarity with Wikipedia processes (as evidenced by both jgw and gfw's legalistic interpretations of policies and guidelines) for provocation ("provocatively and needlessly reposted it on her own page under the pretence of making sure that it was the comment I was referring to" -- you'll notice that jgw has reposted a LOT of stuff on Talk:jgwlaw that was said on other talk pages, and vice versa. That's not maliciousness or provocation, it's just a misunderstanding of how Wiki works.) Powers 11:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the points:

• Samir is not saying that the behaviour after the block is retrospective justification. He is saying that it merits extending the block (presumably until such time as good behaviour is evidenced and it is safe to let this person edit again).
• The initial block was not for meatpuppetry. It was for uncivil behaviour and personal attacks.
• The provocation is not because of misunderstanding or lack of familiary with Wikipedia processes. It is provocation pure and simple. Sarcasm, belittlement and facetious lack of respect for anyone in disagreement, or even anyone attempting a NPOV and not agreeing with her/them.
• I am not referring to reposting a valid comment. I am referring to deliberately reposting a personal attack. This was the attack, initially posted on an AfD: "Unfortunately Tyrenius has removed your tag, calling it inflammatory. Sigh. Only the admin here seems to insist on muckraking." On her talk page, I drew Jgwlaw's attention to this and she apologised: "Sorry about the 'muckraking' comment about you." Having done that, she then immediately and needlessly reposted the initial insult from AfD on her talk page with the words "This is what you refer to." I can only see that this action was provocation.[27]
• I have never made any criticism of reposting legitimate material on different pages.
• They quite blatantly act in concert together, and when they are talking to a third person, they make scornful or sarcastic comments to each other about that other person. It is not a coincidence that a "husband and wife" turn up on the same pages all the time. I consider this to be meatpuppetry. It prevents fair dialogue. Check the diffs please in my initial statement. Look at the comment above starting "Unfortunately Tyrenius has removed your tag". It is glaringly obvious.

Tyrenius 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree with all of your points except the provocation. It's clear to me that jgwlaw was attempting to provide context for the apology for the benefit of readers who had not seen it. That's obviously inappropriate to us, but given the fact that we know jgw and gfw are not super-familiar with Wikipedia norms, it's an understandable mistake. Powers 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that too, but I've just checked Jgwlaw's edit history. 4 months and 5607 edits with a suprising degree of accomplishment even to begin with, so I don't think there's any newbie excuses available. Tyrenius 01:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how long they've been here, they have both demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of Wikipedia norms. I can't and won't speculate on how someone could edit that long and that thoroughly and not pick up on it, but there it is. Besides, longevity and quality of previous edits are all the more reason to AGF. Powers 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the job the couple did on User talk:KihOshk is not to be tolerated. They are engaging in a revert war in concert, giving 3RR warnings and calling their joint preferred version of an article "consensus". Is "ganging up" the term I'm looking for (I'm not a native English speaker...)? This is probably due to inexperience rather than malice. I would hope to see the couple to be a little bit more receptive to advice on how not to do things so that the inexperience will be replaced by understanding harmonious editing. I remain unconvinced that it is in Wikipedia's interest to allow families to edit in concert in revert wars. My cursory examination hasn't revealed any 3RR violations but would it be helpful for two people editing in the same apartment to consult each other to get around 3RR? The couple in this case appear to have contact outside Wikipedia, such as when I write on one participant's talk page, the other responds. This falls under the letter, and I feel under the spirit, of attracting users with known bias (even if it as simple as "honey, look at what this Weregerbil dude is saying"). This case does indeed test the limits of what <not-supposed-to-say-this-word>puppetry is. Weregerbil 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

By request, expanding on my "...the other responds" comment above: me talking with Jgwlaw[28], Gfwesq responds (I had zero prior contact with him) with a gentle civility warning and speculation on my marital status (I'm not telling, sorry ladies! :-) Weregerbil 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had some productive interactions with User:Jgwlaw (who signs herself "jawesq") on Wikiquote over Jim Shapiro and its accompanying q:Jim Shapiro. I haven't delved into all the relevant policies, nor anaylzed every edit, but I've been reading the discourse on the WP article since it was nominated for deletion. My informal take on her activities is this:

• She has oodles of time to post thorough replies, easily overwhelming any general editor. She also frequently posts consecutive comments to many users' talk pages to push her positions, not waiting for replies. From my own admin experience on WQ, this is enough to cause serious problems for admins trying to mediate disputes. I can understand why this would be considered trolling, even if it were completely civil. She has shown no awareness of the problems this causes.
• She has made many posts that are clearly uncivil, which I believe are in ignorance not only of official policy pages but of the general wiki attitude of harmonious editing. I believe she is allowing her heartfelt concerns over lawyer-bashing to override good judgment on this issue, aided by her perception that the WP community is unfairly supporting the other side of this issue (whose proponents have not trolled).
• Much of Jgwlaw's rapid-fire editing has been in direct response to similar rapid-fire editing from the Shapiro article supporters, who have also shown little patience for Wikipedia processes. (They've already created a new version of the article, James J. Shapiro, before the deletion review on the old one has run its course. They also are not immune to attacking the editor, not the issue; e.g., complaining about Jgwlaw "switch[ing] your arguments to notability" when this is always a legitimate question, regardless of who asks it or when.) It's hard to justify too much action against one combatant when the others are equally active, even if they are savvy enough to stay under the troll radar.
• The combined efforts of her and her husband to expound on this issue are overwhelming, yes, but I'm reluctant to consider them meatpuppetry.

In retrospect, I think the apeedy deletion of the original Shapiro article was probably a bad idea, given the vociferousness of the opposing parties in this debate, when an article-blanking and full AfD may have better served. On the other hand, I understand why this action was taken, and I don't think it would have prevented the Jim Shapiro deletion review, or reduced the likelihood that this argument will continue so long as a Shapiro article exists. The consequence of all this is we have two highly motivated parties, one of which is blocked from editing even her own talk page, the other allowed to recreate a speedy-deleted article (which, IMHO, fails the criteria of WP:BLP even in its current form — see Talk:James J. Shapiro). Any actions on this user should take into consideration this unstable situation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual correcton: Jgwlaw was only blocked from editing her own page for a 5 hour period to allow some cooling off. This ended 5 a.m. on 1 August. At all other times her talk page has been available to her.

Unblocking: NoSeptember first reviewed the block and kept it in place. Pilotguy and Samir have both been involved and I have invited them to remove the block if they feel that is the right course. They both declined to do so. Samir has previously suggested the block should be extended because of ongoing bad behaviour by Jsglaw on her talk page since the block was placed. If this behaviour does continue, it is my intention to extend the block, until such time as civility is demonstrated. Tyrenius 06:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The bad behavior on the talk page appears pretty minor. Voluminous rather than truly uncivil.

You can't block active people and expect them not to complain about it alot. That's just an unreasonable expectation.

Given that blocks are supposed to be preventive rather than punitive, what is the rationale for extending just over the minor stuff on the talk page? She isn't launching personal attacks on admins there, and I don't see any stated claim that she is likely to abuse other articles if the block expires naturally. Georgewilliamherbert 06:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please study the preceding posts. Samir explicitly states that attacks on admins have continued on her talk page. Samir's post in full is:

As I have been mentioned above, I'm not independent, but I give the following additional diffs that occurred after the block, in support of a continued block: Repeating the scissors in crotch line regarding Tyrenius [29], removal of block notices [30], incivility in the form of sarcasm [31], comments from uninvolved Weregerbil who tried to descalate previously [32], more sarcasm that I thought was inappropriate [33], [34], disparaging Tyrenius [35], inappropriate allegations of vandalism [36], a silly yet invivil characterization of Tyrenius as Tyranisaurus [37], and trolling [38] (and indeed I consider pretty much all of User talk:Jgwlaw as trolling). -- Samir धर्म 05:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just a small sample. I suggest you examine also all the posts that Jgwlaw has put on her talk page since the block was in place and work through the edit history. Most of them have subsequently been deleted by her. Volume is a particular concern. Opinions that she and her husband disagree with are met with a completely disproportionate response, which appears as a tactic of simply bulldozing opposition out of the way. This too is a lack of civility and shows no respect either to other editors or the discussion process. As Jeffq put it above:

She has oodles of time to post thorough replies, easily overwhelming any general editor. She also frequently posts consecutive comments to many users' talk pages to push her positions, not waiting for replies. From my own admin experience on WQ, this is enough to cause serious problems for admins trying to mediate disputes. I can understand why this would be considered trolling, even if it were completely civil. She has shown no awareness of the problems this causes.

Until Jgwlaw does show such awareness, she will continue to be a disruptive and disharmonious participant in any debate. Tyrenius 07:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest letting the current block expire when it does. She is still hostile and thinks there is a single admin after her [39]. My guess is that when the block expires she'll continue her attacks (zero sign of it abating so far). And she will get quickly blocked, hopefully by another admin. Perhaps in time she will realize that this isn't a personal vendetta, and that her understanding of what constitutes incivility and personal attacks truly does not match Wikipedia's standards. Weregerbil 10:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The latest dialogue is here with the title Response and continues in other sections. I hoped by explaining myself that there could be a reasoned interaction, but instead it has resulted in a direct attack on me. I invite others to judge for themselves. I placed the block, NoSeptember confirmed it, Pilotguy and Samir declined my invitation to remove it if they wished. That's 4 admins in total. Accusing me of a vendetta is just emotional blackmail to stop me doing my job properly, and I'm not being bullied by it.Tyrenius 10:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Extended block

I was hoping that there might be a mellowing by now, and even that I might be able to lift the block. Unfortunately there is no sign of that. Following the latest bout of incivility and personal attacks, and bearing in mind Samir's previous suggestion to do so, I have increased the block to a total of 7 days (including the 2 days already blocked), as I do not feel Jgwlaw will be able to participate in harmonious interaction with other editors over decisions which she disputes. Some of the latest comments include: "You are obsessed with trashing me in public", "Tyrenius did not really want a 3 day ban for incivility. He wanted us gone. And when we were banned, then he could win", "HE wants us gone", "His lobby to ban me permanently would certainly be a win for him", "Even if Tyrenius did not violate the technicality of the rule (and he accuses me of being legalistic?) he has indeed violated the spirit of the process. He has violated the spirit of decency."

I invite any admin quite freely to amend or remove this block if they think it is incorrect, in which case I will refrain from involvement as an admin with Jgwlaw over any disputes relating to the Jim Shapiro article.

Tyrenius 11:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Threat of legal action by Jgwlaw

Re. the above problems with Jgwlaw, I regret she has now threatened legal action:

Any further disparagement on the AN/I or here will be strictly construed as pure harassment, and/or defamation. If necessary we will take appropriate legal action to stop it.jawesq 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of my existing involvement and the accusations Jgwlaw has made against me, I do not think it is appropriate for me to respond to this, so I am posting it for another admin to deal with. The "we" presumably refers to Gfwesq, who she has stated is her husband. They not infrequently speak on each other's behalf. Tyrenius 17:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming here to report it. I was afraid it might get lost in the veritable fountain of edits (and subsequent deletions) jgw has been making to User talk:Jgwlaw. Here's a diff: [40]. It's no wonder we're having trouble communicating with jgw; jgw edits the talk page so often it's impossible for anyone to keep up! =) Powers 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

She's also asked for material on her user page to be deleted.Tyrenius 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted Jgwlaw's userpage, and asked for confirmation that they are using their Right to vanish. Syrthiss 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation received, so I have deleted the talkpage. They said they wish to have nothing further to do with Wikipedia. Syrthiss 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fidel and Raul Castro

Any chance we can put semi-protection on these pages Fidel Castro, Raul Castro. Fidel has been rushed to hospital and Raul is in temporary charge. These pages are bad enough as it is - now everyone's an expert on Cuba's constitutional position on this and I've only got one pair of hands.--Zleitzen 02:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't generally semiprotect pages to stop people making good faith edits. A better solution would be to encourage regular wikipedians to watch the page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that these are BLP cases - and it's a strong possibility that one might well be a Biography of a dead person very shortly - it may save a lot of problems on what is already a very controversial page. And with personal attacks flying around on the talk page from ranging IP's I don't feel much like watching the page over this period. But oh well! Someone'll have their work cut out! :D --Zleitzen 03:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll watch both. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't stress enough how important this is though. Castro's demise is perhaps the most awaited news event for millions of people and is surrounded by political tensions. For wikipedia to get something badly wrong around this issue could have serious implications for the publicity of the encyclopedia. Forget about Ken Lay, if enough people go around wrongly thinking Castro is dead - or has even resigned - then it's trouble. Anon users predict his death anyway on a daily basis - so I recommend caution now.--Zleitzen 03:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, we need a freely-licensed image for Raul Castro. I just removed two imagevios from the article. Jkelly 03:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

An administrator - for reasons better known to themselves - has just unsemi-protected the Fidel Castro article. With accusations that Castro has died appearing approximately every couple of minutes this is a big mistake. This is a crucial issue. Please semi-protect again.--Zleitzen 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You should put this kind of request at WP:RFPP. On this occasion I think you may be right, semi-protection may be warranted. Phr (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Tojo is Willy

According to several sources from users on this board, they know that Tojo is WoW. It's a known fact of another of his aliases. I mean look at the similiarities... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs)

Who cares? Both are banned. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Harassment by user 64.7.136.166

64.7.136.166 is gathering the IP address of other users who disagree with his edits on Actuarial Outpost and using that information to harass people at work.

Here and here you can see this user bragging about this harassment on his blog.

Based on this diff it appears this user is now trying to hide evidence of this harassment. Just in case this user tries to hide the blog entries admitting to harassment, you can view the Google cache of those posts here.

Is there any way to take action against this user to stop this kind of harassment? Thanks. SkipSmith 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You could put the {{welcomeip}} template on the talk pages of the IP's being hassled, mention to them what's going on, and remind them that if they enroll accounts, their IP addresses won't be visible. I defer to wiser minds than mine whether on-wiki sanctions against 64.7.136.166 are occasioned by that person's off-wiki activities. I see the blog post says something about external links to that person's firm. You could check whether the links are consistent with WP:EL and remove them if they're not. If he keeps reverting, use the spam templates progressively, and then ask for a block.

• Whoa It looks like the person doing that hassling is the operator of the web site that the article is about. Looking at the article talk page and the afd that closed with no consensus a couple months ago, I'd consider opening a new afd, describing the harassment. Wikipedia really does not need this type of crap. Phr (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. Former operator. This is reaching. TheActuary 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that may be the way I have to go here. I pointed out to everyone on the talk page at Actuarial Outpost that 64.7.136.166 was hiding evidence of harassment, and that user came along and deleted that notice too. I'll put it back up. Maybe at the minimum I can get him for 3RR --- does that apply to talk pages of articles? SkipSmith 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR applies to talk pages of articles. In addition, deletion of content from a talk page is often considered vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur. I placed a 3RR warning on 64.7.136.166's talk page, and now it appears that a sock puppet has picked up where 64.7.136.166 left off with deleting all references to the harassment. Of course, I'll report this as sock puppetry. However, given all of the harassment and the fact that this user seems to be trying to make this wiki article an advertisement for his business, do you think I should also open a new afd for this article, or would that be too much at this point? SkipSmith 04:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, document everything in the new afd. Phr (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Being that the IP in question no longer is connected with the site, and has not been for around a year now, and the link to his blog was removed weeks ago, I fail to see why an AfD is called for, other than the belief that the site as a whole is not notable. -- Avi 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi, although you haven't said much about this ongoing harassment on the talk pages at Actuarial outpost, and I know you dislike the edits I have proposed in the past for this article, as an admin I'm sure you'd agree something must be done about this. What course of action do you recommend, if not a new afd? SkipSmith 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed_g2s is not being civil

User:Ed_g2s is continuting to remove images while a discussion is congoing about whether these images should be used in these manners. Looking at his talk page, another user is also fedup with his changes and is putting the vandal templates on his page but it doesn't seem to be doing anything. Repeated attempts to ask him to stop making changes until the discussion has concluded have failed (See Talk:2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team) and he continues to make changes. I wish to have him warned and stopped to make changes regarding this issue until the discussion is complete (See mediation request: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific), how do I do this? He is also an admin, and I further think this is a poor attitude and example for an admin to set. Is this enough grounds to complain about his admin status, since he isn't really abusing his admin powers? --MECU≈talk 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This user frequentley edit wars and is uncivil. He has also broke 3RR three times today (in the span of 24HRs) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving vandalism warnings on my page when I am acting in good faith is uncivil, Matthew. ed g2s • talk 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

They where blanking warnings, !you! blanked content, weather it be image tag or not. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil to anyone. There is always discussion ongoing about fair use images because people always complain when their images get removed. ed g2s • talk 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually i believe it is always ongoing because you contiued to move it (sneakly i may add) and also frequentley engage in edit wars when you could converse. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User is unwilling to follow wikipedia policy: WP:DISCUSS WP:CIVIL WP:POINT. See his comments here: User_talk:Mecu#Need_to_stop_user_temporarilly Further, this is not a place for discussion. --MECU≈talk 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see him being incivil. He is being blunt. How about people stop reverting his removal of images (which definitely errs on the side of not getting Wikipedia sued) until you can see if the mediation is accepted, instead of constantly reverting them and possibly placing Wikipedia at risk.? It takes two to have a revert war, and I'm willing to bet that Ed has policy to back him up. Syrthiss 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be civil of him to converse, it would not be civil of him to ignore conversation and just carry on racking up his 3rr vios. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved with replacing images he is removing. I agree that replacing images should stop, but so should his removal. He has stated he is unwilling to comply even while discussion is ongoing. Attempts to ask him for previous discussions resulted in one example that wasn't directly applicable and wasn't much of a discussion. I merely want a truce. His unwillingness to even believe that we are acting in good faith as well and discuss the issue is his uncivility. --MECU≈talk 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt you are acting in good faith, but until our policy changes, you are acting wrongly. ed g2s • talk 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are just ignoring the possibility that we are acting in good faith? That goes against WP:FAITH, of which you must (read the policy) assume we are doing. --MECU≈talk 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What? I said that I never doubted you were acting in good faith. That means I think you are acting in good faith... ed g2s • talk 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I mis-read your statement. --MECU≈talk 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ed is misinterpreting the policy and he is persisting in his misguided efforts to force his opinion on the project. He has blatantly violated 3RR on multiple articles by removing images that have been discussed on the article talk pages and found to be usable under fair use. Rather than engage in those discussions, he has chosen to act unilaterally in violation of our policies. He should be discussing this difference of opinion in a civil manner rather than continuing his crusade. Johntex\^talk 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

Sceptre has blocked Ed g2s for one week. I have asked Sceptre to reconsider, as I do not think that Ed g2s' unfree image cleanup efforts pose a threat to the project and the block seems to be purely punitive and not preventive. I suggest that Jimbo Wales' statement quoted at Wikipedia:Blocking policy also suggests that the wrong party has been blocked here. Jkelly 15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concerd that this block may be to short. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. Ed had numerous chances to discuss this, and he continued to act unilaterally in violation of policy. Johntex\^talk 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion area. I consider this matter closed. I would make more comments, but this is not the discussion for it. Please make your comments about Jimbo's remarks elsewhere where we are discussing the topic. --MECU≈talk 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the admin's noticeboard, where we regularly discuss blocks and blocking policy. It is in no way obvious to me that raising the question here is inappropriate in some way. Jkelly 16:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My initial intent was to stop discussion here, since the block was because of the 3RR rule, that it should occur there instead. But I would like to remove my closure comment and leave this open for addressing my complaint, since the 1 week was because of 3RR, I would like to be addressed for my complaint. And Jimbo's comments are more for the discussion of whether the images were copyvio or not, which is occuring elsewhere. --MECU≈talk 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well let's see, if I saw somebody violate 3RR on 3 separate pages at the same time, I'd probably block for 3 days, and would probably only go longer than that if the user had one or more previous 3RR blocks. That having been said, I haven't actually looked into the specifics of this case, and will do so shortly. —freak(talk) 16:06, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

This user should be blocked for longer as een after he had seen his 3RR report he continued racking up his vios. He is also a role model and thus should be punished. Further he refused to stop and converse. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You have more than made your opinion clear, and there is no call to further kick someone when they are down. Further calls for more punishment are going to weaken your argument, not help it. Jkelly 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Someone convicted of a crime for assult that receives a year prison sentence, shouldn't then receive a free pass on theft occured during the same time and the 1 month jail time they would receive for that. Since the revert rule has handed out their punishment, I believe some type of punishment is in order for failing to act civil (as others here have mentioned: He failed to discuss the issue, which is the cornerstone of civility, of which all users here have a right to expect WP:CIVIL). I am not advocating extension of the block, I believe a probation or warning should suffice, but that is not me responsibility to determine the punishment. --MECU≈talk 16:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the user's extensive contributions to Wikipedia, and the fact that this is the first concurrent block, I support reducing the block to 24 hours. Bastique▼^parler _voir 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it appears that 2 of the 3 cases are the repeated removal of obvious copyright violations, while the other appears to be a matter of dispute. If the status of an image is in doubt, it shouldn't be used until clarified. However, ed_g2s would have done better to actually discuss rather than continuing to revert. I'm reducing the block to 24 hours, minus time already served. —freak(talk) 16:21, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should be 3 days an average 3rr vio gets 24h, this sint average its 3 3rrs. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is clear. You can stop repeating it now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

In reviewing Ed g2s's actions, it's evident that the removal of the fair use images on those pages were in clear accordance with Wikipedia's policy on fair use images. 3RR doesn't apply when policy is being followed. I suggest someone reverse the block entirely, and remove the images. Bastique▼^parler _voir 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He violated 3RR three times, and one of those times i was fully involved. the image clealy did not violate FU. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

ed_g2s's actions on 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team and 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team were correct. Policy says that logos shouldn't be used in a purely decorative way like this. These are not 3RR violations. --Interiot 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Theres annother one, and maybe they wouldnt of been 3RR !IF! he had been willing to converse. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the only exception of 3RR was for blatant vandalism? Otherwise you have multiple people reverting each under way past 3RR, each of them thinking that they're in the right because they interpret policy differently ... 3RR is designed to prevent disruptive edit warring like this. It looks like this was what happened here. I too am personally of the opinion that those logos weren't being used properly, but it shouldn't have been edit-warred over. --Cyde↔Weys 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We do make an exception for removing defamation. I do not know how we accomodate image cleanup reverting, given the fact that violations of Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria are often reverted by users who have philosophical disagreements with those policies, but without creating an exception that can be gamed in the cases of unfree content that we are willing to defend (such as the J-P cartoons). Jkelly 17:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. The blocking policy does not allow exceptions for image copyright cleanup. Maybe it should, but it would have to be worded in such a way that would prevent gaming the system. Everything I've seen from Jimbo on this subject points to the interpretation that he wants admins to clean up these image problems, and it's a bit worrying that someone gets blocked for this. The job is thankless enough as it is, and there are very few admins who are willing to be involved in such a job, knowing that it does not increase their popularity. AnnH ♫ 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I support unblocking Ed. His error was when he reverted again when the images were reinserted after his first removal. At that point, instead of reverting he should have blocked. Editors have no right to insert violations of our unlicensed media use policy, and those who do so after having been put on notice that a given usage is not within the policy are subject to immediate blocks without further warning. Instead of continuing to revert, Ed should have blocked the miscreants for copyright abuse. Hopefully, in future similar situations, he will do the right thing and block instead of revert. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Name calling isn't appropriate. --MECU≈talk 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He broke 3RR three times, he should not be unblocked. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You have made your opinion, and your stridency, abundantly clear. Just what is the source of your excessive vindictiveness in this situation? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well..

• He violated policy 3 times. Not once or twice !three! times.
• He is an administrator, he is expected to uphold wiki policys.
• As an adminitsrator he is expected to abide to them him self.
• He obviously is on a crusade.. Okay, acceptable.. what is not is the fact that he violates policy on this crusade.
• He violates policy he holds "sacred".
• He refuses to conevrse, no one forced him into breaking policy. To put it bluntly; ignorance. He could of conversed he did not.
• The fact that he is an administartor and a role model means he should be punished just like a user, not given the easy route off. Furthermore it is my belief that any admin who could commit these offenses is no role model.
• His crusade weakens the integrity of the project as he acts in bad faith refusing to converse.

Just some of the reasons. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking editors who revert unfree image cleanup has proved a very unpopular solution in the past. Jkelly 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I support unblocking Ed. First of all, he could have avoided this block simply by blocking whoever reverted him in the first place. We're not allowed to block in order to gain an advantage in a content dispute, but a block in this case would not have been contrary to policy. Secondly, this is clearly not a case of classic edit warring, where one person wants his version, and another wants his. This has absolutely nothing to do with which picture Ed thinks looks nicer, or whether he thinks the article looks better with or without a picture. This is simply a case of an administrator trying to clean up a particular problem which Jimbo is concerned about. Thirdly, I'm worried that other admins may become less willing to help with the already thankless task of trying to enforce copyright policy. AnnH ♫ 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A block by Ed in this case most certainly *would* have been against policy. This is a content dispute he is engaged in. The images are not copyvios and restoring them is not vandalism. Vandalism is the only excuse to violate 3RR. Johntex\^talk 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a content dispute. A lot of editors know that I'm an admirer of Pope Benedict XVI. Now if someone comes along and changes the image to one that makes him look senile or decrepit or bad tempered or stupid, I will probably try to change it back. Even without such obvious motivation, I would still have a preference, as someone who is involved with his article, if there's a vote as to whether we should use the photo of him in white or the one of him in red. So, in such a case, I would be acting as an editor with an interest in the article or the subject. However, if I went to the article on Johnny Cash and removed the image there because it's an unfree image (I'm not going to, because I haven't fully informed myself about when the use of such images is considered legitimate), it would have nothing to do with a content dispute. I don't like Johnny Cash; I don't dislike him. I couldn't sing the first line of any of his songs. I know nothing about his life. My hypothetical involvement with his article would be solely on the grounds that I was trying to clean up image problems, as requested by Jimbo. I could be mistaken in a particular case, or I might be right but there might be room for disagreement. But in no case would it be a content dispute. Where is the evidence that Ed removed the image because he didn't like it, or because he liked the person that the image was unflattering to, or because he disliked the person that the image showed in a good light? I think we need to be careful about calling things content disputes when admins are just trying to clean up a mess or enforce a policy. AnnH ♫ 08:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you AnnH. The reason this counts as a content dispute is that it is not at all clear-cut that the images used violate any policy. Ed is of the opinion that they were, but substantial numbers of people are of the opinion they are not. The issue was already in discussion on one page prior to Ed's actions and discussion started on several other pages as a result of Ed's first actions. Ed should have participated in those discussions rather than violate 3RR. Exemptions to 3RR are only allowed for blatant vandalism, which did not apply here. Therefore, Ed was in violation of policy and would have been in a far graver violation of policy if he has compounded his violation by issuing illigitimate blocks. Johntex\^talk 17:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Woops, Jkelly has just reminded me that we also make a 3RR exception for potentially harmful information in the biographies of living people. Sorry about my mis-statement. Johntex\^talk 17:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Ed was unblocked after only 20 hours anyway. Looks like a sysop could get away with murder. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Being blocked for 20 hours hardly qualifies as getting away with anything. And by the way, your use of extreme and absurd rhetoric, like equivocating a revert-war with murder, only serves to discredit you. --Cyde↔Weys 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A std. user gets a 24h block. Ed has had less then that he is also a sysop. He has got of very lightly. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with being let off because I am a sysop. The block was overturned completely once I explained to the actioning admins the mistake they made. ed g2s • talk 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You made the mistake violating 3RR three times! Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for block to be restored/lengthened

Three 3RR violations by User:ed_g2s has been reported to WP:3RR and a one-week block was issued by User:Scepter. This block was shortened to one day by User:Freakofnurture. I think this is inapporpriate. Discussion at 3RR violation would seem to favor something in the middle - like 3 days. There are 3 seperate violations of 3RR in evidence, so 3 days seems very appropriate. We need to hold administrators at least as accountable as we hold regular users.
I have contacted Freakofnurture to ask that he reconsider his shortening of the block[41] but he declined.[42] In declining, he labeled as "bullshit" the good faith opinions of mutliple users and admins who think that the violation by Ed is serious. I think that is uncivil, and I have informed freakofnurture that I am requesting for another admin to reinstate a longer block.[43]
I am involved in the discussion, so of course I will not alter the block myself. Johntex\^talk 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, should be lengthend to 3 days. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a bureaucracy, and we have no minimum sentencing laws. I see nothing to be gained by a longer block. Friday (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It would give him more time to let him cool off and consider his errors and how he can improove. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

At least in the case of the Colorado Buffaloes article, his removal of the other team logos was entirely correct. Fair use does not allow us to use copyrighted images for decoration, the edit summary the teams are adequately identified by their names is perfectly correct, and the reply logos provide commentery in that they represent the team demonstrates a lack of knowledge of copyright issues, and all the discussion in the world on the article talk page won't change it. I agree with Kelly Martin that not only does 3RR not apply to removing copyvios, but a short block would be appropriate for users who insist on reinserting copyvios. Free the Fair Use One! Thatcher131 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Such is your view and ed's, which is in the minority. This hard-line view and your intrepretation of Fair Use. This is under discussion in many, many places, but most noteably which I see has decided this is the minority view is the Admenment 2 proposal by ed that has far more opposition than support. Nevertheless, this should be minor in the dispute here: Ed's failure to discuss in a rational manner that is expected upon all editors of Wikipedia. The evidence of which is the 3RR. --MECU≈talk 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

His approach was not and thus he was incorrect. He blatently refuses to converse. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is leaving rude and annoying and entering creepy. You've been asked by three different users here to stop repeating your calls for more punishment. Let it drop. Jkelly 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 you are incorrect. The images were not decorative, they were used alongside discussion of the teams represented by those logos. Johntex\^talk 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Or in other words, they were used for decoration. --Carnildo 22:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Or in other words they were not decorative - they were used as part of the description of the team in question. Johntex\^talk 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

JKelly this is not an issue that should be dropped. Removing the block on Ed was a grave dis-service to the project. Admins who violate 3RR over a content dispute should not have their blocks shorten. There was no copyright violation here and Ed had no right to violate 3RR. Johntex\^talk 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This has turned into an obsession by MatthewFenton and Johntex. A number of admins have come in and most of us agree that Ed g2s's reverts were done in complete adherance to policy, whether or not they violated 3RR. He did not act maliciously. Your recourse is not to shout for an increase in his block but to debate the issue at hand. I fully agree with his removal of the images. They're not being used in a fair use manner. Simply by getting a bunch of your friends to vote that they are does not make it so. Bastique▼^parler _voir 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:STALK

In violation of WP:STALK, User:Hillman has posted the following edits to at least three different user's talk pages. I expect that there are more. He has been warned and advised to stop by several users and a warning regarding this violation has been posted to his user page by a third party. (Note that Hillman edited this user's comments to change the heading "Violations of WP:STALK" to "Possible violations ...") It has been suggested that his behavior may constitute a breaching experiment.

Some of the relevant edits that this user has made are here, here, and here.

I feel this user needs to be banned. In light of his callous disregard for others, and the fact that he continues to violate WP in the face of criticism from other Wikipedians, his ban should be effective for an extended period (at least one week; permabanned, IMO). DrL 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For reference, this is discussed in detail in this thread that appears to have vanished during an archive attempt. Additional relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-30 Hillman posting personal information (which contains statements by involved parties) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig (which contains statements by many uninvolved parties, including administrators). --Christopher Thomas 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• The links that you provided refer primarily to another incident of "Hillman's" stalking behavior (creating a "dig" page about me) which he appropriately redacted. This complaint has do do with numerous edits on user talk pages that also need to be redacted or removed. DrL 02:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no violation of WP:STALK. The question of whether User:DrL is "related" to Langan seems open for discussion, and User:Byrgenwulf and User:Christopher Thomas have both been previously involved in Langan-related edits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I must say that I am really touched that a "relatively famous Wikipedian" has stopped by to weigh in on my complaint. I would argue, however, that whether or not User:DrL is "related" to Langan is not open for discussion any more than, say, whether or not User:Hillman is "related" to Joan Baez. DrL 01:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Raj Bhakta

Suggesting that the Raj Bhakta page be put under semi-protection. The neutrality of the article has been comprimsed by people who are personally attacking Bhakta. You will notice on the talk page that a user User:GMcGath and edit summaries from another User:Bruceberry have been mercilessly editing and deleting the page. I added factual news events and substantiated claims with cited works that were just deleted by others. I am currently trying to put my cited work back on the page. They are making it a "I hate Raj" page rather than sticking to facts. These two, among others, are abusing the power to delete and edit. Ryanthedon 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User 68.89.137.103 damaging pages

User 68.89.137.103 (contributions) is continually making contributions which are damaging page formatting, and adding many nonexistant interwiki links to "???" (I suspect he is using some sort of tool to assist his edits). He does not appear to know how to use his talk page, or any talk pages for that manner. I do not believe his edits to be malicious, but is there some way of getting a message through to this user? - Rainwarrior 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, his recent contributions look fine to me. If it starts up again, I'll warn him. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, if you look at his first contribution to each page he has edited (or at least for the last 6 pages he has edited, I haven't looked at all of them), you will see the problem I am referring to on every one. I suspect he has done this to nearly every page he has edited. See: 1 2 3 4 5 6. - Rainwarrior 06:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's in this user's best interest to know that he is doing this, because even if he is making a contribution to the page, basically all of his edits are getting reverted summarily because of what he does to the formatting. Not only is he a nuissance, any benefit which he is trying to provide is also getting reverted. - Rainwarrior 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Action at Talk:The Colbert Report

A number of sleeper accounts have sprung from the woodwork and demand to include Wikiality in the article about The Colbert Report, with arguments such as "this should be in the article because a bunch of people want it to be," even though there's no reason to think it's more notable than any other segment on that show. More news stories have been written about Colbert's guest last night, as have stories about Colbert's mockery of Mel Gibson, for instance, but his appearance is not included in the article, nor should it be: with four shows a week, allowing a paragraph about every guest, opening monologue, or "WØrd" segment would flood the article, leading to an indiscriminate collection of information. It is on these grounds that, until notability rising above other Colbert segments is shown in the mainstream press (i.e., multiple news articles, not blog postings, especially more than a few days after the incident) can be demonstrated, the content has been kept out of the main article. It is a case of policy vs. vox populi, and I submit it here for admin review. JDoorjam Talk 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent plan. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already outlined all my arguments on the Talk page of Colbert Report. I will simply add here a reiteration that Colbert's segment last night had a demonstrable impact on Wikipedia which it diminishes Wikipedia's credibilty for us to pretend didn't happen by excising all mentioning of it from Wikipedia entries. There is a poetic injustice for the wikipedia to not itself acknowledge that Colbert satirically criticized the Wikipedia. Ivymike21 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is a good argument for protection of the article and exclusion of the content, as you describe how the proposed addition to The Colbert Report is really about Wikipedia, not the show. As has already been explained on the article's talk page this is amateurish navel-gazing. People are worried about the quality of the article. This is not a conspiracy to suppress THE TRUTH^TM. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced protection from full to semi-protection on The Colbert Report. My argument stands, but ultimately I think it's healthier for the article to be dynamic, even if it means that giggling self-reference amateurishly flits in and out of the article for a while. JDoorjam Talk 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the show in question, but would the material that Ivymike wants to add be a better fit at Criticism of Wikipedia? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It would except the entire spot was a joke on a joke TV show, and it didn't have any more substance than a superficial "Anyone can edit to make it false!" ("!!!!") —Centrx→talk • 02:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hel-p me

I am being bugged by User:Reinyday.

She keeps going on about my dop. accounts when all I ask her is a question regarding my User pages. I forgot my password and I started a new account and she then starts pulling up all sorts of stuff having to do with my accounts.

The Help account was for until I could find my password.

The Qho account is for me to use.

This account is for until I can find my real password.

And my other accounts are for my brother to use.

See here[44] I did not change her comments I simply added my opinion.

Here are all of the accounts:

User:70.233.181.36 My Ip please keep private

User:Qho My True account

User:QH0 My Dop.

Now the four she did not get till later

User:HELP Inactive, personally i would like to have obliterated

User:Missingno Active

User:Misingno Dop.

User:Kittyispretty Dop.

Missingno will be turned over to my brother if he behaves.

If you can't act nicely to eachother, please just avoid contacting eachother at all for the time being. Also, if you're wanting to keep your IP private, you shouldn't have posted from it, sorry. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My post regarding Qho is above and this post is in response. I always make a great effort to be nice and neither you nor Qho have provided any examples to the contrary. Now Qho/Missingno has removed someone else's post from my talk page and is being incivil enough to write, "All you are is dust in the wind..." He has deleted previous posts here from this page, even after they were reverted. There have been 26 posts to my talk page today by Missingno. Please help me. — Reinyday, 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kylu, I find your reply a bit dismissive. I have made about 9,000 edits and this is the first time someone has harassed me. I don't like it and I am asking for help. According to Wikipedia:Harassment, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person..." Examples include:

• saying "All you are is dust in the wind..."
• removing someone else's post from my talk page
• vandalizing my userpage
• saying: He [my brother] told me to ask you this though, " Are you relly female or a male acting like a female? "
• making 26 talk posts as Missingno, 6 as Qho, and 2 as 70.233.181.36 on my talk page

Please let me know if you would like further examples. — Reinyday, 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the various accounts listed above seem to have made any edits to articles, and there seems to have been an immense amount of what I can only describe as arsing around on people's talk pages. The "secret" IP address has a notice on the user page to say it's an AOL address, presumably so nobody blocks it for a long period, when in fact it's not AOL at all. I've blocked it for 24 hours, because this needs looking into further and the encyclopaedia is not going to be harmed in the slightest if nobody from that address is able to edit it for a day. --ajn (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Reinyday is a male so able to act like a female that he can give birth to a child. ;-) I support the block that ajn gave. The vandalism and harassment of Reinyday is clear in the links she provided and the history of her talk page. If he continues, I suggest blocking all of his accounts indefinitely, since he does not appear to be making any productive edits. -- Kjkolb 01:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for responding. — Reinyday, 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I'll be reporting what I've done on User talk:Missingno. --ajn (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary: all the above accounts permanently blocked apart from the IP and Missingno (both partway through a 24 hour block) and Qho. Once Qho/Missingno tells me which account they want to use, I'll permanently block the other one. Neither has made any edits to article space, other than extremely rare comments on discussion pages. --ajn (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Kjkolb 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Serious threats against me

User:Logeon made what I consider to be very serious threats against me. While ambiguous as to whether they are against my physical safety or legal or otherwise, I would appreciate if something could be done. I understand he's already received an indef block, but is there any way to find out who this person is? And if not, could the record be removed from the history entirely? - pm_shef 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the items in question from the page's history. Finding out who s/he is will not be an easy task, as CheckUsering won't reveal more than an IP address and I don't believe using a CheckUser in this case is even permitted by the terms of the privacy policy. If I were you I wouldn't worry too much about it. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing it from the history seems unwise, there is now no evidence that can be used in the prosecution of the threatener, and if something happens to PM shef, evidence that might lead police to the threatener has now been deleted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins are able to read deleted pages. So, it can be recovered for these purposes. Should we be contacting the user's ISP to complain? -- JamesTeterenko 21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well if Admins can read deleted pages, then lets keep it deleted. In terms of contacting the IP, it seems like it's a good idea. Would there be any drawbacks? - pm_shef 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The only drawback I can think of, is that it takes effort to do it. I personally don't have any experience with this. I am, however, willing to help navigate through this. The downside, I probably won't have time until the weekend. -- JamesTeterenko 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at this and I don't see a threat. Nor do I see libel sufficient for a history purge. If there had been a threat, though, we would most certainly have been allowed to perform a CheckUser; we are permitted to reveal IP information to protect the safety or property of the Foundation, our editors, or the public, and threats against another editor would fall well within the ambit of that clause. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't call it libel, but I am not a lawyer. When you factor in that the vandal knows who pm_shef is, knows who his father is, lives not to far from him, and has spent a great deal of effort to attack him repeatedly for sometime, I don't think that we should take the threat too lightly. I believe that the following is most definitely a threat, "Pm_shef has accused the many opponents of his one-sided edits, in this article alone, as <disruptive>, <attacking>, <accusing>, and <stonewalling>, and that they <relentlessly pushed>, and <intrude, vandalize and prevent work from getting done> . He will soon learn what all of those acts truly mean..." Given the context, it does seem to imply within Wikipedia. However, if the user does not believe he is doing these things and plans to step it up a notch, I believe that we should treat this a potential real threat outside of Wikipedia. If I had not been following the last few weeks actions of this sockpuppeteer, I probably wouldn't think much of this statement. Most of the vandalism is quite childish. But the volume, effort involved in creating the sockpuppets, and the fact that it is concentrated on one specific user is what concerns me. Who are we to say that the wiki-stalking won't turn into stalking? -- JamesTeterenko 05:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you see the deletion as unwise; however, I view the deletion as something of a non-issue, basically whether the content is accessible to non-admins or not. The content is not gone forever, and should any other admin feel it better that the content be restored, then by all means feel free. User:Pm_shelf stated that he did not want the content readily accessible to others as it was libelous, inflammatory, and quite potentially a rather serious legal issue, and I saw no reason not to comply with his wishes, as personal information, offensive vandalism, and other forms of attacks are deleted from the site regularly. As Kelly Martin stated and though I'm not entirely familiar with the history surrounding this user, I do not see a truly serious threat here (perhaps because I receive about ten such attacks in my inbox every day), but rather commonplace vandalism meant to attack another editor, thus why I did not believe a CheckUser to be necessary nor permitted by the privacy policy, but that decision is not mine to make but rather the Foundation's. Again, if anyone feels my deleting the history was unwise, then please restore it, and I apologize. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro (again)

An Admin named Splash has twice now removed a semi protect on Fidel Castro. This is a big mistake. There have been 3 figure edits on this page in the last 24 hours - most containing misinformation or vandalism. This is a very serious political issue that if badly handled has implications for a lot of people. If, thanks to us, enough users believe that Castro is dead then all sorts of things could go off. And given Wikipedia's well publicised poor record with Cuban issues [45] which is repeated in many journals discussing the failings of wikipedia, there can be no margin for error. Could an admin please take this seriously and semi-protect again asap.--Zleitzen 00:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Now is Wikipedia really likely to cause the end of Communism in Cuba? Is Wikipedia, in fact, anti-Communism, and the vandal has been wrong all this time? The article is linked to from the top of the Main Page of the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It hurts a bit when an article you work on gets lots of attention, but then if you didn't want the attention, the article should have been written on paper. There is always a margin for error, and semi-protection does not remove it. He's getting better already, says the BBC (a news site, note) so it'll be over soon. And people shouldn't be using an encyclopedia for their news, nor deciding when to instigate revolutions (which will not be edited). Having our headline articles do what the headline of the site proclaims is important. And furthermore, the origianl protection, by Jaranda specifically said it was "just in case", a use explicitly outside of policy; and it had been protected for more than 12 hours when I first lifted it. At least one other admin has also unprotected on the same grounds. -Splash - tk 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Communism in Cuba and everything to do with the media taking a look at our page and carrying the ironic headline "wikipedia announces Castro's death". This has appeared again and again over the last 24 hours - all by unregistered users. Castro's demise isn't a common and garden death and his page isn't your average news headline - it has massive implications. It doesn't hurt me, I can't stand the bloke or the present page.--Zleitzen 00:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've briefly semi-protected it to review the ongoing vandalism - it's now unprotected again (though it's move-protected). Zleitzen, WP:PROTECT is pretty clear on this subject: it has (in big letters at the top of the policy statement) the advice "Articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases." If vandalism continues when it's off the main page, a longer period of semi-protection may be appropriate, but not until then. Yes, the vandalism is annoying, but it's being reverted within seconds or a few minutes at the most. It's nothing we've not seen before on other controversial articles. -- ChrisO 00:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I've just got a bad feeling about this - knowing the history of Cuba, wikipedia and the media.--Zleitzen 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am keeping my eye on this article and it is going to be crazy for a while. Just look, watch and revert if needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the main longer term vandals and abusive users is is Demfourlife (talk · contribs · logs). Who has been banned for 24 hours but gets around any bans by utilising these IP addresses to continue disruptive behaviour.--Zleitzen 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user evading ban

Can't Nobody Step To Me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading a one week ban by using his sisters account (Chrisbrownwifey06 (talk · contribs)) to ask a question about his ban. I have warned him not to use another editors account, told him when his ban ends (in response to his question) and asked if he can contact the blocking administrator in future. I leave it up to the dealing adfmin to decide what the appropriate action is in this case. Viridae^Talk 00:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reset the block timer to the most recent edit from the alternate account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hit bull, win steak (talk • contribs)

Yeah. And gently warn the sis not to let her account be sockpuppeted (if it is indeed his sister and not simply a sock). JDoorjam Talk 07:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is his sister. Completely different style of editing. I have had dealings with both of them at times. Viridae^Talk 08:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Another blocked user evading a ban - 203.54.*.*

I really need somebody to look at whether I am being a bully or not as I have yet again been accused of for the umptieth time.[46] I have filed an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* and documented recent behaviour at the RfC's talk page. I have yet to find anybody who has supported this editor in their dealings with her. She has abused plenty of others and is active in a number of areas. Is the approach outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*#Statement of AYArktos' intended ongoing reponse to this editor reasonable? Note this editor's behaviour has been previously raised here and discussions are archived at Archive120#203.54.186.125 and Archive120#Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking - at the latter, in reponse to my previous request for review of my actions relating to this user, User Bishonen stated It would certainly be a shame if AYArktos should feel under any kind of pressure from this bizarrerie. The admin actions are fine, they're excellent.[47] --A Y Arktos\^talk 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-creation of Dancing Light, previously deleted by AfD

Dancing Light is a band whose article was deleted in an AfD some weeks ago. The deletion log is

• 17:36, 14 July 2006 KimvdLinde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Dancing Light" (recreation)
• 06:36, 14 July 2006 Jaranda (Talk | contribs) deleted "Dancing Light" (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing Light).

It's one of those "almost famous" band cases; they have some local notability, and one self-published CD, but failed WP:BAND and the AfD. (Everyone but the article creator voted for deletion.)

Today, the band article was re-created as a redirect to Kiki Carter, who's in the band and has some local notability as an environmentalist. What seems to have happened is that the creator of the original article lobbied a previously uninvolved admin to override the AfD. See User_talk:Crzrussian#Dancing Light and Elephants. Effectively, they found a back door way to get a non-notable band into Wikipedia.

Ordinarily, that would be cause for a speedy delete, but the article was re-created by an administrator, made a redirect, and then protected. See User_talk:Crzrussian#Redirect at Dancing Light and User_talk:Nagle#Dancing Light for the subsequent discussion. So now, neither a speedy delete, a revert, or a second AfD is possible.

What's the consensus on this? --John Nagle 01:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is why there is a need for a redirect. Anything having to do with the environmentalist would be a separate matter and can't be covered by the previous AfD. If all that exists is a redirect, then there really isn't a failed band article on Wikipedia. While the old content exists in history, only an admin can see it, as it's in the deleted history, so no Google Page Rank Boosting scheme will work this way. I.e. there isn't an article on the band and there is no advertising benefit to the band, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I agree that DRV should have been involved. Other than that, though, the band got deleted and is still not here. Geogre 02:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, especially since the Kiki Carter article doesn't stress the band involvement. --John Nagle 02:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Act of obvious vandalism on the "cat" page

Please see my note on the talk page. The vandalism is in the 3rd para. It appears in the article but not in the "edit this page." Just thought I'd let someone know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.86.202 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism was previously reverted; discussion taken to Talk:Cat. ~ PseudoSudo 01:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:WIN

WIN has been the scourge of Talk:Indo-Aryan migration for months now. He has never shown interest in editing the article, but instead tries to prove the theory wrong on the Talk page, calling us all racists and declaring on his Talk page that he will not stop until the article disappears. Check out this diff (where he challenges all to a debate on the facts of the theory itself, not the article) for a typical example of what he's doing.

Warnings from fellow editors and from admins that Talk pages are not general discussion forums, but are concerned with trying to better the article's reflection of scholarly opinion ("See WP:NOR") have had no effect. He was blocked before, after the block ended he has continued the exact same thing as before. Unfortunately, the admin who blocked him before is taking some time off, so I beg and plead another admin to help. We on Talk:Indo-Aryan migration don't mind at all editors who edit the article to reflect all viewpoints, and source their additions, but WIN doesn't do this and constantly having to deal with him is demotivating for us who would be productive.

support, this account has been all trouble and no useful contributions, should have been blocked long ago. dab (ᛏ) 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WIN contributes to both Talk:Indo-Aryan migration and Talk:Aryan invasion theory. He very very rarely makes edits to either article but fills the talk pages with lengthy diatribes. He shows no willingness to engage in construtive debate. When User:John Kenney archived the AIT talk page WIN reinserted his material on active page the grounds that this was censorship. [48] This has been going on for way too long. Paul B 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sleeper EddieSegoura sock

I have blocked PVeankman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a sleeper sockpuppet account of EddieSegoura, a.k.a. the exicornt vandal. I'm quite convinced, but review is always appropriate, especially for accounts like this that haven't -- quite -- risen to the level of vandalism. (Not that they've had any edits you'd call useful, either.) See User talk:PVeankman for the full evidence. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Template:AOL

Template:AOL was protected by User:Pilotguy despite being involved in the dispute[49], [50], [51]. As a participant in the dispute, Pilotguy should not have protected the article. If the view is so obvious and self evident Pilotguy should have been able to find another admin quite easily to protect the article. --Trödel 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? IMO, this is much of a do about nothing ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that Pilotguy should not have protected it. He is using admin powers in a dispute he is intimately invovled in. We have this page, the other page and [[WP:RFPP] where 1000+ other admins can do it for you. You know the rules and this particular one makes good sense. -Splash - tk 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it should be unprotected? —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure - the fight is pretty silly - that is why I haven't been involved - but I was offended by the protection. --Trödel 05:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: Most AOL users change IP addresses with each page they load. Warnings or messages left on this page will not be received by the intended user. Because of the way the AOL cache assigns IPs based on the pagename requested, warnings will never appear on the correct page.

It contradicts itself and makes it sound like we shouldn't even bother warning AOL ips. What a load of bull. --mboverload@ 00:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

3 Reverts and edit wars by Rjensen

I think this is the right place to report this, but please correct me & tell me where else if it's not. The problem is basically this:

User:Rjensen is basically trying to control everything that's in the article Confederate States of America and has some very strong points of view about it. The biggest dispute involves a section called "International diplomacy" about a consul from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha named Ernst Raven. It is a well known bit of Civil War trivia that Raven was the only European diplomat who was officially appointed to the Confederacy. This has appeared in major Civil War magazines like North and South and is in many books of civil war trivia.

This appointment is also well documented - Official records at the Library of Congress show that Raven's appointment papers were recorded by the Confederate government in Richmond. [52] It names "Ernst Raven, esq., who was appointed consul for the State of Texas by his highness the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and who applied to this government for an exequator on the 30th of July 1861." Most of the "International Diplomacy" section in the article is about the South's unofficial diplomatic relations with other countries. Since Raven was the only diplomat with official appointment status this is the appropriate place to put it.

The Ernst Raven bit has been in the Confederacy article for a long time. It was there the first time I looked it up months ago and the talk page then showed that it had been discussed several times and agreed to by many editors. Unfortunately every couple of weeks Rjensen comes through and deletes it without any discussion. I've restored it a couple times and so have others, but Rjensen keeps deleting it. He especially keeps deleting the Library of Congress link even though it is a clearly reputable source, and he usually replaces it with vague generic claims saying that unnamed "historians" have "proved" Raven's appointment was a myth. Then last week after I restored the link again he got into a huge revert war with some other editors and broke the 3 revert rule majorly:

• [53] - Revert #1 at 06:27, 17 July 2006
• [54] Revert #2 at 06:43, 17 July 2006
• [55] Revert #3 at 06:53, 17 July 2006
• [56] Revert #4 at 06:59, 17 July 2006
• [57] Revert #5 at 07:21, 17 July 2006 Rjensen
• [58] Revert #6 at 07:46, 17 July 2006

The guy he was revert warring with here also broke 3-revert rule but did it after Rjensen did, and he also seems to have tried unsuccessfully to have gotten Rjensen to discuss it. Then a third editor restored the compromise text and link about Raven, but Rjensen came back 2 days later and reverted again at [59].

I hate to have to ask for outside help on this but I don't have time to check this article enough to stop this guy, and he also seems to be a very hostile and uncooperative person. He refuses all compromises on Raven and will only settle for deleting him completely - which he does regardless of what all the other editors think. He also uses belligerent language in his descriptions of the changes and on the talk page. Several times he's accused all the editors who want to keep Raven in there of a "hoax" and he calls us "neoconfederates" as an attack.

Could somebody who is a moderator please come to this article and get this guy to stop his abusive behavior? It's ruining the historical quality of the article and making it a very hostile place for every contributor who isn't Rjensen, since he just reverts without establishing any consensus. Thanks for your help. - MightyMo

Comment, I'd like to note that Rjensen (talk · contribs) was also involved yesterday (July 31) in a (3++rr edit war) in the article Richard Nixon. --Ragib 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Rjensen to leave a response here. Tyrenius 23:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Please note that -- not knowing about this incident report -- I brought a 3RR complaint against Rjensen for edit warring in Henry Ford.[60]--Mantanmoreland 23:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen replies. It's a question of repeated efforts to insert original research that makes an argument that no scholar accepts. Not a single reference book on the Civil War or the Confederacy accepts this strange claim and the major book on Confederate consuls explictly says the claim is false.[61] I refer to The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War

By Eugene H Berwanger (University Press of Kentucky 1994) p 111. So I keep rejecting this nonsense. MightMo has been unable to find a single reliable source for his novel interpretation--no books, no articles, no websites, zip. All he has is an original document that says nothing whatever about recognition. As for the edit war, I was the one who issue a RFC call to help solve the mess. And yes, one of my missions is to keep historical hoaxes out of Wiki by insisting on reliable sources. Rjensen 00:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, in Henry Ford you resisted adding article source citations, and did so only when prodded three times by User:Jayjg. You also posted inflammatory comments such as this one:[62]--Mantanmoreland 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not involved in any of the above conflicts, I have had to report user for 3RR violation myself (for repeated removal of POV tags during an edit war user was conducting with another user), and any causal glance at the current and archive American Civil War talk pages will show numerous incidents of this nature. User consistently finds faults with each other user, and I can remember the day he conceded a point (one incident). He always knows best, repeatedly wields real-world credentials as sole authority, and often casually uses perjoratives like "hoax" and "vandalism" in order to short circuit discussion on issues of consequence. He finds no other users for building consensus; he merely reverts up to the daily maximum for each user he wars against. Finally, he taunts and disparages other users, then when this is pointed out, warns other users to expect more, and be more tolerant of his abuse. A clear pattern of behavior can be seen from his user talk archives. While I respect his basic scholarship, I often find myself at odds with his frequent rude and unkind behaviors. As a matter of fact, he's engaged in a potential 3RR violation on the ACW main page at this exact moment (see ACW History and talk for details). BusterD 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As with BusterD, I have not been a part of the revert wars, as I tend to focus my attention on adding new biographies of generals and certain battles, and rarely edit the larger context articles. However, I will comment that this difference in opinions on the CSA article has long ceased to be civil, and frankly, does not reflect well on Wikipedia. Some sort of cooling off period is needed, and perhaps an impartial group should look into both sides of the controversy and report through the MilitaryHistory Project team their recommendations. Honest disagreements will always occur - it's the resulting attitude wars that are not acceptable. Scott Mingus 03:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do this

Unblock me and investigate Jayjg‘s actions. See User talk:Bergerons. Thanks. --Bergerons2 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bergerons' request for unblock has already been declined. However, this looks like a straightforward case for blocking Bergerons2 (talk • contribs • block log)... Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'd be so kind as to repeat the message the next time you make another account while blocked, we'd appreciate it. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Forget it.

Forget_it. (talk · contribs · count)

Possible sockpuppet of User:Username entered already in use., who in turn is a possible sockpuppet of User:Irgendwer. Since Irgendwer got a 24-hour NPA block (arising from disputes at Talk:Libertarianism and User talk:Irgendwer), several new accounts have cropped up, and all of them have picked up the slack where Irgendwer left off. User:Username entered already in use. seems to have gotten an unrelated username block, after which point User:Forget it. showed up. I gave User:Forget it. the full series of {{npa}} warnings ("troll" is the favorite word of all of these users), after which point he posted this [63] to my talk page (npa4). As far as I can tell, I've been nothing but civil; if nothing else, shouldn't the lower templates have preceded npa4? Comments? Input? Intervention? Anything is welcome. Thanks in advance for your time. Luna Santin 07:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Note "irgendwer" is German for "anybody"; sounds like same sock name pattern. Phr (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't these all fairly obvious username blocks anyway? Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser case is open on all of these. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess is the RFCU will be rejected because the socking is too obvious; but whatever. You might mention the German name translation, which adds to the obviousness. I don't know if any RFCU's are even being answered these days though. Phr (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is being checked. I will go ahead and block the main account and the socks. I am not going to block bbsnv as that one is iffy. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Randy Couture

Several users (sockpuppets?) have added in what I feel is a blatantly sarcastic comment to the page Randy Couture intended to mock him. After my first revert the editor that originally made the addition claimed on my talk page that the edit was serious and is not vandalism, and after that an anon re-added the info, which I reverted again and made a note on the talk page about discussing the addition. It was promptly re-added and I don't want to break the 3 revert rule even though I feel this is blatant vandalism, they contest that it is legitimate so if anyone could take a look at it and take the appropriate action I would be grateful. See Talk:Randy Couture. VegaDark 08:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to your vesion until this user can source his claim. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Thousandsons

Thousandsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received an indef. block plus talkpage protection, so he is unable to request an unblock. The block seem highly dubious, especially without the intervention of ArbCom and/or Jimbo Wales. From his contributions, he simply committed petty vandalism. A block such as this shouldn't be enforce by one individual admin without consensus. P.S. My userpage and his userpage is a little bit similar, but I am NOT his sockpuppet. A groundless, privacy-invading checkuser was previously filed and proved my innocence. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 08:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I will look into it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User posted personal details of other people, threatened to "fuck up all ya pages and shyt," vandalized user pages, and personally threatened admins who intervened to prevent vandalism. He's staying blocked, and the page is staying protected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought talkpage and userpage do not follow wikipedia regulations.--Bonafide.hustla 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear this user should not be unblocked, he has made threats acted inappropriatley and childishly. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No that's incorrect - "# Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. # In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page

Do you really think userpages should be a safe haven for comments such as

"Oh just fuck you! when I get unblocked your ganna see some shyt, cuz I'm commin' foe you, and don't lye this is cuz I'm black, I'd get the police involved if I wasn't a nigger, you better unblock me now If you whant me ta stop being so black, I'm ganna give ya a day ta think about weather or not ya wanna deal wit me, and believe you me homie I know all bout harassment and I ain't ganna stop on this mutha fuckin syte, if i'm not unblocked at 3:00 I'm ganna hack your shyt, harras you and basicly just fuck you around, so think about it ok NiggeR?"

--Charlesknight 10:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Making threats charles is just going to get you blocked. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then I urge you to take a look at User:Jiang's userpage and talkpage. It seems to be a personal attack (albeit against a group).--Bonafide.hustla 12:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What, precisely, are you hoping to accomplish here? The guy has vandalized, the guy has made threats, the guy is NOT here to do the encyclopedia any good whatsoever: NOBODY is going to unblock him, it's clear, but more to the point, why would you think it's a good idea to do so? No phony comparatives with other cases or users, please: what is it about THIS guy -- User:Thousandsons -- that exempts him from the ordinary expected standards of behavior? --Calton | Talk 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if the whole point of this report is to be one more devious round in the endless attempt to get User:Jiang to remove an image from his user page, as featured on AN/I and elsewhere, ad infinitum. Frankly, this looks like borderline WP:POINT to me, and User:Bonafide.hustla is still edit-warring all over the place with User:RevolverOcelotX over Taiwain China Taiwan China Taiwan, instead of going through the dispute resolution process as advised. Time to community-ban both of them? --ajn (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither does Bonafide.hustla have clean hands regarding "groundless, privacy-invading checkuser" requests. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

WP:AIV has a bit of a backlog. Viridae^Talk 09:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Move request at Current events in Hong Kong and Macao

Not sure whether this is the appropriate place for this request, but would some admin please take a look at the move request currently at Talk:Current events in Hong Kong and Macao#Requested move as soon as possible? The RM has been open for seven days and there is a pretty strong consensus there in favour of the move from Current events in Hong Kong and Macao to Current events in Hong Kong. Closing this RM one way or the other is rather urgent because it also affects how this current event page is to be archived and some of the editors there tend to take action without first getting consensus (see for instance move log). --Pkchan 10:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My pet stalker is back

Someone is trawling my contribs and reverting my edits, calling them vandalism: [64] & [65]. I'm catching them pretty quickly (cause I have a lot of articles on my watchlist), but it's becoming a waste of time. Any way of stopping them? The JPS^{talk to me} 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This might help: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=88.111.194.158 since that IP made the "what a total twat" vandalism a bit earlier, and then repeated it when they were following you around. Write the ISP, or just nuke the stalker accounts on sight. Syrthiss 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I really have to warn you that stalkers make lousy pets. They have a terrible time with separation anxiety and can get very destructive if you don't pay them enough attention. Geogre 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, but someone had to say it.)

An editor/vandal is impersonating Jimbo Wales and asking for user passwords

I need to report a user that is asking for other editor's account passwords, saying that he is "Jimmy Wales." The user is: User:Banner Making Competiton and he left a message on my user discussion page asking for my password. Cla68 13:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by FireFox (Liberatore, 2006). 14:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:ElevatedStork and his puppets

Hey, I recently came across the case of User:ElevatedStork and his sockpuppets, User:Rater and User:Rarte. The m.o. of this user seems to be adding inappropriate names for places in various countries in the Balkans. For example, adding the names in Greek to Macedonians (ethnic group) and to Bulgars. From a glance at the contributions, it looks like a troll account — although there are some useful contributions. I'm just leaving a note here to make sure I'm not over-doing it. I'll block User:Rarte anyway, but would be interested to hear what people thing should be done with the master account. - FrancisTyers · 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a troll. His "contributions" are mainly related to Balkan issues and he seems to lack a clear POV like nationalist editors — he adds Greek and Turkish names where they have nothing to do, makes Macedonian POV edits on Macedonian/Bulgarian revlutionaries articles, reverts and provides zero or insufficient sourcing. Not to mention the two sockpuppets, which are evident.

The sockpuppet accounts should be indef blocked in my opinion, and although the main account does have some minor contributions that are not trollish, I'm leaning towards it being indef blocked too. He's unlikely to get away with a short block for these socks, and it's even more unlikely that he'll return and use that same account, so it's not much of a difference anyway. Todor→Bozhinov 14:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Todor. He cannot continue with his current modus operandi.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Outcome: User blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Bonaparte. - FrancisTyers · 15:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of M.deSousa

I am quite sure that all of the following are all sockpuppets of banned user M.deSousa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 82.48.233.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.52.183.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.54.226.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.54.227.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.58.216.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.58.216.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

With edits to the following pages:

• Duke of Braganza
• Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza
• Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza
• Hilda Toledano (protected as of this posting)
• Prince of Beira

Manuel de Sousa is infamous in the world of royalty for being a troll for the false pretenders to the Portuguese royal house. He continues to vandalise the pages listed above. Charles 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Gadugi

This user (Jeff Merkey) is running for the election, but was indefinitely blocked in the past (I believe for legal threats). Would it be reasonable to unblock? User says, "I'll let the community decide if it should be lifted" — I don't see a problem in this — I don't think the user is anymore a threat. Opinions? - FrancisTyers · 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Has the legal action he's threatened been concluded one way or the other? If not, he should stay blocked. --Carnildo 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

His comments from meta are copied below:

He's running for board election, I sincerely doubt that he is proposing legal action against Wikipedia. - FrancisTyers · 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me there are people at the Foundation who can unblock him if they want to. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would they need to? If he isn't a threat, why is he still blocked? - FrancisTyers · 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to User:BradPatrick, the answer is "No" to the question "Does Jeff Merkey has any outstanding legal actions against the foundation?" - FrancisTyers · 19:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How about against other users? --Carnildo 20:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting selectively from his lengthy reply,

"...I do not hold Wikipedia, Mr. Wales, or anyone on Wikipedia responsible for what happened..."

- FrancisTyers · 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Were there concerns other than the legal issues leading to the block? If not, I think we can probably lift it, as it seems to me that he has no intentions of any legal action against anyone in the project (if he ever did). Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The block was made as follows:

18:09, 15 October 2005, Fvw (Talk) blocked Gadugi (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Jeff Merkey (Personal attacks, legal threats, harassment, disruption, ...))

He's apologised for all of these and made it clear that there are no legal issues outstanding. - FrancisTyers · 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that User:Sint Holo, one of his more recent incarnations, was blocked by Jimbo Wales himself, and this user has a long history of sockpuppetry and abusive behaviour (which included him posting forged IRC logs on his now-removed web site, merkeylaw.com, purportedly showing me trying to solicit indecent photographs from his underaged daughter - ironic considering my sexuality) I would strongly oppose any unblocking of this user, and suggest his candidacy for the Board is removed by one of the officials. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon hearing the remainder of the evidence I would tend to agree. I'll ask him to negotiate direct with Jimbo. - FrancisTyers · 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In my completely useless opinion, indefinitely blocked or banned users have zero right to run in this election, especially one as abusive and disruptive as Merkey. Hollow assurances aside, can anyone say for sure this is not some play at Wikimedia-wide disruption? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are 3 election officials, and the rules say that accepted candidates will have confirmed placed next to their name, which no one had last time I checked. The Foundation appointed the election officials and I'd say its there call whether to accept Mr. Merkey's candidacy or not. Not a task I envy them of. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Mais oui!

User:Mais oui! removed a CFM nomination which I made, to upmerge the subcategories of Category:British female MPs, and replaced it with a CFD for removal of Category:British female MPs.

This is the CFM discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_August_2#Category:British_female_MPs_2

Here is the CFM before Mais oui's intervention ... and this is it afterwards.

I would usually have no problem with User:Mais oui! making a CFD for any category, but replacing an existing discussion is destructive.

I mark this as vandalism, because this has happend before. --BrownHairedGirl 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous occurrence: IncidentArchive122#Removing etc Mais Oui objecting to removal of Mais Oui's attempt to add extraneous categories to a CFM.

In his case, the nomination for deletion of Category:British female MPs does not appear to beb in good faith, because User:mais oui! not only created the subcats of that category, but also populated them. This appears to be some sort of revenge nomination.

User:Mais oui! has been the subject of numerous other complaints here. --BrownHairedGirl 17:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Argh, this is getting painfully confusing now. We now have two very similar but subtly different CFD's, both to do with one set of subcategories of categories of UK House of Commons articles which are halfway through a general reorganisation on a different page.

Can we just stop these CFD's now, sort it all out (in one go, in one place) on the Category_talk:British_MPs page, and then CFD all the various extraneous subcats in one go afterwards? I think this will give us the most consistent structure. Aquilina 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Aquilina, I'm not surprised it's confusing: I think that as the intention. That would be ideal, but Mais oui does not want to paricipate in discussions there :( However, Syrthiss has suggested merging the CFD and the CFM, and I have agreed to that to try to bring an end to this(see my talk page). --BrownHairedGirl 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Gene Nygaard pages moves

Hi, this user is moving pages with diacritics to versions without them only because there was no redirect from the unaccented version (e.g.). He refuses to make simple redirects because it does not teach the involved editors to make redirects. Three users protested his actions, but he is still insisting on his own way. See related talk section. I have no time or will to babysit him and revert the moves. Please do something about it. Thank you. Renata 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Nygaard seems to be on the edge (or beyond) of WP:POINT, but well-intentioned. Perhaps if a few admins weighed in we could channel his desire to help more effectively. Martinp 01:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ian Mannus

currently being vandalised by and IP: User:81.156.60.67.--Isotope23 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Disregard... an admin has already addressed this issue.--Isotope23 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord - time for a permanent ban?

Look at this: [66] It seems that Beckjord (talk · contribs) has declared a "Wiki-War," and given his past disregard of Wikipedia rules, including dozens of evasions of his current 1-year Arbcom ban, I think a permanent ban is in order here. (Remember how Jimbo banned Wik?) Editor88 18:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the idea of on-wiki consequences for off-wiki actions, or vice versa. I'm content to let him rant against any of us on his own websites, it's much preferable to him bringing his ranting here. Friday (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As that site is off wiki i dont think he can be banned for it, and also some text on that page cant be denied. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If he wants to whine, let him. He's not actually inciting any action against the site at the moment. --InShaneee 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe sometimes off-wiki actions can and should have on-wiki consequences... but I don't think Beckjord's Wikifools page there crosses the line. It's not particularly harassing (at least I don't feel harassed by it) and we already saw, during the course of the events that led up to his ArbCom sanctions, that Beckjord doesn't actually seem to have the power to call up legions of minions and bend Wikipedia to his will. BUNCH OF GRAPES 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why we're all worrying, he's apparently attacking "Wicipedia", not us. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord tried previously to send his legions to Wikipedia...but it lasted a day, maybe two...I wouldn't worry about it.--MONGO 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Myalysk (talk · contribs)

Were to even begin with this fella. Well let's start with the most recent AfD for Anime Warriors!, an article about a fanfic that Myalysk (talk · contribs) was working on. Myalysk forged several signatures on the AfD[67] and had been warned by InShaneee (talk · contribs)[68]. Myalysk also removed the AfD notice from the top of Anime Warriors![69] and was warned by Fan-1967 (talk · contribs)[70]. In protest Myalysk has now C&Ped the AfD notice from Anime Warriors! to Gilmore Girls[71] and once again forged another message to the Anime Warriors! AfD page.[72]

This, however, is just part of a pattern of removing AfD notices from articles up for AfD. Myalysk was given three warnings from removing the AfD notice from Zatch Bell! Saga Event List [73][74][75], another article that he created, and one warning from removing the AfD notice Hyde and Eido [76]. All of these warnings have been issued within the last month. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• He's been warned enough. I've blocked him for a week; perhaps he'll get the message. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We may have a possible ban evasion. This recent comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Warriors! by a brand new account has a signature style very similar to what Myalysk used before. Though it's probably too early to tell for sure. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:207.38.252.33

This anon IP has been doing nothing but adding an external link to his own website in the article body of Kiev. Even though he has been warned with spam tags, as well as had his additions reverted for several months now, he continues. CRCulver 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Relatively harmless to this point; this editor was never warned before today and has stopped (for now) since the final warning. In the future, please feel free to take these to WP:AIV. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, holy shit!!! This user noted that previous links were left up, and I checked for pbase.com (a picture host) using linksearch and found 739 of them! This will take a while and some help would be appreciated :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I'd wager that a lot of those have been added to articles by people other than the author/photographer. PBase is a photo community site with many many thousands of users, and many millions of photos hosted for those members. I generally don't go for gallery links on articles, but a large number of editors do think they're useful... So I don't think a cull of all pbase galleries is an anyway useful, especially based on one bad apple just spamming a link to their sub-site! (I'm http://www.pbase.com/wangi - but have never added any links :)) Thanks/wangi 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not based on that apple, but on WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and primarily #s 1 (prose), 4 (self-promotion) and 9 (networking sites). I was under the impression that WP:NOT a picturebook and that image hosts were essentially networking sites. Is that wrong? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you stop with the removals while I put together a reply - there's no rush here after all! ;) /wangi 21:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Already stopped—need to run out a while anyway. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion to User talk:RadioKirk#PBase galleries. Thanks/wangi 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Creator keeps removing deletion templates from Navaneetham

I spotted this on recent changes, decided it was mostly advertising and placed a Proposed Deletion template on it, citing "Advertising" as the reson. The creator removed the template, along with a lot of material and as the result was a stub that was mostly advertising, I placed a Speedy Deletion template on it, which was removed. I request an administrator take a look at it; I don't want to get into an edit war over the template. --Jumbo 23:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I deleted this article. Two separate editors, SuperJumbo (talk • contribs) and Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs), marked this for deletion. I agree, and I deleted the article accordingly. Thanks. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jumbo 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman

Primary elections are being held next Tuesday (Aug 8). The Joe Lieberman article is getting repeatedly slammed by anon vandalism. Two editors are having problems, but have entered mediation, so that's not as big of a problem, but the anon vandalism is hard to keep up with. Could use some admin help on dealing with repeat anon vandals between now and the election on Tuesday. Sandy 00:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Try asking for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Phr (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Sandy 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Block User:Fire*ball

Fire*ball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have been created for the sole purpose of vandalism. I've reverted all pages modified so far by the this user and requested deletion of the vandal image uploaded. A warning was placed on the Talk Page per Wikipedia's vandalism guideline. Monitoring and/or blocking suggested. See User talk:Fire*ball CPAScott 01:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but this is more of an WP:AIV thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Eyre articles, sockpuppets, and hoaxes(?)

I may have only hit the tip of this beast. In late June I posted an AfD on a series of articles that looked like either hoaxes, geneological research, or a vanity of latter. I was invited to comment on an RfC on Hipocrite's overaggressive counter-activity to content and editors related to the Eyre material. It looks at first glance like the biting of a newbie. But no, there's some crud going down. An RFCU was opened, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/History21, which came back as positive on History21 (talk · contribs), Joan53 (talk · contribs), and Lilyana (talk · contribs). The socks were used to attempt to votestack my AfD proposal. Joan53 tried to run for adminship. I'd like to open some discussion to administrators out of this.

First

First, could someone please block the socks used for AfD stacking and the otherwise bad usage of alternate accounts?

Second

Second, this goes.... deep?! Through the last year or so, there's been a string of articles created with what seems to have made some rather fantastic claims reguarding this family. Evidence for them is rather limited, yet articles continue to be made with claims that likely lead to hoax beliefs by many. Here's a short list:

• Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States (AfD)
• George Eyre, Jehu Eyre, Jehu Eyre, Jr., Anne Eyre Heller, Franklin Pierce Heller, Leroy Heller (AfD
• Knowlton_Estate (AfD

The woodwork in the recent AfDs led me to

• Eyre Empire (VfD, where RickK described the creator as a vandal)
• Truelove Eyre (VfD), rewritten
• Image:Hellerwestwing.jpeg (uploaded by Lilyana, looks interesting by name)

• AN/I on A_multitude_of_hoaxes
  • Category:Eyre family

Grange Estate in an older state, added by an anon. Since cleaned up. I get the feeling I'm missing several articles, as this stuff goes back to early 2005. Why is there such a push to put such elaborate claims (ex. people "comming to power" in the dynasty, which isn't a dynasty).

Can there be a little sock searching through the history of some of the deleted articles to root out any other socks, esspecially the Eyre Empire one. Please note, I'm not claiming full hoaxiness of the possiblity of a shipwrite in early-US history nor a European family that may have held this name, but this material has been far too outlandish for what it should be.

And a third

As for what to make of History21, I'm at a loss. I had the feeling in the AfDs I saw, something is amiss, and its over a year old. The Joan53 sock, in late March 2005, knew how VfD worked. History21 talks to the socks. If this is, say, the same household editing, their interests and editing patterns are awfully similar to be feigning full disassociation with eachother. Given that they're socks, this diff] is rather interesting. History21 would then be admitting hoaxes (that his/her sock has created). Something is definatly wrong, its been around for awhile, and I feel I haven't seen the bottom of it yet.

---

The above huge chunk of stuff, signed by me, Kevin_b_er 02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Lilyana and JoanB indefinitely. If History21 wants to edit, "he" needs to edit gingerly. All good faith has been squandered. Especially since he has been proven to be the sockpuppet who has been posting abusive messages on my Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hipocrite, where he says "I AM NOT A SOCK", he doesn't use the family argument, rather that a single IP address is shared by 5 schools and several libraries. Either that's a proxy setup like I've never heard of before or he really has no idea how IP addresses work. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pristine Clarity is a sock puppet of banned user Zen master

Pristine Clarity (talk · contribs · count) is quite clearly a sockpuppet of ArbCom banned user Zen-master (talk · contribs · count), who had recently used the sockpuppet Hollow are the Ori (talk · contribs · count) to avoid the ban. Foremost evidence includes a lack of denial of being a sockpuppet here and raising the same criticisms as Zen master/Hollow are the Ori regarding misleading "language", but also note that "pristine clarity" is synonymous with "Zen". Also request that ban on Zen master be reset. --Rikurzhen 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

update - further disruption diff

• I agree with these statements.--Nectar 03:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it's certainly Zen-master. I have indefinitely blocked the account. This is the second time he has violated his one-year ban. Should his year be restarted? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that according to WP:BAN, any ban (no matter by who) should be reset as soon as evasion is detected. Editor88 03:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Penalty_for_evasion --Rikurzhen 04:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman again

Joe Lieberman was granted semi-protection, but the vandalism is back under a newly-registered account. Sandy 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So sorry - false alarm. It was removal of vandalism that got left behind in the pre-protection spree. Sandy 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for eyeballs

And now you know how Aaron edits for four or five days straight.

Things are getting a bit hot at Wikipedia talk:Schools, and JJay (talk • contribs) is, in my opinion, well over the line with regards to civility. But since I'm involved, I'd like a second opinion. I did apply WP:RPA to two of his comments, but his response is to remove personal attack when I say "tiger?" If I weren't involved he'd already be pushing up on a short block for disruption, but I may be smoking crack again, so can I get someone calm to look it over? - brenneman ^{L} 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to see how this qualifies as a personal attack, despite being deleted as one it, it seems more like censorship of a rational argument. As for this, it seems a bit of a stretch too, but at least it's actually "personal", if only in the grammatical sense. Pete.Hurd 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Tiger" could be seen as reference to (WP:TIGER). I concur with Pete about the censorship-like edit. Phr (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think Aaron Brenneman (talk • contribs) is smoking crack again. However, why does he believe it's ok to slam participants in a policy discussion by linking to their "monolithic" edits and mocking their "fervor" [77], while at the same time censoring a response that includes a link to one of his edits as a "personal attack". I made no personal attacks and while his eagerness for handing out blocks is obvious, his approach to the discussion is not exactly winning accolades. --JJay 03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be character assassinating everybody over there, with a few exceptions. I'm sorry I revived that mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Friends, Romans, lend me your ...eyeballs? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

205.188.116.201 (talk · contribs) ??

Why is it blocked? is there a reason? Why target just this IP? Why repeatedly remove an unblock template? Why leave this one indef block sitting all alone? some reason? any reason?--152.163.100.65 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, only reason it's even a big deal is because that's the IP AOL gives to AOL editors who try and use this page, it's forced me to jump from the 205 to 152 range a number of times in order to bring important matters to this page--152.163.100.65 03:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There was several-day-old indefinite block on a single AOL IP -- I lifted it. As far as I know, we're not supposed to do that. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kaisuan move vandalism

See Special:Contributions/Kaisuan - some type of block is warranted - moving the same page twice and then to a page that matches the username - and that is the users second edit - he/she knows what he/she is doing --Trödel 03:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)