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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Blocks for meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration § Cabalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm submitting to my fellows a report regarding a group of editors acting as meatpuppets of the banned editor Hkelkar. The core evidence for this is e-mails exchanged between these individuals — Hkelkar is intimately involved in discussing Wikipedia issues and affairs, offering advice and instructions to the others. There is no doubt that these editors are colluding with Hkelkar and editing for his purposes as proxies. The group was targeting Dbachmann (whom they consider to be anti-Hindu) and maligning other editors such as Bhadani. However, I will not display the contents of the e-mails here unless the community deems it necessary.

• Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy and Sbhushan have been blocked indefinitely for meatpuppetry and scheming with Hkelkar. Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy have been regularly violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for some time, while strenously defending a pro-Hkelkar point of view on Wikipedia articles. They has also behaved disruptively against editors they considers to be biased against Hinduism and India. Complaints about Bakasuprman's behavior have been lodged both on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan.

• Scheibenzahl has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Anupamsr, who in turn has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and participating in scheming with Hkelkar, Bakasuprman and Sbhushan. He has used his sockpuppet to participate in various WP:AFD debates and editing issues on the same range of articles as Bakasuprman and Sbhushan.

I know that this is a complicated issue, so I ask for my fellows to review my decisions. I will respect any criticism offered and any consensus decision to undo or modify the blocks as deemed appropriate. However, I would like to emphasize that permitting these editors to continue to edit Wikipedia defies the arbitration committee and the community's decision to ban Hkelkar. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that CheckUser confirms that Scheibenzahl and Anupamsr are the same person. Dmcdevit·t 06:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, 3 more socks of Hkelkar were found and blocked. One of them was User:ThLinGan. ThLinGan was involved in an edit war with User:Faraz. Note how both Bakasuprman [1] and Hkelkar together try and get the user blocked under 3RR by goading him. Calling someones edits ISIcruft is like saying OSAMAcruft in India. Baka knows this and has been warned hundreds of times not to do this. I have been suspecting these users of tag-team editing for a long time. I was waiting for my exams to get over before investigating their edits for a possible ArbCom case. If there is email evidence supporting Rama's claims, then I fully endorse the blocks. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Rama's actions, assuming the behind-scenes evidence is as compelling as he says. Looks like a pretty good call to me. There's no doubt Bakasuprman and Sbhushan have been disruptive elements for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Rama Arrow's actions. I helped him compile some of the email evidence and have seen much of it. I had suspected their meetings with Hkelkar for some time now ever ever since their behavious became more uncivil. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a strong enough evidence against User:Bakasuprman to warrant such a massive ban. I propose to unblock him on the condition to temporarily restrict his participation solely to self-defense. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman was one of the most vocal Hkelkar supporters and I support his ban. It had reached the point where is Bakasuprman said something wasn't PoV or someone wasn't a Hkelkar sockpuppet, then you could immediately assume that it was PoV and they were a sockpuppet of Hkelkar. – Steel 12:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Full endorsement of Rama's actions. Another Indian admin has previously provided me also with evidence of a well organized recruition campaign in Hindu radical websites, made by what appears to be one of the three blocked editors. On my account, I have long noted the concerted and disruptive behaviour of the editors in question; I must also add that I've long suspected of a direct link between Bakasuprman and his socks, at least since his passionate defence defence of Hkelkar's sock User:Rumpelstiltskin223 after its indef blocking.--Aldux 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note I have reset Scheibenzahl's block to 2 weeks (the user:Anupamsr account has been indef'd, as he doesn't want to use that one) - apart from his explanations and confession, from the e-mail evidence I know that he wasn't a malicious member of the group, and it is certainly possible that he was an accidental or unwilling member - the main schemers were Bakasuprman, Sbhushan and D-Boy. But Scheibenzhal must be blocked for a period for manipulating WP:SOCK and potentially acting as a meatpuppet. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Scheibenzahl - Anupam had changed his identity for legitimate purposes. As a number of respectable admins have vouched for his integrity, I can also safely assert that he was not a willing member of the email ring. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not comment on the specific users who were affected by this action, but I support in general terms talking very strong action to stop the organized activity by sock- and meat-puppets that is without question taking place. I have seen some of the evidence on public social networking web sites of active recruitment efforts for these things, and call upon all editors to reject these manipulations with one voice. At present the identification of these puppets is limited by the lack of any simple single place to post suspect activity reports. Would it be possible to have a "Sock Central" page where reports of all current activity specifically related to the Hinduism and India projects can be consolidated? Currently there are too many individual tracking systems going on. Buddhipriya 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the utility of such a page if it's devoted to sock detection. "Pages under potential attack" might be a better focus. That said, I think it's important to realize that such recruiting activity and the willing supply of volunteers will not stop. The basic reason has to do with the difference between verifiability and "truth". The recruiting efforts will complain that "the truth is under attack", and volunteers will step up -- be it noted, in good faith. The true socks will operate in the confusion sowed by these newbies' well-meaning efforts. (A "counter-offensive", on those public recruiting web-sites -- explaining only the verifiablity/truth difference and emphasizing NPOV -- might not be a bad idea too.) rudra 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rudra, I think your idea of a "Pages under potential attack" is very good, sort of a community watchlist which all of us can monitor for current sock activity. I have noticed that as we pay more attention in one area, other pages begin to have problems, and some of the pages have very few editors who watch them regularly. Do other editors agree? If so, where could such a page be set up? Buddhipriya 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In think Bakasuprman should be unblocked at least for the purposes of defending himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible for Bakasuprman to defend himself by posting an unblock template on his user-talk page. If he provides a convincing argument, we may weaken his block accordingly. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I have decided to shorten the blocks of Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy to 6 months. This is because an indefinite block is a community ban, which must be decided in a distinct discussion at WP:CN. Given that Hkelkar himself was not indefinitely blocked until he violated his ArbCom-ruled block 5-6 times, it is hardly fair to ban these two users. Also, Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy have made a number of valuable contributions, which must be respected. However, I don't think this applies for Sbhushan - upon arriving on Wikipedia, he immediately entered into a dispute with Dbachmann and wrote up a baseless ArbCom case. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Bakasuprman should be given an opportunity to defend himself, especially regarding the emails he is accused of being a part of. Blocking him, bundling him with others and judging him is not democratic. The other accusations on him can be balanced by good deeds he has done.Dineshkannambadi 02:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Also, 6 month ban is a long time. Please consider reducing it.Dineshkannambadi 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing by proxy for a banned user is extremely serious - I am strongly opposed to reducing his block now, or unblocking him for "defense" - anything he has to say, he can say on his user talk page or in an unblock request. It was not his meatpuppetry alone that caused his 6-month block - it was also his history of edit-warring, confrontational behavior, POV-pushing, persistent incivility and personal attacks. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. However I am afraid a 6 month ban could be as good as a permanent ban. Many users may not have the interest to come back and make useful contributions, while our goal is to ensure just the opposite. IMO a gradual application of the ban is better.Dineshkannambadi 03:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While I support Rama's actions on preventing meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry, I strongly believe the 6 month block on User:Bakasuprman is little too harsh. I for one, once (during Hkelkar's RFArb) had written about Baka's contentious editing and POV pushing. But certainly not in the recent past. His constructive contributions (with all those DYKs and collaborations) are much significant than the negative side of it. I do not certainly endorse any of his confrontational behavior or personal attacks. But for all these gross incivility, 6 month ban is just too harsh, especially when it is not of community consensus or of an ArbCom decision. I request to re-consider the block on Bakasupraman. As Dinesh suggested above, a gradual application of blocks is more appropriate for users who have significant constructive contributions for a very long time. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 03:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation is the same as what I would offer all users: uphold the harsh block, with the understanding that this can and should be reduced, perhaps to the point of an immediate unblock, upon admission of and repentance for the disputed behavior. The way we fail time and time again is by sending serious and committed, if problematic, editors away without any attempt to seek a mutual understanding. Who can be surprised when they return to sockpuppet? We should not compromise our principles, but reframe punitive measures, wherever possible, as demands to acknowledge and abide by these principles. If they don't do it, they will remain blocked - there is no point unblocking them at any time, six months, a year, etc. - if the do, there is no point keeping them blocked for any substantial amount of time.

Per Jayjg, I suggest that Bakasuprman be unblocked for the sole purpose of appearing on this noticeboard with his dignity intact, with the understanding that any other edits will lead to a ban, and that the community both expects and demands that he address the disputed behavior.

Bakasuprman, if these allegations are true, I invite you to appear here and confess. Repentance and petitions for amnesty are very rare in this ego-driven space. Many comments to this thread acknowledge a history of productive edits alongside some contentious ones, and, apart from this recent allegation, a pattern of improvement. You've been blocked for proxying for a banned user, not for your contribution history per se, and I would be very surprised if an admission of wrongdoing and an appeal for leniency - that is, to plead guilty (if you are, indeed, guilty) and throw yourself upon the mercy of the court - were met with anything other than compassion.

If they are not true, then contest them.Proabivouac 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Though I have seldom edited any of the 'Hindu' articles, I've followed both Baka and dab and their respective 'continuums' since the last several months. I am fully aware of the history of incivility and tendentious editing that has gone into those articles. I have had my run ins with both baka and dab. At the same time, I've worked in tandem with both of them on some other articles.
• As a dispassionate editor, the way I see it, Baka's problems have only been with a section of users involved in editing the 'Hindu' articles. Baka has certainly been incivil with many of them, but then, it is equally true that many of them have only been trolls and sockpuppets themselves or in other cases(as in the case of dab) been equally incivil with him. For example, while Baka's 'dabcruft' snap was unwarranted, so was dab's repeated insinuations of 'Hindutva trolls'. Everyone involved just gave as good as they got. A 'dabcruft' for example, and such other instances of incivility, has almost always been preceded by or met with an equally disruptive 'Hindu cabal' insinuation.
• I've seen Rama's Arrow, for example, pull up Baka for the 'dabcruft' thing while I didnt see him say a word to dab even as he admitted to Baka's himself that dab had been incivil too. Thats hardly befitting a 'no nonsense-fair-to-a-fault admin'. And btw, lest somebody misinterpret me, let me clarify that when I speak of Baka and dab.. I mean their entire 'continuums'... not just Baka and dab.
• Even in the recent Hindutva propaganda AfD all the "keep" votes were just about ad hominem 'hindutva cabal' banter. As Daniel was to later note, none of them even deemed it necessary or worse, even worth their time, to counter the very valid oppositions of the "delete" voters(Baka included). And once it got deleted, we saw a rudra and a Fowler waxing eloquent and pontificating on the deletion review and multiple user talk pages. And even there, it was simply wallowing in their own delusions and rank bad soapboxing. Seeing the case that the rudras and the fowlers made for undeleting the article and noting the almost unanimous community endorse of the delete, some of these users should have been hauled up for disruption if not for WP:POINT(for even taking it to DRV). Nothing of that sort happened.
• dab's move of the article in the middle of an AfD was infact, trolling if not serious disruption. I didnt see Rama's Arrow or any other admin(I am sure it was on the watchlists of every admin who's watching this) even so much as tell dab that his move was inappropriate; that he should at best, have requested a move from another admin. Nothing of that sort happened either.
• Even as I mince no words being critical of these users, let me assert that I have nothing personal against any of them. I have the highest regard for their contributions just as I do for Baka's. But then, there are cases where I disagree with them and I dont believe in sugar coating my words just to be in somebody's good books.
• Even as I read Jimbo speak(four years ago, admittedly) of sysopping 'semi willy nilly', we have admins making a case for him to do exactly that. I mean... if one admin can throw his weight around on an AfD of his own article and if the other admins just stand by and watch, that really doesnt make for a level playing field. Nor can it earn those admins any moral high ground to pontificate from. The admins cant just stand by and keep watching till it hits a crescendo and then pull up whoever loses the anger management game. Wikipedia is not about anger management. Certainly not. These are users that are trying hard(probably too hard) to build an encyclopedia and it is easy for one thing to lead to another and for the whole thing to degenerate into a free for all. This is where admins ought to move in and counsel both parties and if need be force a dispute resolution. All that we've had here is admins trying not to get their hands dirty and then pouncing on the first one they get 'incriminating evidence' about. Thats not fair.
• At the same time, to be fair to dab(in this case I speak only of dab), I do not think that he is acting in bad faith or that he is anti-hindu or anti-india or anything. It is just that he carries several misplaced stereotypes which he is convinced is NPOV. I can say similar things of Baka too. He is NOT acting in bad faith. The very crux of the problem as I see it is that both are not assuming good faith. Infact, they're assuming bad faith.
• Now, for all those of you who want to know what all this has to do with the socking and meating allegations, I can only ask you to stop acting so naive. Otherwise, you're going against the spirit of every policy and guideline out there.
• To wrap up, I submit that the 6 month ban is way too harsh. Like dinesh says, its as good as a permanent ban. I strongly urge the admins to reconsider the case and unblock him. I further suggest that both parties be banned from editing these contentious articles for a while. In any case, the very least that I demand is that they be unblocked atleast to argue their case. Sarvagnya 09:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At the cost of being called naive, I have to ask you - what has all this got to do with meatpuppetry and making proxy edits for a banned user? Hkelkar was banned by the ArbCom, and we have got evidence that Bakaman and others were corresponding with Hkelkar and making edits on behalf of Hkelkar. The ArbCom has ruled that if two users are making the same edits then it does not matter who is making them. We can treat all users as the same person. If you have a problem with Dab, please open a RfC or an ArbCom case. But don't tell me that Bakaman's disputes with Dab led him to make proxy edits for Hkelkar. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I havent seen the evidence you have. But going by what little RA has said about it and from what you say, I assume that you have evidence to the effect -

• Baka corresponded with Hkelkar
• Baka made some edits in line with Hkelkar's POV.

Now that could be incriminating only if you can establish that Baka carried out Hk's bidding. No arbcom can force two individuals not to meet outside wiki. Not only that, you would also have to establish that Baka would NOT have made those edits if Hkelkar had not asked him to. Knowing Baka's editing practices and also how closely their POVs match, I think its a given that Baka would make the edits he makes Hkelkar or not. That you 'caught' him corresponding with hkelkar outside wiki is not 'incriminating' enough. Sarvagnya 09:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering? - Aksi_great (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep the banter out. Please. Sarvagnya 10:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Sarvagnya, Aksi is right. By himself, Baka was a tendentious, incivil and often disruptive editor. With the direct connection to Hkelkar, we simply have a Baka-Kelkar combine operating. A softer block will do nothing to drive home the seriousness of Baka's offenses - tell me frankly, how will we know he doesn't continue to contact Kelkar? We should be thankful for the evidence we have, but don't expect Baka to make the same mistake twice. Contrary to some views, a 6-month ban is the most pragmatic, given Hkelkar's 1-year ArbCom ban and perma-ban from the community. Ideological warriors must be handed a long-term blocks to make sure that if/upon their return, their minds have been given sufficient time to make peace with Wikipedia's norms and edit to build an encyclopedia. We know Baka and D-Boy are capable of that, so a 6-month ban is the most pragmatic and humane - remember, they have consorted with someone the ArbCom banned for 1 year. This is half of that, plus the benefit of "good behavior" parole (sorry for the police lingo). As for their "dignity" and "defense," those can be made on their talkpages - we cannot unblock people for that. If they have a case for their unblocking, that can be made with an unblock request. See the example of Scheibenzahl — he stated his "defense" and regained his "dignity." Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually we are in the zone where we look at blocking as a "punishment," when it is clearly not supposed to be. The overall goal of blocking these users is to protect the content of Wikipedia as well as other contributors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ideological battleground - we have no obligation to anyone who doesn't want to understand that. They must either understand that or leave - I can remember numerous times when I lectured Baka on civility and "encyclopedia-building." He contributed well to DYK, but editing by proxy for a banned troll is most serious an offense. Baka is no stranger to Wikipedia's policies - he was involved as a party in 2 ArbCom cases. As Aldux points out, Baka waged war whenever anyone discussed Hkelkar and his sockpuppetry or engaged in a content dispute with him. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow is correct. Over the past few months, both Baka and D-Boy were showing signs of prioritising their POV ahead of building the encyclopedia. I can't be bothered to search the links, but if you want non-email evidence, just go through the past four of five archives. I had constantly warned them and said Wikipedia was an encyclopedia where everybody regardless of background collaborate together. Their reaction was calling me a "weak, ballless Hindu." Again a week or two on Bhadani's talk page, D-Boy accused me and dab of "betraying the Hindus." I had told him time after time that WP:NPOV takes precendence over individual POVs, but they didn't listen. Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of solid evidence of serious wrongdoing, it seems very inappropriate to me for this discussion to go on here, while User:Bakasuprman is confined to his talk page. Therefore I am unblocking him. I am asking him to accept the condition to restrict his participation to this case for now. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I never attacked bhadani, nor have I maligned him in any way, considering him as a wikipedian I respect
• I have not "Taken orders" from Hkelkar, I am most capable of understanding my own worldview. There are many users with similar POV's as well
• Hkelkar, contrary to popular belief, has not kept me in the loop about his sockpuppetry and has not listened the many times we have told him to stop. I do not ask him to revert, edit, or exist on wikipedia, he does so on his own and against the wishes of many of us who actually hope new users on Hinduism topics are just that, new users.
• I do not post to forums ranting and recruiting acolytes on Hindutva whine boards. Hindu Unity is full of retards who have seizures when they see an Indian woman being kissed by a foreigner. It does not bother me in the least bit who does what. In fact, posting there would be counterproductive since it is people like HU that make Hindutva look like a group of fanatics
• I have not violated 3RR ever nor do I need to. Wikipedia will be here tomorrow, a fact Hkelkar never understood. The fiasco at Great Power is a prime example of this.
• Rumplestiltskin was not known by me to be hkelkar's sockpuppet, and I was rather disappointed hkelkar would resort to these tricks. After that, I am certain I have not advocated for "Hkelkar" under any guise.
• Aksi's appeal to WP:Wikilawyering is a joke. Sarvagnya drives the point home. Nobody can deny that I have my own POV. Hkelkar does not order me around. It is quite obvious I have eccentric tastes in editing and am not accountable to anyone. I have made edits in line with Hkelkar's POV even when he was on wiki. Am I supposed to have an epiphany and stop?
• The evidence Rama has is an assertion. I have called his bluff. My part in the emails was encouraging the other users to get their head out of the toilet and work on India related pages, Hinduism related pages, and to build bridges with other users. Not scheming and proxying.
• Potential Personal attack and incivility problems are dealt with an RFC, WP:MEDCABAL. Then comes Arbcom, after an RFC or medcabal. Not with an unjustified 6 month vigilante block based on an ambiguous construct, false assumptions, faulty casual relation, faulty analogical reasoning and evidence that does not corroborate to his invalid assertions. Its highly opprobrious, the conduct, but I'm not going to make this personal.

I will not be active in the near future whatever the result.Bakaman 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe Rama's arrow past involvement with this user gives him a predispositional opinion of this user's behavior on Wikipedia. I agree that Bakasuprman has violated WP:CIVIL and made some personal attacks. I understand that his edits on Wikipedia may be promoting the Hkelkar-view, but frankly, I fail to see this as a real reason to block a user for such a long period of time. From what I have seen, Baka has his own views that correlate with Hkelkar and he has probably discussed this with Hkelkar, but I don't see how one can honestly block an editor for promoting the same views of another editor, even if he is blocked as a result of an ArbCom hearing. I wish for Baka to remain unblocked for the time-being, and an appropriate block duration be decided by a group of editors, instead of just one. Six months is too long. You must also take into account Baka's positive edits on Wikipedia, and a lot of the work he has done with DYK and editing other articles. We usually hand out long blocks to abusive editors, who have repeatedly violated rules and have been blocked for it. Bakasuprman does not fit into that category, and aligning him to other such users that have been abusive editors like those banned in previous ArbCom hearings seems unfair. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not forgetting something, are we? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here - some people are mistakenly assuming that Baka was blocked for sharing Hkelkar's POVs. That is not the case - the reality is explicit meatpuppetry. The only reason I have not displayed the evidence is that it is very controversial and generally not accepted to publish contents of a private e-mail. But if the community desires to see the evidence - and there should be a consensus agreeing to want to see it; I'm not gonna break any policy/guideline/convention - I will happily post it here. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Retaliating at your blocker is a natural response (at least he removed it afterwards). I would be frustrated if I was blocked for what may or may not be a particularly justifiable reason. Also, I have already seen the private emails of which you speak of. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed disappointing that having seen the evidence, you still think he deserves to be unblocked. "Retaliating at your blocker is a natural response?" Perhaps you'd like to see the example of user:Schiebenzahl, who showed his personal anger but made no personal attacks. Is "Tit-for-tat" is justified by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? Its a joke that Baka says he doesn't want to make it personal, after he attacked me personally and tried to hide it. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said his personal attacks were justified. I was offering an explanation as to why he wrote that on his user talk page. Anyway, I advocate for a block as a result of personal attacks, violation of WP:CIVIL, etc. I don't believe a long block is justified for that, so I'm thinking of something like two weeks, max. I'm not trying to be lenient or anything, but that's what I feel is reasonable. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Baka is not being blocked just for his disruptive editing - he is blocked as a meatpuppet/colluder of Hkelkar. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I know...I already dismissed the Hkelkar meatpuppet claims. I'm talking about what I feel is blockable. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Already dismissed?" How? The consensus here is upholding the block, which you seem to have "dismissed" as well. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is still following this, I'd like to add my strong support to this block. I argued during the HKelkar arbitration that Baka be studied as well, but received strong indications that, given the mess that that had become, the ArbCom was going to not examine his behaviour very closely. However, that decision seems to have empowered Bakasuprman; he has several times used the fact that he was not banned at that point as justification for his tendentiousness, and has told me that I violate the community's beliefs that he is a tremendously productive editor. As Gizza has said elsewhere, and as I have said time and again since last December, tendentiousness and disruption of this sort are not balanced out by energy. I believed the community was incapable of action in this case, and thus that an organised group of POV-pushers could effectively use WP as a soapbox for pseudoscience and so on; and am glad to see that the community's patience has run out. Hornplease 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't fully endorse these blocks without looking at the email evidence, but I think we need to trust that Rama's Arrow made the blocks on what he felt was very strong evidence, and we can't dismiss the meatpuppet claims without taking a look at the emails. Humus Sapiens' unblock of Baka was a mistake, in my opinion. Rama's Arrow, would it be possible to share the emails with some administrators privately, without posting them here? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not share that opinion. Humus sapien's unblock is a very good move. It will help keep the discussions unfragmented. And in any case, cant see what purpose having the blocked users communicate from their talk pages would have served. Sarvagnya 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have sent you an email with the evidence. Apart from you, Aksi great and DaGizza have seen the evidence - Nishkid64 is claiming to have seen it, but I don't know as I haven't spoken to him about this issue. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that I've seen some of the email, I endorse the block of Bakasuprman. Just to be clear, I haven't had much interaction with Bakasuprman, but I have been active on Goa Inquistion, which has been edited by Baka and Hkelkar/Rumpelstiltskin223. I would say that Baka has been uncivil on that article's talk page, and that he and D-Boy have teamed up to avoid the 3RR there. But the main problem with Baka's behavior, and the thing that justifies a substantial block, is his collaboration with a banned user to influence WP articles and harass an administrator. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Rama's arrow's actions. This attempt to turn Wikipedia into a nationalist battleground is totally unacceptable, especially when users are acting as proxies for banned users. I always tell meatpuppets I block that a meatpuppet is only one step away from a sockpuppet. Khoikhoi 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Khoikhoi. Incivility is very unhelpful and harmful to wikipedia. --Aminz 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The simple solution is to identify those articles considered contentious, ensure Bakasuprman keeps clear of those articles but let him contribute to others where his energy can be an asset to wikipedia. This could be a good first step to clean up the playground, so to speak.Dineshkannambadi 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Having been one of those who have seen the evidence but has also witnessed his good contributions to the project, I may support Baka to continue to editing if he is placed on probation/parole for All controversial, religious articles. This means he would not be allowed to touch any article/talk page/AfD relating to Hindutva, Islamic Fundamentalism, Indian caste system etc. except removing obvious vandalism. Even WP:1RR gives him too much lee-way. On these the talk pages, he often made crude remarks towards others instead discussing with them and acheive consensus. On controversial articles, his involvement was always a hinderance, a detriment, never improved the situation. The only problem I see with this proposal is that he still may be in contact with Hkelkar through email and may request Hkelkar to add their POV (with a sock presumably) if he can't. However, from what I've seen, it tends to be the other way around.

Another suggestion s for Baka is to abandon his account and start afresh, if his passion for writing East Indian history is so great and avoid controvsial articles at all costs. Btw, just two days ago Baka welcomed ThLinGan, who has since been confirmed as a Hkelkar sock. His sympathies are still very clear. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I hate to sound stubborn, but probation will not solve anything, nor is it the correct response. In his statement above, Baka has already adamantly stated that he edits and will continue editing on the same lines as Hkelkar. He has been warned, advised, counseled dozens of times by various people, but to no avail. Additionally, he has been subverting Wikipedia - he clearly understands that Kelkar was banned, but continued to collude with him, tried to protect his sockpuppets and attack his "enemies." I'm sorry, but the seriousness of this misconduct is too much to ignore. Baka is obstinate and unwilling to change his attitude. Also, his "positive contributions" are by-and-large on Hinduism and India-related topics - if there are 10-15 articles he should not edit, he can transfer his activities to 10-15 other articles, as there is no shortage of topics on which Hindutva ideology can be imposed. I understand the good faith and willingness to forgive of my colleagues here, but being a very serious offense, I can't see how we can do anything save not have him edit Wikipedia and give him a lot of time to try and clear his head. If he genuinely loves working on Wikipedia, he will find it in himself to return after his block expires. If he is more concerned with Hindutva, he will stay away, which will benefit both parties. Also, re-emerging with another identity is not going to be helpful unless he reflects on his behavior. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 09:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And might I remind, that the block is not aimed to punish Baka, but protect Wikipedia. What is important is Wikipedia and not an individual editor. Look from that angle - what is our obligation to cut Baka some slack? Nothing, if he thinks Wikipedia is a vehicle for his Hindutva beliefs. There is no practical way that the Kelkar cabal can be dismantled without stiff action. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 09:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a probation may not be effective. We would have reacted much more tolarantly if they openly admitted their past links with Hkelkar before we revealed it. Even then they would have been punished but denying it (and responding aggressively as shown here[2]) hasn't helped their cause at all considering that we have the evidence and have shown it to neutral parties upon request. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial portion of his earlier response (which he removed subsequently) is reproduced here for convenience.

Here are my responses to Rama's Arrow's crusade to defame me. I will not be editing here for a long time while I sort out who double-crossed me and attacked me, and who are the real wikipedians.

When will a person be double-crossed? Praveen 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My run-in with Bakaman ad D-Boy has been very recent and related to only one small issue. However , I feel it is relevant to point this incident out. Both had reverted the change I had made to the Goa Inquisiton page even though I had first put it in the disucssion before making changes. The edit summary I made on both occasions justified the change. However both chose to ignore discussion. I even put a message on their talk pages asking them to justify thier action; but they chose not to because they knew they would not be able to justify it. Hardly any consensus building behavior expected from experienced users such as them. Their presence on WIkipedia has been more about pushing their personal likes/dislikes, than about building an encyclopedia. I will be really glad to see thenm go --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Per Nishkid64's comments above, I believe a 6 month block is excessive, especially given the lack of easily available evidence. Bakasuprman's alignment with a pro-Hkelkar POV seems to hardly be a blockable offense. Also, I'm seeing the word 'meatpuppet' tossed around a lot - hardly seems to match the definition. I'm not denying there are civility problems, POV problems, even some tendentious editing - but this is pretty extreme. I can't see how this has the support of the community, and would much prefer to see a broader discussion rather than a decision made by a handful of admins. – Riana ^ऋ 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• 6 months looks like an overkill, and would be something more like a motion passed by arbitrators given the type of evidence. They aren't new accounts either, and have been contributing for a resonable amount of time already. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's disruptive conduct, tedentious editing and his adamant/vicious defense of Hkelkar's sockpuppets is all on WP evidence. As to the email evidence, it clearly establishes a "meatpuppetry" and collusion between Kelkar and Baka and the others. Btw, what do you expect? Is this a court that one has to qualify if the evidence is admissable? We have to work with what we get. We were lucky that this important piece of evidence came across, or else this group would have continued their activities. Wikipedia is important, not an individual editor so I don't care if the evidence is off-WP, so long as the threat to Wikipedia is detected and removed. A 6-month block is most practical, considering that Hkelkar is perma-banned. Defending and praising his sockpuppetry while colluding with him behind the scenes to subvert Wikipedia is very, very serious. As to the definition of meatpuppetry:

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.

It is clear that Bakasuprman deserves to be treated on par with Kelkar - however, he is not getting a perma-ban. As he is unrepentant of his collusion, I cannot see any need in cutting him any more slack. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

They are individual users. Hkelkar created his account on 24th August 2006, Bakasuprman's account was created on 7th July 2006, Dangerous-Boy has his account since gawdknowswhen. The point is, these users have been extensively contributing to Wikipedia since a long time now, have been a part of two ArbCom cases, where there wasn't an inkling of evidence produced that they are one and the same individual, or they have been acting as meatpuppets. Let me make clear, the definition of a "meatpuppet" from WP:SOCK –

"A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Wikipedia with one agenda."

Hence the rationale on which these users have been blocked is fundamentally flawed. I repeat, these users are not meatpuppets of each other. Just because two or more users seem to share the same ideology, they cannot be termed as meatpuppets. I can't see you blocking more notorious users on this flimsy reason. I'd like to see the evidence that you have been distributing, and reserve futher comments till I get it through email. Thanks very much. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I must again repeat my full endorsement of Rama's actions, and add that I don't absolutely find an overkill 6 months for Bakasuprman. I have never clashed with the editor in question, but I have repeatedly noted Baka's disruptiveness and vocal contempt for civility. I have also noted his constant and systematic teaming with the other editors in question, as with the previous sock of Hkelkar (i.e. User:Rumpelstiltskin223), in particular in VfD and in the RfC regarding Dbachmann. I'm worried, I must admit, by what seems to me a considerable degree of leniency towards transforming many India-related issues in an ideological battleground, and the damaged caused by this can't be compared to making some DYK.--Aldux 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How very nice. The same user you are talking about has not been the most civil of the users either. Now is not the time to make tu quoque arguments, but I have undeleted a page for your perusal, where you can get instant glimpse of dab's incivility, and also engaging into discussions with a permanently banned user on his own talk page. Bakasuprman has been contributing since a long time, and calling him nationalistic and a disruptive user just because he does not conform to your views is all the more disturbing. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be losing the point: I know Dab's manners are far from perfect and I'm not here to defend them. I only mentioned him because for a misterious coincidence in the RfC all the three editors in question compared. As to my pov, how you no it remains a great mystery to me, especially since I don't edit India-related issues, expect when dealing with User:Maleabroad. What I can say is that I have due to a long work in Balkans-related issues a long experience with dealing with natational-cliques in action, and I must say that Baka behaves exactly like the most problematic and disruptive of them. And yes, I repeat that Baka has shown a vocal contempt for WP:CIV as I have rarely seen, repeatedly putting in doubt its sense and its utility on this same board.--Aldux 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman's incivility has been quite unfortunate, and he gets warned for it. We have more difficult editors around. Do they all get blocked for 6 months? This is a punitive block. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, its to allow the rest of us to build an encyclopaedia. Nick, you simply have not edited controversial pages with Baka. I have had occasion to point out to you before this[3], on the occasions when you have dropped in to the Narendra Modi page to protect it; you really must follow these things more closely in order to determine what the level of incivility and unpleasantness and regular disruptiveness actually is. Hornplease 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't beem the most civil of the users, Hornplease; although I must credit you for your patience which you displayed while editing controversial articles. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Sir Nick - I believe this un-deleted page is the one with Baka's comment What's your purpose on wikipedia dbachmann? Fighting evil Hindoo heathens?Bakaman 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As a retort to dab's comment to Bhadani – [4]. For which you posted him this {{npa3}} warning on Bakaman's talk – [5]; while gently reprimanding dab for the same – [6]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ostensibly, accusing Dab of anti-Hindu intentions is an accusation of bigotry. With Dab, it was a case of general incivility. Nobody asked Baka to use the words "heathens" or "evil Hindoos." And I believe Bhadani is capable of defending himself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite incivil. I also happen to remember one of the more notorious comment made by dab, around a year ago (on India and Indians). Not really worth blocking 6 months, or is it? Also, Bhadani is quite capable and experienced on not letting himself get malaligned or disoriented by a bunch of difficult editors. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to join Aldux in reiterating my support for this block. Bakasuprman may have been 'contributing for a long time', Nick, but that is not a guarantee of his usefulness, that is actually an admission of our failure.

It isn't that Bakasuprman doesnt conform to my views, or anyone's. Many, many people on WP don't. Baka is the only one who is genuinely a menace in the way that he edits articles; I have had the privilege of observing him since his very first few edits. He has been a problem right from the beginning.

Incidentally, HKelkar edited at first as 'Subhash Bose' and 'Netaji', so he did join before Baka. Shortly before Baka joined, HKelkar did post on another user's talkpage that he was 'mentioning to a few people that they should join' (this is indicative, but hardly conclusive); I could find the diff with a little effort, since I think I alerted BLNguyen at the time .

For context: note the above quoted undeleted page follows the AfD on Hindutva Propaganda, an article started by Dab, and which Bhadani urged the deletion of; there's some history there that I'm not going to repeat, as all concerned should really have gotten over it by now - including those uninvolved, like you, Nick. Hornplease 15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

As a number of responsible editors and administrators have asked to see the evidence in question, there is a need to release the e-mails in question so that the community may see it and assess the seriousness of what was going on. I do have the consent of several peoples (but not all) who were party to the emails to release the contents. However, I want to make absolutely sure that its OK to do this, so I will wait for a little while. I emphasize that I have absolutely no desire to invade anyone's privacy or break any policy or guideline. My interest is only the preservation of Wikipedia. I also don't want to compromise the good faith and position of those who have chosen to trust my judgment over this case - I wish that all admins be aware of all the facts of this case. To anyone who may be offended or concerned over their privacy, I reiterate that I completely respect that right but as a responsible administrator, I cannot withhold it any more. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to forward me the emails. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that a large number of admins want to see it, and that there will still be a large number who haven't seen it, I might as well release it here. I don't want this confusion to drag on - several have suggested I have no basis to this, which is absolutely wrong. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you, emails aren't concrete evidence. The users may disown any of the content you might post here. Also, public posting of contents of private emails, is considered discourteous. But it's your call, finally. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you consider emails not to be concrete evidence, then why are you asking to see it? You might as well choose not to believe anything. Are they concrete when exchanged via email inboxes? And what do you think we are, the police? the courts? Well I'm sorry Sir Nick, but I didn't obtain a warrant first - is that ok, or does that make the evidence inadmissable? And might I remind you that user:Subhash bose was proven a sockpuppet of user:Hkelkar when Aksi great and Blnguyen received emails from the same e-mail address. Shall I un-block them, given the weakness of e-mail based evidence? I have no desire to be rude, but you should understand all this. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar and Subhash Bose were suspected of being sockpuppets in the past. The case is available here – Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. The case is quite different with three independent editors whom you are accusing to be meatpuppets. Let me give you an illustration of how dab used admin rollback against User:Freedom skies, on Indian mathematics while being completely uninvolved with the article in the past – [7]. Conniving over emails is not a blockable offence, apparently. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a little clearer about this? I don't see the relevance of any of it. Hornplease 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And its a little perplexing to me why releasing private e-mails is discourteous when you claim that e-mails aren't concrete evidence and can be disowned. If someone can disown their own emails so easily, what is the problem? Why the required courtesy then? The truth is that e-mail evidence is often vital for Wikipedia administrators to stop various cases of trolls, meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry. Ignoring it would be suicidal. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then. What are you waiting for? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

there is no need to post it here. You can email it first to whoever expresses a desire to see it. And after that, if people feel that it should be posted here, we can do that. Posting private emails publicly is not an appropriate thing to do. btw, I have seen a part of the evidence(which Gizza mailed me) and nothing that I have seen even remotely implicates Baka of any wrong doing. I asked him for more evidence, he says he doesnt have it/seen it. I've asked another admin and I havent got a reply yet. btw, even the evidence I saw lists many wikipedians and I am sure you're responsible fo their privacies too. Hauling up someone for some wrongdoing is not more important than protecting the privacy of people who gaurd it zealously. Sarvagnya 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to remove any personal information from an e-mail(including in the headers, like a source IP) that is not already on wiki before you send it to anyone. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Even then, I dont think it should be put here before getting the overwhelming consent of people who have seen it. The 'evidence' which I was sent, at first look is sensational. But, on a second look, is hardly incriminating or surprising for people who understand the background and are familiar with the users and their battles. Posting it here can even be seen as an attempt to sensationalise the issue and tickle the interest of users who are themselves disinterested or worse, ignorant of the myriad issues involved here to reach objective conclusions. Sarvagnya 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ONce again, special pleading - "familiar with the users and their battles"?. I don't think that controversial India-related articles should continue to have the rules relaxed. I say this, for example, because Bakasuprman has frequently indicated that he feels that incivility is in fact the norm on such articles, frequently quoting a throwaway remark about policing by BLnguyen from months ago as justification. Hornplease 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Motion to unblock

I have viewed the evidence, and the mails distributed don't reveal how Bakasuprman was involved in this whole issue. I request a communal imprimatur for an unblock of Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and recommend taking this matter to the Arbitration Committee for further discourse. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons stated above and summarised: Nirav has my trust; Ambroodey and daGizza have made statements that are perfectly clear; and I have had considerable personal experience of HKelkar and Baka tag-teaming and being disruptive. The block is perfectly within process and it will definitely lead to an improvement in the quality (and manageability) of the project. Hornplease 16:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - in case you haven't noticed, 3 admins who saw the evidence have endorsed the block - Aksi great, DaGizza and Akhilleus. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Basing myself on what I've heard and know, I certainly oppose the unblock for now; but I would like to see the evidence myself before pronouncing myself definitively.--Aldux 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - I was mailed a 'part of' the evidence by Gizza few hours ago. RA says that Gizza has viewed the 'evidence'; I suppose 'complete evidence'. If he has, I fail to understand why he wouldnt mail me the 'complete evidence' but would only mail me part of the evidence in which the 'cabal' apparently makes their distrust of me clear. Releasing such evidence selectively, makes me suspect their intentions and perhaps even the veracity of some of the 'evidence'. I support the motion to unblock. Sarvagnya 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - There is no clear consensus on the block imposed on User:Bakasuprman. Multiple users, including several admins, have opposed the 6-month block. There is a clear split of opinions on the evidence which is so far hidden on the wiki. Among those who have seen the evidence, few admins have supported the block, while few admins have opposed. While one admin said he has already dismissed the meatpuppetry claims after seeing the evidence, another admin above says, "mails distributed don't reveal how Bakasuprman was involved in this whole issue". Certainly there is no clear consensus. I strongly recommend unblocking the user and to take this issue to Arbitraion committee, and put up the case there by sending the committee members the email evidence. Rest decision whether to impose a new block should be left to ArbCom. - KNM ^Talk 17:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I see one admin for the unblocking and five against. That seems a clear majority to me.--Aldux 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

one admin? nick is one. nishkid, an admin says he's 'dismissed' the evidence after seeing it. then there's a clear split about the duration of the block. then, i have seen some of the 'evidence' and nothing in it implicates baka even remotely. My repeated requests to send me the complete evidence is being met with silence. dineshkannambadi, a user with nearly a half a dozen FAs, has spoken against the block, which somebody has pointed out is a punitive block. there's clearly no consensus about anything here. Sarvagnya 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you and Nick are the only exceptions to a general sense of agreement among informed users. I'd invite you to reconsider in that light. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

• Oppose unblocking for the reasons I gave a few sections up. Long term POV warrior and Hkelkar supporter. – Steel 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Although I haven't directly participated in discussions regarding Baka's block due to some real life issues, I've been passively following the developments in multiple pages. I've worked with Baka in few articles and I should say he has done a marvelous job in betterment of this project. It's good to see that no one here is questioning Baka's commitment in improving articles and making Wiki a better project. As someone else has pointed out a 6 months block is as good as a permaban and demands extraordinary interests from the user to come back and continue contributions in full flow. I strongly support Unblocking Baka, if possible on certain conditions and clauses and may be with a strong warning.Gnanapiti 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of us have questioned Baka's commitment to the improvement of the WP. You appear to be confusing energy with good faith. Its precisely this sort of thing, where decent users with little or no experience of the actual disruption the problem editor causes who step in to defend them, that worries me. Hornplease 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support A lengthy block requires a smoking gun, and it's just not there. Not a single piece of evidence, either a diff, or an email, was produced to back up accusations of meatpuppetry. What instruction did Hkelkar give to Bakasuprman, what edits did Bakasuprman make under these instructions? We don't know. Instead, we have the standard accusations of incivility, POV-pushing, and similar wiki mantras of abuse that fly around by the thousands on talk pages. Sorry, you cannot block an editor, especially for 6 months, based on such considerations. Beit Or 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: can the relevant emails not be displayed here? It's a bit much to expect the community to make a decision based on virtually no information. Certainly I can't. If the emails really should be kept fairly private, then please email them to me. Moreschi ^Talk 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment- Hi I am Sbhushan blocked due to this accusation. I have left note at Rama's arrow talk page and an unblock request on my talk page to show that accusation against me is baseless. This is my edit history since I started contributing on Wikipedia [[8]]. Please note that I have not contributed to any article identified as Hindutva, Islamic Fundamentalism, Indian caste system etc. In fact I have no common interest with Hkelker. There is no evidence of me doing any edit based on any instructions Hkelkar might have given me. Rama’s accusation is baseless and I request an opportunity to respond and defend myself. Sbhushan (IP address as I am blocked and no-one is looking at my talk page)198.96.180.245 19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Hornplease, what do you mean? apart from myself, knm, dinesh and many other users, even Gizza has conceded that Baka has made useful contributions. he has also been incivil. everyone agrees. but then, there is a history to that and is more nuanced. all of us are aware of it. all the more reason for an arbcom. dont assume that we have little or no knowledge of Baka's history. we wouldnt be here otherwise. also you cant have the cake and eat it too. RA says that this block has nothing to do with incivility or perceived disruption and that it is only about meatpuppetry.

As for meatupuppetry, which is what I suppose this block is about, we havent seen any evidence yet. The little evidence that Gizza sent me has absolutely nothing that can implicate Baka of any wrongdoing. And what worries me most is that, in his mail to me, Gizza has said that he himself hasnt seen all the evidence!! RA on the other hand, claims that Gizza has seen the evidence. I am beginning to wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye. Also, while RA says he's prepared to put the evidence here, he hasnt responded to my request to mail it to me. Sarvagnya 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Rama's Arrow & Hornplease. Praveen 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support In case you forgot, I vocalized my opposition to Bakasuprman's block, last night. I was forwarded the evidence at the time when this AN/I posting was made, and I reviewed it and made a conscientious decision. Six months is too long, and I still don't believe in tying Hkelkar to Bakasuprman like this. Honestly, if Baka had been an administrator, he would have gotten away with all of these things. People here have already said that Dbachmann said a number of hateful things before, but it seems he never got the rap for his actions. I must repeat myself that I have dismissed the email logs, since I don't see any justification for Bakasuprman's block. I'm still advocating a block for incivility, if you're interested. Another thing...you've repeated that you blocked Bakasuprman for being a meatpuppet of Hkelkar, but you've just stated that the same has been happening with Sir Nick. Either don't use the double standard and block Baka, and not Sir Nick for the exact reason...or give up your case to pinpoint a block on Bakasuprman when there appears to be no evidence of what you claim is occurring. Also, I'm one of the few who has not had a history with this user, and I'm speaking from a neutral stance. Many others, I can clearly see, have a personal grudge or dislike Baka and are vocalizing their support for the block here. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing that people who have grudge against Baka are vocal in their support for blocking him. Same line of argument can made about people who oppose his block. I clearly see people who colluded with Baka in POV pushing are here supporting him. Praveen 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to condone Baka's nefarious activities, that is your mistake. Your hypocrisy of allowing Baka to return just b'coz Dab has been incivil is ludicrious. As for Sir Nick - I received it not very long ago, so I still had to go through it and try to understand what was happening. It is indeed sad, and I am basically asking the community to review it properly. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's arrow, I did not say Baka could return just because Dab was incivil. I was merely commenting on the double standard of how Dbachmann never got in trouble for his behavior because he is an administrator. That bit was just part of my rant, and probably has no real relevance to the discussion at hand. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support to unblock . While I understand the concerns of Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) in being tough on certian issues, I support the motion to unblock Bakasuprman. Let further proceedings to be taken up by ArbCom to decide his participation in certian articles. This will be more democratic. A few emails and any conjectures there in cant be used as ultimate evidence. Arbcom exists to solve such tough issues.Dineshkannambadi 23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Bakasuprman should be permanently banned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose And the proposer too has a history of being selective with the "group" under consideration. [9]. Haphar 07:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Presentation of evidence

Well, here it is, the first round of evidence - two particularly damning emails exchanged between Bakasuprman and Hkelkar. Please note how Bakasuprman did not want to be part of Hkelkar's "scheme anymore" after I first imposed the blocks. I had sent this first message to user:Akhilleus when he asked to see the evidence 12-15 hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs)

Bakasuprman conspiring with Hkelkar

I don't think I need to, but lemme nevertheless highlight the phrases used by Bakasuprman such as the point is to become indispensible, to cover your tracks, the Hindu cause, Jews are better than Indians anyway, befreind user:Humus sapiens, User:Beit Or, User:Avraham in particular. Once he was blocked, Bakasuprman was quick to blame extenuating circumstances for not wanting to be a part of Hkelkar's scheme anymore - establishing that he was a part of his scheme before he was busted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

With a degree of sadness as well as contempt, I must present some evidence I've received that Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is also involved in recruiting meatpuppets and helping Hkelkar and his activities.

Btw, sorry for the haphazard flow - formatting this has been a bitch. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas attempted to thwart DaGizza's efforts to fight Hkelkar and co.

Sir Nicholas leaked an e-mail user:DaGizza had prepared in order to keep a watch on Hkelkar and his cabal's activities at Hinduunity.org forum. DaGizza had communicated this in private to other "trustworthy" admins:

DaGizza's compilations

That my friend Nirav, was a breach of trust. A sick twisted breach of trust indeed. I demand an ArbComm to stop this madness. Gizza is no saint. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Breach of trust?" Excuse me, but do you have any idea of what the hell was going on here? Do you expect me to do nothing when I find out that Anirudh has been hassling the community by propping up Kelkar, yourself and D-Boy? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably i'm the only one who has a clear idea of what drama was played out here over past 6 months. You more than anybody else know that i have been unwilling participant in this. Nick was always well meaning. You more than anybody else know without me it would have been impossible to chart kelkar's activities on Wiki. I have done what your ArbComms couldnt get Kelkar to stop socking here. Just today i helped u round up last of his socks.

You are essentially destroying the community. Do want me to sing like a canary here. Do want me to tell these ppl how you got Kelkar to collect evidence for your ArbComm ase against Nadirali thru me?

Over past 24 hours i have been subject to threats and counter threats to switch sides. I have been cruelly manipulated, and right now find meself at the centre of feud between two admin factions. Eitherway i know i'll be setup. For fucks sake i was here to write an encyclopedia not indulge in your petty admin politics.

Also accept the fact that as long there will be Wikipedia, cabals will exists. Me, you all of us here are a part of one big hypocrisy that is called NPOV. I reserve my energies for ArbComm. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask for your or Kelkar's help ever - I never condoned that troll's activities. I took all the help I could (mainly just from you, not Kelkar) to fight one set of trolls, but this never meant I was prepared to tolerate Kelkar's crap. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As if I ever tolerated Kelkar's crap. I grant it that you didnt ask for help. But nevertheless you were aware that Kelkar was helping. Didnt we joke about how that should keep him off his sockpuppeting activities for a while? Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 22:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by AMbroodEY

I'm somebody at the very centre of this whorehouse. I have been the recipient of original emails. As this issue is fast snowballing into a tug-of-war between two admins, both of whom I consider close personal friends (one helped me with University admissions and other is a close ethnic clansmen whom I've known for over a year), I'd reserve my statement and evidence in case of an ArbComm.

I have edited Wikipedia for over two years. I have never been blocked. I also participated in 3 ArbComms. I have been courteous enough to apologise whenever I've made any error in judgement (of all people, dab will vouch on this). But let me tell you guys, today I feel betrayed, i feel violated. Because someone whom i'd always considered a friend, someone whom I had offered to nominate for Adminship, Someone whose RfA i strongly supported wanted me perma banned for my convictions. Someone who by his own admission encountered my beliefs only over the internet, thought that I consorted with the braindead prats who throng Hindu Unity.

Its bit rich of Girik to ban Bakasuprman for allegedly acting as a meatpuppet of Kelkar when he himself knew about Kelkar's sockpuppetry from the outset [10]. Why dont you tell these good people Girik, about how you asked Kelkar for help thru me recently. Have you added this email to your 'evidence'? I think not...

Note: Desigeek111 is Hkelkar's pseudonym. His acc i believe used email <e-mail address redacted>. Here is the self styled defender of NPOV (DaGizza, who concern for NPOV interestingly wasnt visible during Nadirali fiasco) asking me to ask Kelkar for help in case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda resolved in keep. Interestingly DaGizza voted merge. D-Boy for all his idiocy, lack of elaborateness and shoot-from-the-hip-style was right sometimes i does take balls to speak your mind.

As much as i abhor D-Boy's Hindu Unity antics, Brahminist bullshit that Baka spouts every now and then, i find two-facedness and hypocrisy more disgusting on par with Hkelkar's neurotic activities.

If this goes to ArbComm i will present everything i have. I only demand that this evidence is only seen by Arbitrators as i believe stuff i know is too shocking, too damaging to the community. I dont mind if the Committee finds it appropriate to block me for my un-orthodox actions. I emphasize i have always acted in the best interests of Wikipedia. I have always placed Wikipedia above my POV. I could have easily saved my hide and cut a deal, but my conscience tells me otherwise. सत्यमेव जयले Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock and take this to arbcom

From what we're seeing unfold, I think that it is becoming clear that there is more to this than meets the eye. this is out and out arbcom stuff. I think, RA has blundered in singling out few users for unilateral action. I demand that all the blocked users be unblocked and the matter be taken to Arbcom. There are several questions that these revelations raise and all of them cannot be discussed here. I will reserve my comments for an arbcom.

For now, I request that users be discerning enough to note that there are two issues here -

1. Allegations of POV pushing
2. Allegations of meatpuppetry

The first one is not news and is as stale as stale can get. We dont need a sting operation and sensationalised revelations to tell us that. The second, prima facie is falsifiable and looks to be full of conjecture and convenient conclusions. This case is crying for Arbcom intervention and a closer examination of the 'evidence' by a larger group of wikipedians. I honestly feel that RA has jumped the gun and that Baka has genuine reasons to feel victimised. I request a neutral admin to unblock everyone and haul all of them and the admins involved over to arbcom. Sarvagnya 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's guilt is self-evident, as is the involvement of Sir Nick in these proceedings. There is nothing to justify Baka's "victimisation." His complicity with Kelkar has been clearly exposed. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's guilt is not self-evident to me even after reading the emails. Maybe some additional explanation and background were necessary, but these were not provided. Beit Or 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And, dear Sarvagnya, don't try to distract the debate like you tried above with your lecture on Dab's incivility. Anyone who can read and understand English knows that Baka's guilt has been established clearly. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's guilt has been established no more clearly than dagizza's or nick's or amey's or anyone on that list for that matter. It can be argued that everyone on that mailing list are conspirators. But no. If you want me to believe that this is the only mailing list going around on wikipedia, I can only once again, ask you to not act so naive.

The crux of your block is meatpuppetry. People talk a hundred things in the privacy of their bedrooms and mailing lists. You still have not established that they acted upon hkelkar's advice. For example, hkelkar advises that .."a case can be made that dab recruits trolls.....". That is the only explicit 'order' that he gives in the mail trail. Can you show me that the blocked users acted upon that advice? Or any other advice of kelkar's? Can you show me the diffs? Simply 'catching' users on the same mail chain as a banned user is not meatpuppetry. Sorry. Sarvagnya 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Where are the diffs supporting the accusation of meatpuppetry? Beit Or 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What diffs would you like? the one where Bakasuprman explicitly calls someone part of Dab's 'army of trolls'? The one where he notes that I am 'carrying out the dictates of banned Pakistani trolls?' This is truly extraordinary. Hornplease 21:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding yourself to think that Baka needs ideas from somebody else to say those things. huh. Sarvagnya 22:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse taking this case to the ArbCom. The matter is too complicated, too controversial, too damaging, and too wide-ranging to be resolved on this board. Beit Or 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that while I approve of an arbcom investigation into the actions of certain admins who seem to be involved in this nonsense, I see nothing here that indicates that the original banning of Bakasuprman needed to be taken to arbcom. The community shoots itself in the foot once again. I am disappointed, but unsurprised. Hornplease 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's arrow just filed an ArbCom case. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rama and others, please move the case to ArbCom. And stop this here. First, the whole thing is very damaging. And it's not going to end soon. Please everyone try to stay cool, and move this. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have redacted numerous e-mail addresses from this entire thread. There is no reason for these to be posted on-wiki. In the unlikely event that an arbitrator or other editor genuinely needs to verify such an address, it can be retrieved from the page history. This is not an endorsement of any other material that was or wasn't posted or a comment on the merits of the dispute. Newyorkbrad 01:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking that a step further and removing the e-mail contents. They constitute private correspondence, and should not have been posted here. The case has been referred to ArbCom; should it be accepted for RfAr, further evidence can be cited there. -- Samir 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And I disown all the juvenile bullshit RA posted against me. He has conveniently made it up. I have repeat backlog exams and project submissions due in a few days, only because I was busy reverting vandal edits at the night before the exams. So, if I may be excused for a few days, I will come back with solid and provable on-wiki evidence against Rama's Arrow and his nationalistic edits, bias against Pakistani editors, abuse of admin tools by blocking those involved in disputes with him, and the recent wheel-war with Humus sapiens. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone archive this section? Otherwise counter-charges, allegations, etc. will continue to be posted here. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, please, before I expire of confusion. As far as I can tell, two admins are accusing each other of an anti-Pakistani POV. Hornplease 06:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Klaksonn and Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah

Today I noticed that Klaksonn (talk • contribs) recreated Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah and Template:User_Hezbollah (as Template:User_Hezbollah 2) for the fourth time (since April 2) today which I speedily deleted again. I blocked him for a week, only to relent because I was concerned that I may have overreacted since he hasn't of yet re-added it to his userpage. However, his downright hostility towards me (for example: he has previously accused me of being racist and having double standards merely because I was Australian) and other editors as well as total disregard for policy has exhausted my patience. Now that he has threatened to have me de-opped, I hereby ask other administrators to review his behaviour and send him a strong message that we will not continue to tolerate such inflammatory displays on user pages or his incivility. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You told him on the 2nd to take it to deletion review and not to recreate it. He did it anyway. He also seems quite incivil on the talk page. I don't feel you were in error anywhere on this one. IrishGuy ^talk 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Recreated category per "Likud Wikipedians", "Yisrael Beytenu Wikipedians", "Kadima Wikipedians" and so on.. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't recreate the category for the last time today, as you sadly claim. I recreated it weeks ago and no one seemed to have a problem with it. I bet you knew that. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your rationale is irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. You were asked to seek deletion review rather than constantly recreating. You chose to recreate anyway...while making personal attacks and calling Netsnipe a racist. IrishGuy ^talk 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above is a valid arguement. My rationale is very relevant. Other categories exist, I don't see why the one I created is inappropriate. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I also see you're making it personal by trying to get me blocked for 3RR, reverting edits to an article I created. Very low. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He just broke the 3RR rule. As I have reverted him, someone else should block him. He was warned, he did it anyway. IrishGuy ^talk 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How am I "making it personal"? I don't even know you. I read this report and looked at your edit history. IrishGuy ^talk 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it is 5 reverts now. IrishGuy ^talk 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to an article I created. I have provided sources, one of which from an American governmental organization, saying IC is one of the finest educational insitutions in the world. I find it normal for this to provoke some jealousy. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Three-revert rule applies to all articles, whether or not you created them. --Iamunknown 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

When one editor was about to break this rule, IrishGuy somehow intervened to get ME blocked for 3RR. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Klaksonn for thirty-six hours for edit-warring. Feel free to continue discussing the Hezbollah template matter, though. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It has also been the case that Klaksonn has been incivil to me in the past, committing a breach of WP:NPA by calling me a racist, and telling me to "Buzz off", after I nominated the template he has recreated, for the first time. Myself, Netsnipe and Klaksonn were in quite a heated debare which resulted in Netsnipe blocking Klaksonn for 24 hours.In this case, and bearing in mind this user has previously been blocked for longer, and warned to behave himself when he came back (which he obviously has NO intention of doing, I would ask these previous blocks to be taken into consideration and for the present 36 hour block to be severely extended. I see no other way of keeping this user under control. Thor Malmjursson 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all of Kalksonn's contributions are inappropriate. I don't think they warrant an indefblock yet. --Iamunknown 01:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for an indef, but surely his past incivility, bad manners, behaviour and downright disregard for rules and procedures should be enough to get him more than one and a half days "time out". Thor Malmjursson 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So why exactly is this category not allowed? The Behnam 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial reason the template and associated category were nominated (in the case of my nomination, for speedy (as devisive and inflammatory)) is that Hezbollah is generally viewed almost worldwide as a terrorist organisation involved in illegal activities. In my estimation, if someone were to create [[Category: Wikipedians who support Al-Qaeda]], [[Category:Wikipeidans who would like to be suicide bombers]], [[Category:Wikipedians who smoke dope]] or [[Category:Wikipedians with pedophilic tendencies]], they would all get the same treatment. The activity they support is illegal, and therefore could be devisive. Could also start a war with someone creating [[Category:Wikipedians who do not support Hezbollah]]. In short, devisive, inflammatory and plain wrong. Wikipedia is not a battleground! Thor Malmjursson 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though it is a slippery slope in both directions. If expressing support for Hezbollah is not acceptable, what political opinion statements are next? Why not scrap all of them anyway? They don't serve the project, but they can negatively affect it. True? The Behnam 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

False debate on it's face. This stuff comes up almost exclusively in regard to a couple of contentious geo-political problems. No one complains ' He has the i'm a democrat' userbox, or the GOP userbox, or the Labour party box. No, people complain when someone's got a terrorist group, and then people scream outrage because they secretly support that terrorist group too, but are smart enough to not advertise it. When it's pointed out that blowign up 3 year olds is generally reviled, they scream 'then get rid of all userboxes, you're repressing my freedom'. No, we're going with widespread consensus that 99% of userboxes are fine, and 1% need to be examined and possibly removed. the "I support suicide bombers who blame everything on jews instead of their own lack of self-accountability" Userboxes should be removed and deleted. The 'I support a major party in the politics of my own nation' boxes are fine. No one's complaining about the 'This user is a member of Fatah' Userbox; it's a legit party. (Is there such a box?) ThuranX 03:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fatah is a legit party!? 68.248.83.41 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say it is about as 'legit' as Hamas. Perhaps Hamas is more legitimate from the perspective of political legitimacy, considering the vote. Oh wait, does 'legit' mean acceptable to Israel & friends? I suppose that Fatah is legitimate under that assumption. The Behnam 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

More so than Hamas, which has lot more ties to terrorism than Fatah. Even Hamas is more legit than Hezbollah. Both have participated in free elections, both are starting to get major recognition as political parties, not terrorist groups. ThuranX 04:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The user in question was obviously being hostile and as such should be properly dealt with. However, with regards to the larger matter at hand, I have to disagree with some of the users above. Hezbollah is in fact represented in the Lebanese Parliament and as such it does not seem entirely inappropriate for users to believe that category's or infoboxes should be created in "support" or stating their membership in this organization.--Jersey Devil 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Devil, in respect of Klaksonn's behaviour, Hostile is to Understatement, as "Minor tremor" is to the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906! Thor Malmjursson 03:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Question one: how do userboxes supporting even relatively non-controversial political parties benefit the encyclopedia?
Question two: how much time is spent arguing over what does or does not cross the line into the unacceptable?
Of course, I'm not arguing for "fair treatment" of this userbox (userboxes don't have rights) which should be deleted either way. But it's time to delete them all. Not userfy, but delete and remove. If some users leave Wikipedia as a result…great. Experience shows that these are often the very same editors who causes other problems in the pursuit of these same opinions; those who are not will accept the removal of contentious material with grace and an eye towards moving forward.
Wikipedia is not a forum for self-expression, national, political, religious or otherwise. When new editors visit another editor's userpage and see it filled with that editor's opinions, they got the wrong idea, and who can blame them? It's our collective responsibility for allowing it.Proabivouac 04:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban userboxes is your solution? Throw a hissy fit and get rid of userboxes. and then say 'well, anyone who goes wasn't worth keeping?' I think you'll find we'll lose hundreds of editors, who will see that as a major step towards thoroughly anonymizing their hobby. You will not just lose problem editors, you'll lose good editors who like that they can be themselves in their wikipedia presence while helping the project. Once Userboxes are gone, the next logical step will be the elimination of almost all text oon userpages, because someone will see identification of rival college enrollment as offensive, rival careers as belittling, and lists of on wiki accomplishments as elitist. We'll have to switch to numbered ID's, adn then we hit reducto ad nauseum. No one on this project (or nearly zero, there might be three or four odd ducks) wants to have a user number, and not name. Userboxes are fine in the vast majority, those supporting terrorist groups, pedophilia (also under discussion on AN/I), and other anti-social, often criminal behaviors need to go. This 'eliminate em all if I can't have my 'kill all the XYZ's' box is childish. ThuranX 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you meant reductio ad absurdum? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but ... nauseum, absurdum... either way, the point's the same. Taken too far, everything gets stupid. (and probably sickeningly so.) thanks. ThuranX 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-read my comment; I was specifically addressing userboxes supporting political parties. We can recognize three categories of userboxes: those which are helpful (e.g., identifying subject expertise, language fluency, admin status, etc.), those which are useless but benign (probably the majority,) and those which are useless and cause pointless strife. The third of these should be eliminated, because there is no compelling argument to keep them.Proabivouac 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the vitriol and insult throwing above, fact is that 1) userboxes are not the goal of the wikipedia project. 2) Editors are offended by userboxes saying that a user supports hezbollah, myself for one. I consider myself a moderate, and I consider myself to have an open mind in terms of userboxes. However, Hezbollah is on at least 6 country's designated terrorist organization lists. Hezbollah has a long and well-documented history of conducting terrorist acts. It is polemic, it is designed to incite and inflame, and it is offensive to me as Jewish editor, that someone would be allowed to have a userbox in support of a group that has advocated, quote: ""If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew." and "“if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”" ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, you're discriminating againt, um, his culture.Proabivouac 11:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sad to see Hezbollah, a legitimate resistance movement, being compared to crackheads, pedophiles and actual terrorits, when someone like "Thor Malmjursson" is allowed to have a userpage this disturbingly repulsive. This is a sad day. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Compared to actual terrorists.....you mean like the 6 countries that have designated either part or all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization? Or the European Parliment declaration 2 years ago that recognized "clear evidence" or "terrorist activities" by Hezbollah? Or the AMIA Bombing, the worst terrorist incident in Argentine history, carried out by Hezbollah? Sure. That's legitimate. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet again, I come under attack... or rather, my choice of design does...Maybe it would be better if I blank my page. Thor Malmjursson 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We can argue here 'till the end of life on earth but saying that is generally viewed almost worldwide as a terrorist organisation involved in illegal activities is erroneous (read Hizbollah article) as one might argue the same thing about the U.S. administration. I followed User:Embargo's case for a long time and eventhough i blocked him for a 24h period (for relating his Hezbollah supporting userbox to Israeli massacres- according to him) i never supported admins' actions toward him forbiding him to use any userbox mentioning Hezbollah. If your motto, guys, is NPOV than apply it thru and be fair. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Brown

I vaguely remember hearing that name before. I received a fourteen-page-long e-mail from one BlackTeller regarding alleged sockpuppetry by Rachel Brown, with the request that I post it on this board. Did anyone else receive something similar? Could anyone familiar with RB inform me if such a post would be useful here? >Radiant< 07:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Did the fourteen page email actually contain any evidence? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It establishes a pattern of similarity in editing style as well as xFD/RFA !voting habits, as well as a lack of overlap in editing times, of three accounts and one IP. I suppose that counts as tangential evidence. The link towards Rachel is somewhat tenuous. >Radiant< 09:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

She hasn't edited in more than a year, unless she is using sockpuppets and just hasn't touched her main account. hbdragon88 23:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk discussion yields interesting stuff. Four accounts were blocked after a CheckUser, but they were all later unblocked due to a "lack of evidence." hbdragon88 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I got an email after putting a not_a_ballot message on Category:Jewish figure skaters saying that there are potential meatpuppets/sockpuppets participating in recent cfds on Jewish topics. It turns out this was true in part.

Supposedly, users have been leaving messages on each other's talk pages (or possibly emailing each other) in order to recruit their vote for those cfds. Specifically, User:Epeefleche was spamming user's talk pages with requests that they save "Jewish athlete categories" nominated for deletion. He did this before with categories such as Category:Jewish fencers. One of the userpages he spammed was User:Londoneye, who according to that link was previously blocked as a sockpuppet of Rachel_Brown, with a suspicious message of "Hello, I know this has interested you in the past" [11]. Though Londoneye didn't vote on the category, he/she did interestingly request for User:Epeefleche's email address [12]. And although Londoneye didn't vote, another suspected sockpuppet of Rachel_Brown DID vote on three recent cfds: User:Newport. ([13], [14], [15])

There are other discussions here: [16].

The type of vote fraud described in the past discussions of Rachel_Brown are very similar to the type of vote recruitment and email messaging that is apparently happening now. I had suspected meatpuppetry involved in some of these cfds even before the email, and I wouldn't go past saying sockpuppetry could be involved too in some way.

If these allegations are true, given that Rachel_Brown was accused of sockpuppetry in the past and accused specifically of vote fraud using these previously-blocked suspected sockpuppets (User:Londoneye, User:Poetlister, User:Taxwoman), it is unlikely she/he would be foolish enough to continue the vote fraud under all of the same usernames.

So it is reasonable to say there might be other usernames. I do recommend this be investigated. Bulldog123 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wish this hadn't cropped up again but, if anyone wants to investigate, these may be relevant [17], [18]. I made one of the contributions. Thincat 11:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that some of those users in the aforementioned discussions (Arniep, Mistress Selina Kyle, Zordrac) who were arguing for the unblocking of the Rachel Brown alleged sockpuppets are themselves now blocked indefinitely. The alleged puppet accounts seem somewhat connected, with suspicious statements placed with a seeming intent to dissuade suspicion (for example, User:Taxwoman's contributions articles (User:Taxwoman/articles) includes a link that writes: "Watford tube station (with photos, but not mine)". A little odd how she stressed the photo is not hers. Most people wouldn't even feel the need to mention it. Of course, when you realize that User:Londoneye is well known to provide pictures of local tube stations like that, it makes sense why she would feel the need to stress it wasn't her picture...definitely peculiar). Feydakin 05:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it matters whether they actually were sockpuppets or just meatpuppets. Vote recruitment using friends is just as bad as sockpuppetry voting. Unless the information Radiant! has shows recent (meaning within this year or ideally this month) examples of such activity using sockpuppets or meatpuppets, there is no use in bringing back a year old discussion. That doesn't solve anything. Can Radiant! share anything that might be of use?

But to be the Devil's advocate, if they were just meatpuppets, they seemed to have timed their contributions to be in sync. This is output from my sorting algorithm, in which I input the contribution summaries of all four of Rachel_Brown's alleged sockpuppets from January 1, 2007 to today: [19]. This, I suppose, does back up what Radiant! mentioned: that there doesn't seem to be any overlap in editing times whatosever. The great similarity in which all their usepages look (or once looked) is something I found very interesting. [20], [21], [22], [23] At some point in time, all the userpages had a photo of "themselves" and a link to either an edit counter showing their edit count or to some page of their contributions (invariably written as "Some articles I've been involved with" or "a link to my contributions" etcetera). To me, this looks a lot like someone was trying too hard to make the userpages look like different people with different personalities (interests) without realizing they were organizing the userpages pretty much identically. My guess: these people actually do exist separately in real life and maybe they are friends, but only one of them actually edits wikipedia, and she/he splits up their interests among the usernames. This alone would be excusable since sockpuppets that are used only to concentrate interests are allowed, but the effort put into making them look like separate people and then using them in that way is inappropriate. Again, unless there's recent evidence of such activity, there is absolutely no point in opening the safe. Bulldog123 08:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir

• Diyarbakir (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground

User had been tagging random cities with "Category:Kurdistan" [24] [25]. When the categories were removed as per WP:V and WP:NPOV [s]he reverted them back with an edit summary "revert anti-kurd edit". [26] [27]

I do not believe [s]he is a new user given the nature of the edits. Being as inactive as [s]he is, his/her ability to notice such category removals is also suspicious. Especially on articles where [s]he has no edits which may involve WP:HA.

Although registering as far back as 13 September 2006, user has fewer than 100 edits of which most seems to be voting (keepinging kurdistan), categorizing (adding Kurdistan) or reverting (restoring Kurdistan).

-- Cat ^chi? 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Without making a comment on the sockpuppet issue (I think I side with you on that, it feels like an established editor) I must point out that those are not 'random cities' but cities that are in the region commonly known as Kurdistan... seems obvious they should be tagged as such. I'm not going to wade into this dispute (I honestly think I'm the only uninvolved editor on the entire 'pedia in regards to the kurdistan wars) but you may want to let the edits stand. -M^ask? 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. The user avoids discussion and merely reverts without relying on any kind of sources nor discussion. Entire contribution seems to be revering. Users with similar edit patterns have been banned before such as User:Diyako who also has a history of sockpuppets. WP:V suggests that I should be able to "verify" these issues without relying on someones personal belief system. I have every reason to remove anything that can't be "verifiable" unless evidence to the contrary (verifiable info) is provided. -- Cat ^chi? 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir could be sourced to Turkish Kurdistan specifically, and the 11 provinces the Kurds have in Turkey at The parent Kurdistan page over at GlobalSecurity.org fairly easily. Right wing think tank or not, they do do exhaustive research. -M^ask? 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is User:Diyarbakir's user conduct. This is ANB/I not the articles/categories talk page. Please take your content related arguments there. Your argument is not inline with Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines #8 -- Cat ^chi? 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It really is. Your argument is that the user is a policy-breaking sock. I'm pointing out that the actions were inline with policy and as such the sock cant be rightfully classed as abusive unless the owners been banned. Want to try again? We can start the conversation over now that we know where each others coming from :) -M^ask? 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have said all I have to say. This isn't a content discussion, instead it is a request of admin review. Admin's will decide weather or not to take action. Smudging it with a content dispute is disruptive IMHO. -- Cat ^chi? 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So now you're accusing AKMask of being "disruptive", for pointing out that the user you've accused of being "suspicious" hasn't made any abusive edits? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider revert wars disruptive yes, thats what Diyarbakir is doing. Locating CfD on 10th edit is more than enough to suspect Diyarbakir to be a sockpuppet. As for AKMask, I do not recall making an accusation. If it looked that way please disregard. That was not the intention. -- Cat ^chi? 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would an administrator comment on the edit behavior of this user? -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not paid enough to get involved. Speaking as an Admin, & having looked not only at Diyarbakir's edits, but also such fora including Category talk: Kurdistan (discussion stalled since February, page protected) & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan, that's my comment on this entire conflict -- Diyarbakir, you & Kurdistan. -- llywrch 22:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also a volunteer. I see no point in this post. -- Cat ^chi? 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: this was concurrently on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Diyarbakir . -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou inappropriate violations

Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Multiple warnings (not from myself) on the User's talk page. Seems to be a repeated pattern, the warnings don't seem to do much good. Warnings related to policies: WP:HARASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:WQ.

Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Possible_Tendentious_editing_by_User:Steve_Dufour_and_User:Misou

Relevant troublesome DIFFs:

1. WP:HARASS (revealing user's personal info) - [28]
2. poison dripping off your teeth now again - [29],
3. knucklehead like Touretzky - [30],
4. You might want to spill some cold water in your face as you must be dreaming - [31],
5. PFUI (name of editor) - [32],
6. so obviously tainted by anti-Scientology POVs that I could puke - [33],
7. If this is all you have to contribute to my request you might as well shut up - [34]
8. Propaganda shit removed. disrelated material goes. Bye2 - [35]
9. Whoever put this in there should be sued by the Scientologists for libel. How blind can you be to leave this in so long? - [36]
10. (Undid revision 120657435 by F.Obstruso. WP:VANDAL!!! You should get shot from water pistols by the partisan squad.) - [37]

Yours, Smee 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

And these:

1. This was constructive editing until you - Mr. Know-it-all - showed up here. Don't you have enough problems at home? [38]
2. PS, and your WP:OR statements should go where the sun never shines [39]

I have made an effort not only to warn the user for each violation, but to be civil myself (although he says that I am "cynical"). --Tilman 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for a week. I'm not a big fan of abusive editors who think they can game the system. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am particularly disturbed by the editor's behavior cited in reason #1. In the edit summary block he calls out another editor by what he believes to be their real name. He received this information from one Barbara Schwarz, another editor that was banned indefinitely partially because she attempted to do the same thing. Whether or not Ms. Schwarz is a reliable source of information isn't even relevant, but Misou's reporting of what he believes to be the personal information about another editor should be harshly punished. Vivaldi (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have witnessed that almost all the Anti-Scientologists have coloured Misou's discussion's page (See Misou talk page archive) with anti-User propaganda and this was done almost in sequence. Is that all the ambition of some Wikipedia admins to blindly favour such tactics ? --Jpierreg 10:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One week block too long?

An editor, on Misou's talk page, has raised a concern with the length of time for the block. Anyone else want to weigh in? I think it was reasonable, considering the full knowledge the editor had that their behavior was disruptive (specifically, not only had they been warned several times, but they actively engaged the warning editors and responded to the warnings, eliminating any doubt that they could have missed them). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not support uncivilized comments. However, this does not appear to be a clear cut case of uncivil remarks. Tilman and Misou seem to have diametrically opposed viewpoints. While I do not condone Misou's choice of words, I also feel that Tilman helps set the tone, and thus encourages Misou to react rather than respond. His comments are often blunt, matter of fact and curt. While perhaps technically WP:CIVIL, they do little to encourage compromise and discussion. These two will probably never see eye to eye and be best friends, but I believe that Tilman does very little to reduce the tension.

Immediately after one of the remarks was made, Tilman posted a warning on Misou's page. While perhaps technically proper (I don't know), I felt that it did little to reduce tension. I posted on both users' pages. On Tilman's I posted that I felt it would be better if he let someone else 'warn', rather than giving the appearance of being righteous and increasing tension. On Misou's page, I posted that he was out of line and not helping himself. However, I did not intend to be counted as one of multiple users warning him as I feel that is overstating it.

I have not been on wiki long enough to know what punishment fits what crime. You have my overall views on these two and you are welcome to apply them in whatever manner you see is just. -Peace in God. Lsi john 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou has indeed used uncivilized wording in some of his heated edits and responses, making it difficult to defend him, however after reading through the cited violations above, some appear to be a bit overstated. Whether they all qualify for wp:civil is for someone else to decide, however I do recommend reading the history around them before making a long-term decision. Lsi john 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize that this block came from ANI so I had posted on Misou's talk page and I thank EVula for bringing up my concern here. Irrespective of warnings or discussions, this is Misou's 1st block, right? Then I think 24-hours would have sufficed and, for a stern warning, 48-hours as a maximum. And yes, Misou has risen to bait on occasion but, rather than over-analyze, can we just give him a more reasonable block and move on? That is all. Thanks. --Justanother 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an analyst. I analyze and analyze... But, I agree that a week was harsh. -Peace in God. Lsi john 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To those questioning the length of the block, please look at some of the past discussions about these issues in Misou's archives. User talk:Misou/Archive/Archive-Apr2007 User talk:Misou/section index Anynobody 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the length of the block was appropriate considering the frequent instances of violation of wikipedia editing policy. It was fair and just.--Fahrenheit451 01:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Having observed much of the above unfold as it happened, I feel this block (and its length) is appropriate. Robertissimo 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Block is inappropriate and reflects taking "side" to anti-editors Misou might be temperamental but be bold and WP:IAR still apply. Overdoing it should be penalized with a 24hr block or 48hrs maximum, if repeated (which it is not). CSI LA 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Block is appropriate for user who continually abuses the system and repeatedly disregards the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. His contempt for Wikipedia and its editors is repeatedly shown in his comments and edit summaries. Vivaldi (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

IAR has no bearing on civility; I suggest you re-read the policy before throwing it into a debate about someone's behavior.
Also, please assume good faith; I'm not taking sides in any "side" in anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support one week block - per Robertissimo, Fahrenheit451, Vivaldi, and Anynobody. In my opinion, the blocking admin hasd acted correctly and appropriately. There appears to be more than uncivil behavior to justify such a block; specifically the violation of privacy concern with regards to editors' names. The uncivil behavior cited has often occured. Orsini 13:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• This looks valid to me, I endorse the block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Throwing myself against the lions here, but I reject the length of the block as inappropriate for a first violation. As a note, I find it unfair and uncivil to come along afterwards (with Misou not even able to comment here) and list out allegedly harmful past acts which have no meaning for the current block - as some editors do it here. That looks like kicking the one already on the ground and marks the quality of treatment Misou got when s/he was still here. COFS 03:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  The editor got by without any previous blocks by slipping through the cracks. Given the technicality, I see no reason why we should blindly enforce such a narrow-minded process of blocks. Misou had been warned numerous times to become more civil, and he never did. To blindly hold to some arbitrary notion of block duration is silly, in my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DE, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS and WP:NPA violations by User:69.141.30.12

WP:DE and WP:CIVIL

In spite of having been blocked for two weeks for sock puppetry (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke), User:69.141.30.12, alias BlowingSmoke, Moderation and EtaKooramNahSmech, to list the established sock puppets of User:69.141.30.12, does not seem to have understood the warning message and has reverted to his disruptive and malevolent editing. He has simply shifted his activity from the article on Passive smoking to the article on Smoking bans.

In the Passive smoking article, he made repeated attempts to remove the notion of causation linking passive smoking to diseases, running against the consensus of the long time editors of the article (this is well documented in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke). He is now doing the same thing, attacking this time the Smoking bans article, deleting a relevant reference and altering the text to throw doubt on the notion of causation:

• 20:15, 13 April 2007
• 10:59, 14 April 2007
• 08:58, 17 April 2008
• 22:33, 17 April 2007
• 20:15, 18 April 2007
• 06:15, 19 April 2007
• 15:20, 22 April 2007
• 21:41, 22 April 2007
• 02:53, 23 April 2007
• 17:22, 23 April 2007

His edits were reverted by several editors, including myself.

WP:HARASS and WP:NPA

User:69.141.30.12 then made an attempt to harass me. He posted a threatening (unsigned) message on my Talk page, accusing me of "repeated violations of the Wikipedia policy" and of having "hatred" for smokers:

• 02:59, 23 April 2007

My personal policy is to ignore such messages, and I simply deleted it from my Talk page. Nevertheless, User:69.141.30.12 came back to my Talk page and undid my deletion of his threatening message:

• 17:22, 23 April 2007

This is a clear violation of WP:HARASS (See User space harassment).

Could you please do something to stop User:69.141.30.12's malevolent activities, as they are highly disruptive, they waste every other editor's time, and they are totally counterproductive. --Dessources 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User Dessources has claimed ownership smoking ban article, reverting any changes which disagree with his anti-smoking point of view, which is clearly stated on his talk page. User talk: Dessources Is it not clear if the views are his own, or this of his meatpuppet, Nmg20

• [[40]]

Dessources has disregarded the following policies to retain control of these articles: WP:OWN Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not.

• 18:56, 23 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 125225649 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Restore to original, consensual version) [[41]]
• 23:20, 22 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (→Rationale - Rv unjustified mass deletion and changes) [[42]]

All diffs below qualify, as well.

WP:CIV:

Judgmental tone in edit summaries :

• 10:06, 23 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 125046223 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Rv obstinate amd illusory attempts by same person to inject POV) [[43]]

Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:CIV#ICA)

• 10:55, 17 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 123482202 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Rv - Blowingsmoke is back with his POV edits!) [[44]]

Removal or properly cited passages, in violation of WP:VERIFY "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

• 09:07, 19 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 124018690 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) False and anecdotal evidence)
• 10:59, 17 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 123481800 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Citation is clearly unscientfic and unsufficient - mostly anecdotal)
• 01:15, 11 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (→Effects on businesses - Delete false statement: polls done prior to the ban showed that it enjoyed wide popular support)

He refers to requests that he refrain from violating WP: NPOV as "threats." He reverts good-faith attempts to neutralize the article, characterizing the edit as "vandalism," "malevolent" and "attacks."

• [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smoking_ban&diff=prev&oldid=123922408
• [[45]]

Such imflammatory langauge inhibits reasonable discourse, and is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL I have never ciriticized Dessources in any way, other than the quality of his edits.

In contrast, he has accused me of threats, vandalism, sock puppetry (I display my IP address specifically to avoid this tactic), and has reverted every single edit good-faith I have made to the article.

I imagine this type of harrassment allows him to keep control of the articles, which is clearly not acceptable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.30.12 (talk • contribs).

I am not User:Dessources "meat puppet" (whatever that is; I presume he means "sock puppet"); we have in the past had arguments about aspects of the passive smoking page [46], and the edit history for that article reveals that we spent some time undoing one another's edits.

Unlike in the current situation, however, we reached an accord - User:69.141.30.12 refuses to do so despite a complete lack of support for his views. He also continues to ignore Wikipedia policy as Dessources has already outlined, and frankly it annoys me that I spend more time reverting his edits than I do working on new articles.

Regarding his tone, he has posted in the past using "we" instead of "I" [47] in an attempt to give his views more credibility, has deliberately ignored my repeated links to the Wikipedia policies he was breaching in the same section of that talk page, he continues to accuse me of "sanitising" articles to my own ends ("You state as the only grounds for its exclusion that there are no similar references used in the article, which is no surprise, as you insist on removing them"), refuses to sign talk posts ("Stop demanding that we sign our posts. We choose not to."), and has resorted to some pretty schoolyard comments ("I commend your decision to end an argument that you have lost."), albeit one that I admit I reacted badly to.

Really that thread is all you need to look at for evidence of the problem here - three separate users have explicitly disagreed with his views, and not one agrees with him, yet he continues to change the article and attempt to provoke a reaction on the talk page. I support what Dessources has said above. Nmg20 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

By way of follow-up, the Smoking ban article has been edited 40-odd times since yesterday (23rd April) morning, with the upshot of those edits currently standing at a change of 34 states to 35, and the addition of a link which has been disputed for weeks. The rest are almost all reverts of the same stuff User:69.141.30.12 has been championing on his own.

User:69.141.30.12's edits have been reverted by User:Dessources, User:Sigma 7 (who has an extensive edit history outside the page), and would have been reverted by me had others not got there first. In addition, User:John Quiggin has expressed his support for my objections on the use of ACSH as a source [48].

It would be great if we could get on with doing something constructive here rather than constantly having to revert destructive edits from one individual. Nmg20 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You can find the definition of a meatpuppet at WP:MEAT

I have not accused you of santitizing any article. I submit that you and your counterpart, Dessources, conspire to bias certain articles toward an anti-smoking POV.

You have admitting reverting all my edits, without consideration or discussion. You and your counterpart have also revert every edit by every user who posts anything to support the other side of the debate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.30.12 (talk • contribs).

As further evidence of User:69.141.30.12 harassment practices against me, he has made an attempt to add my account to the list of suspected sock puppets, without any justification. See [49]. His attempt was immediately turned down by User:Jaynestown and then was confirmed by User:Rklawton.

--Dessources 09:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing, possible disruption, possible deletion required

I've been helping out a user who asked for assistance at the Village Pump on DeVry University. I've done my best for the article but I am more of a fixer than an adder to articles. Nevertheless, User:Codeplowed appears to have unusual activity. I've done my best to assume good faith here, but he has been doing things that seem to be quite strange. His first edit was to introduce criticism to the article, and he appears to be a single-purpose account only editing that article. He appears to want a large amount of criticism in the article ([50]). Not to mention harassment ([51], [52], etc.).

When I gave him a rough equivalent of {{uw-npa2}} with a little good faith as a warning for it (those and calling people "WikiImpostor"), but I was met with "stupidity out of my talk page". When I tried to give him a little bit of guidance on {{Talkheader}}'s usage, I was met with a revert calling me a Digimon (Digimon, I've been editing these over the past few years but I still know very little about it). Then when I told him not to call me names and notified him of some of my changes he might have missed, I got a riddle: "Just looking into verifiable facts: Digimon is all that is fantasy: it is not a person, it the creation of fantasy this entry is about actual families and their children and their future: Facts" - I only ended up deducing I was a fantasy of some sort. In all these conversations, he removed my comments from the talk page.

Then I think there are bad faith assumptions ("reverting: Check for official information, as interpreted otherwise, Harrasment was done by what it seems now many users/employeers of DeVry do not put yoursel at stake by vandals") and a reluctance to remove {{advertising}} from the article's header (the lack of links on the page makes it sound weird)... Could I get some feedback on how to approach him? x42bn6 Talk 23:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say, calling someone a "Digimon" is a new one on me. I think next time I get in an argument with someone I'll call them a Duel Monster. ^_^ JuJube 00:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I get some assistance? Talk:DeVry University and its history (see User:Codeplowed's contributions. He is soapboxing the talk page putting views forward like:

BE BOLD and edit your own behavior, become neutral and better yet objective, weight the evidence do not fabricated the entry for your interests and selfish gains, like keeping your job or feeding your children without concern of all the harm that your actions and decisions are making in the life of our nation, many people that are our real ans infiltrated enemies[yours and mine and of your children] are helping you because they believe that our system does not work, in this regard they seem to be aiding you and working for/with you but only because their real aim and wants is to destroy our way of living and our reasons and values, our Freedoms and our future minds. By giving false promises, making money out of mediocre and obsolete ans inapplicable knowledge you are hurting our country and it is not the way for our future.

Does this violate WP:CIVIL?

The battleground is the REAL-life of thousands of people that have been victimized by DeVry and are or have been Victims of DeVry and you are part of it by interpreting facts as protecting this malady entitled DeVry Inc. It like protecting Hitler or working for an Institution that enslave people in the sense that you are doing wrong by receiving payments for a system that is causing harm and committing atrocities. What is worst is that you seem not to have the guts to recognize it. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, to adapt to new situations, DeVry Inc. has taught you to use treachery instead, it seems, nothing to do with manners of well-intentioned individuals, you have exhibited your behavior in here and is documented, yes you can archive it but you can not erased, there are many backups of it, however you can still quit.

And this?

I think he is one of the people who has an agenda against this University. It doesn't fall under WP:COI but I feel this makes him one of the editors that should not be editing the article so aggressively. Help? Thanks. x42bn6 Talk 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist and I'll participate after I have looked around a while and learned the background, players, etc. It certainly appears to be a messy talk page and the article could certainly use some help but it's not too bad. Codeplowed's extremely long and dense comments on the Talk page are difficult to read and appear to wander off-topic quite a bit but I'm not sure that's a capital offense. --ElKevbo 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Codeplowed has also been switching between using his logged-in account and his IP, 24.90.244.160. The only abuse in the past was writing Talk pages in the third person, but I'd consider the recent post on User talk:Mysteryquest sockpuppeting. Vagary 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There now appears to be a non-anonymous puppet: User:DiogenesRex Vagary 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Earlier he (well, I'm assuming it's the same person) posted to the conflict of interest noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard -- kind of like the equivalent of a change of venue? Should we post links there to the discussions on this board to fill in anyone reading the post on the other board? OtterZero 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Related Incident report below: #Disruptive? Perhaps they should be combined into one report? --Parzival418 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a break and ponder this

I just did some quick math and calculated that the archives of AN/I plus this page total approximately 9,300,000 words, or slightly more than 16 times the length of the English translation of War and Peace. Not admin related, but I thought the admins would get a kick out of it. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and how long did it take you to count them all?! :) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Half as long as it takes to read War and Peace? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The obvious next step is to publish AN/I as a book. Or translate it into Russian... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"День на предупреждении администратора" (or "A day on the Administrator's noticeboard", loosely translated), by Tolstoy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, I thought there was an allusion here to Solzhenitsyn's first published book. -- llywrch 17:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The amount of drama would make it an instant success among rings of teenage girls. // Sean William 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was easy - I took archive forty-something and archive 220-something, put them into Microsoft Word, averaged the word counts, and did some multiplication. It took five minutes, which is about .2% of the 42 hours it took me to read War and Peace last semester. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I always knew people spent more time here instead of here, but that's pretty outrageous! :) – Riana ^ऋ 03:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin, there's not much I can do besides read AN and AN/i. Well, except for newpages patrol. hbdragon88 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is sorta the same theory that you could pick two chapters (out of 365) of the novel and pass the final... :P   Shenme 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some more fodder: there have been 51302 edits to WP:AN, and the request for AN/I times out (see http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/). So yeah... we talk a lot. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was able to access the AN/I stats, and I took pictures of the stats page and uploaded them: Image:AN-I edits.png (the main part with the header,) Image:AN-I edits 2.png, Image:AN-I edits 3.png and Image:AN-I edits 4.png. 118080 edits here as of then. Grandmasterka 08:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the monthly summary: Image:AN-I usage by month.png. This excludes the one edit made by Jayjg back in January 2003, establishing the page. Grandmasterka 08:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg didn't establish the page, the server clock just got messed up. See this diff. Graham87 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'd strongly suggest increasing the sample and posting the results as a mini-essay in Category:Wikipedia statistics (and essay cat), like I did with this.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to build a top-10 social networking site and an encyclopedia of policy with one meeeeeeeeeellion rules, guidelines and processes - David Gerard 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User will not stop "fixing" other users' talk page posts

Bart Versieck (talk · contribs) has been warned many, many times, and blocked once already (and very recently) for this, but simply will not stop. Just a day or so after the block expired, he was right back at it, despite repeated promises to stop (or to "try to" stop, whatever that means). I suggest that a considerably more extended block may be in order. User claims it's an obsessive-compulsive disorder problem, but this not plausible as user has been on WP since 2005 but only started doing this last month. User has a very curious history of making good edits and almost as many disruptive ones; his talk page is piled to the metaphorical ceiling with complaints and warnings about almost every conceivable editing transgression, and his responses are uniformly either hostile or mock-obsequious, yet he's also got a number of kudos messages posted to him, and before I was aware of his disruption problems, I'd considered giving him a minor barnstar for some good editing work! See User talk:Bart Versieck#Perpetual problem with editing others posts after many warnings and promises to not do so for consolidated a meta-thread about this editing problem (or this history page if that consolidation has been reverted by the time this is addressed. I thought about filing this at WP:AIV, but this seems more a WP:DE than WP:VANDAL issue, per se. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please correct your post on his talk page from 1995 to 2005 or whenever he started (ahh, I'm getting OCD! :)) Anyway, although psychological issues are not a laughing matter when they are true and Wikipedia may be tolerant, however, Wikipedia cannot indefinitely accommodate such edits. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I really say 1995? "Le-e-et's do the Time Warp aga-a-ain!" Sheesh. I must've been tired, or listening to an old album or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this. If people need to correct things, we have endless things to correct. Remember, anyone can edit, which means an endless supply of typos/whatsits/etc. We have pages devoted to lists of recurring nightmares. Trust me, there are dozens of 'desribed/desribes', 'unecessary', 'equivilent', and the like. If that's too easy, look at every 'Alpert' trying to find the ones that should be 'Albert' (they are out there!). And after reading project talk pages, it is marvelously calming to correct the few 'worshiped' or the one 'stronlgy', and then go to bed. (Ahhh! I have OCD!) Shenme 06:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can stand you lose such an editor (with all the corrections and whatnot). Perhaps some very stern warnings and short blocks when he just can't resist fixing other people's comments would work. A bigger problem, is the misuse of minor edit marking. John Reaves (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely you mean "I don't think we can stand "TO" lose such an editor.....maybe he'll fix it ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think some talk page comment editing is helpful (such as if a message is too incoherent to read) but it looks as if he is taking this way too far. I'd agree with short blocks if this continues. I'd also suggest he put a self-imposed ban on himself from viewing article talk pages if it is getting him to the point of being blocked. VegaDark 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, a ban is absolutely rediculous. Short blocks as needed. Besides, he makes people sound better on talkpages. Buy him a beer as a thank you, dont flip out at him. -M^ask? 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly no ban; I would never propose that. Why I bring the issue up here is that he's already received a month's worth of "stern warnings" and received at least one "short block". They aren't working. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty nice that a user is willing to spend time fixing other people's errors, but I agree it gets annoying after a while. He doesn't make major changes anyways, just minor wordings such as "and" -> "plus", so I don't think it's such a big deal? (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See the multiparty discussion on this talk page that I linked to in the first post on this topic. A superfluity of "drive-by edited" users do think it is a big deal, and this behavior is specifically warned against at WP:EQ and even the subject of its own user warning template. While it isn't the same thing as blanking page or inserting defamatory comments in bios of living people, it is still disruptive and needs to be addressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been a big part of the discussions with Bart on this subject (see the summary discussion created on his talk page by SMcCandlish), and have found myself having the same dilemma people are discussing here. I certainly don't think he should be banned, as he does a lot of useful things here, but at the same time I think his actions on talk pages are very disruptive. I'm hoping the short blocks have made an impression -- he doesn't seem to have done it nearly as much in the last week or so. For those who don't think it's a big deal, I agree that it's not a big deal, but it's still a bad thing -- as the discussion on Bart's talk page shows, it's very easy to change the meaning of a comment unintentionally, and it makes many editors uncomfortable that others are seeing something other than exactly what they wrote. Pinball22 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A filthy propagandist vs. WP:NOT

I've just blocked this propagandist who has been spreading hate speech at Talk:Islamofascism in the form of forum discussions in opposition to WP:NOT. I had alarmed them before but i received a filthy message instead on my talk page before blocking the account. Can someone please review that if possible? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I think you might have overreacted a wee bit. However, I found the claim that Islam was the only religion to have killed people very amusing. JuJube 09:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• According to them, i am a plain killer. Does that mean that i like listening to Killing Time (Massacre album)?-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We block people for that sort of nonsense all the time. Calling a huge ethnic group a bunch of killers and fascists is well over the line. Can say I approve of the label "filthy propagandist", it is best not to insult even the people we block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslims are not an "ethnic group", but a "religious group". Muslims can be found in all ethnicities. Corvus cornix 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just wanted to comment that, whatever the editor you have commented on has done, FayssalF, I would like to think that no one deserves to be referred to as a "filthy propagandist" and, frankly, am shocked by such word usage. Regards, Iamunknown 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I know it was a moment when i was feeling really bad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't hold it against you. I understand that things get heated. I felt like expressing my opinion nonetheless. Maybe I shouldn't have addressed it to you, but instead I should have posed my opinion in general. My apologies for putting you in what I would consider an uncomfortable situation. --Iamunknown 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no. I appreciate your comments of course. My motto is "Just Wiki me up ® and correct me if I am wrong." -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Serial abuse of minor edit tag

User:Wnjr has racked up a lengthy user contributions list; with only an insignificant number of exceptions, these edits are almost invariably tagged as being "minor." See [53]

The use of "minor edit" tags is reserved for edits where "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."[54] Even a cursory review of recent edits that User:Wnjr has marked as "minor" reveals that the edits are frequently substantive. To pick only two recent examples:

• This edit to George Galloway may have some merits, but the changes it contains are substantive as opposed to the "typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes" connoted by the minor edit tag, and while there is perhaps something to be said for changing the sentence "Galloway has a reputation as a radical left-wing extremist who advocates a Stalinist style redistribution of wealth and extensive nationalisation of large industries" to "Galloway has a reputation as a fiery left-winger and advocates redistribution of wealth," it certainly isn't true that such a change "could never be the subject of a dispute" as the minor edit tag connotes.
• There is, surely, nothing objectionable to adding the name of a version of OSX.[55] But even if that edit "could never be the subject of a dispute" (Which is not certain, since the insertion is unsourced), it is a substantive change, not the sort of "typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes" connoted by the minor edit tag.

Just a few other recent examples of substantive edits mislabeled as "minor edits": [56][57][58][59][60][61].

The point here is not that the changes User:Wnjr are mistagging are necessarily objectionable, but that they are not minor as Wikpedia policy uses that term. These changes are ineluctably substantive, and my understanding of Wikipedia policy was that the minor edit tag should never be used for substantive edits. That, I had thought, is the purpose of the minor edit tag: to signal other editors that this edit does not require careful scrutiny.

I provided User:Wnjr with a warning on this point, see [62], and was met with total denial and hostility. User:Wnjr denies any impropriety in her or his past (mis)use of the minor edit tag, which suggests that he will continue to abuse it. Since user:Wnjr plainly has been and continues to serially abuse the minor edit tag, and since s/he is apparently unresponsive to being warned by a regular user, I would request that the warning be reiterated by an admin, to discourage this ongoing abuse. In the alternative, perhaps an admin could correct me if I have misunderstood the purpose of the minor edit tag.Simon Dodd 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While your concern about the "minor" tag was correct, you made the mistake of combining your message with a totally unnecessary level-3 warning ({{Uw-longterm}}, speaking of "only warning", "vandlism" and "you will be blocked". No wonder the other user reacted with hostility. I'd suggest you go back and apologise. By the way, there's an option in the edit preferences that marks all edits as minor by default, maybe some users think that's a good thing, who knows? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware when I added the secondary tag that {{Uw-longterm}} was a "level-3 warning ... speaking of 'only warning', 'vandlism' and 'you will be blocked.'" At WP:WARN, that tag is described as having the purpose of flagging a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse," which would precisely describe User:Wnjr's record of a long term pattern of abusing the minor edit tag. That's why I added it, and if that isn't {{Uw-longterm}}'s purpose, perhaps WP:WARN should be changed to reflect that? ;) Simon Dodd 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! Pull the other one. Is there something we don't know about here. Some history between you two? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, I'm not sure what part of my comment you're objecting to. I've never used the {{Uw-longterm}} tag before, and I used it in a case that (it seems to me) fell squarely within the kind of behavior that WP:WARN says the tag should be used for: a long-term pattern of abuse. I'm at a total loss for how you can suggest that if User:Wnjr has been abusing the minor edit tag for a long period of time, they have not ipso facto displayed "a long-term pattern of abuse," ex visceribus verborum.

Frankly, per your comment at the user's talk page, if I misused the tag, then yes: it is the tag's fault, or at least the fault of WP:WARN. If this tag shouldn't have been used in this case because the template is needlessly inflammatory as a remedy to the kind of abuse the tag is held out to remedy, then there is self-evidently a mismatch between the behavior WP:WARN says that the tag should be used to flag and the language the template employs to effect that warning. I see only two possible explanations for your doubting my good faith here: Are you denying that WP:WARN says that {{Uw-longterm}} tag is intended to warn a user for a "Long term pattern of abuse," or are you disputing my and Fut.Perf.'s conclusion that User:Wnjr was abusing the minor edit tag?

In any event, I've proposed changes to remedy what is apparently a problem.[63]. Simon Dodd 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am objecting to is you use of the word "abuse" in this context. I have personally, on many occasions advised people that they should not use the minor edit button for anything except trivial changes and I have never once, even thought to call a simple error on their part abuse. You were way of of line on this. Please also do not rely on templates. They are simply a shortcut way of saying something. They are not official, and they hold no greater importance than if you simply say something yourself. I hardly ever use templates, and certainly a situation like does not merit the use of a template at all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, misusing the minor edit tag once or twice is not abuse, that much we can certainly agree on. But that's a red herring: at issue here isn't terming a single, simple error "abuse," we're talking about serial mislabeling spread over 2+ years. Of 395 edits credited to user:Wnjr, see [64], virtually all are labeled as minor edits, and a significant fraction of those edits are substantive. That is serial misuse of the tag over a sustained period of time - and yes: when a user is "us[ing] wrongly or improperly[,] [or] misus[ing]"[65] a tool repeatedly, far beyond the point it's possible to excuse the conduct as simple or isolated mistake, that constitutes abuse, so far as I'm concerned.

And for that matter, even if there is a reasonable argument that this behavior doesn't qualify as abuse (either under the term's plain meaning or as a term of art on WP), with all due respect, that call is far from sufficiently inarguable to support your heavy-handed accusation that I was "way of of line on this." If your only quibble is semantics - i.e., the only issue that you're contending is whether user:Wnjr was serially "abusing" the minor label tag, rather than, perhaps, serially "misusing" or making a constant and repeated error - your conclusion is no more or less reasonable than mine, and while you might certainly disagree with my conclusion, you have no right on the strength of that alone to upbraid me for using a template that purports to be for dealing with serial abuse to flag what is at least arguably serial abuse.

It seems to me that your beef isn't with me, it's with the language of the template. So change the template, or change WP:WARN, but don't start hurling accusations of impropriety or bad faith around just because you disagree on a semantic judgment call. Simon Dodd 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that when reverting obviously disruptive edits they should be marked as minor because the edit plus the reversion results in no cumulative change to the page, am I wrong here?

Wnjr 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

self-evidently a mismatch between the behavior WP:WARN says that the tag should be used to flag and the language the template employs to effect that warning. Oh come on, you're not a dumbass, don't resort to that. If you're going to put a warning, you need to at least read it first. This is rediculous. He probably has the 'mark all edits as minor by default' box accidently checked in his profile. Ever think that instead of a knee-jerk, holier-then-thou decision to place a massively inflammatory warning on someones talk page, you ask nicely on a talkpage? Last time I check, WP:AGF wasn't something you could opt out of. In the future, dont use something till you've read it yourself. Never thought I'd have to actually tell someone that... -M^ask? 16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How has this become an issue? The tag is described on WP:WARN as being for flagging a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse." No one disputes that much. No one but the user him/herself disputes, on a substantive level, that User:Wnjr had developed a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse." How is it possible that anyone who speaks English as a first language can criticize me for using a tag for the purpose for which it is plainly advertised as existing at WP:WARN? As to whether the template is too strongly-worded, why are you criticizing me for that? Who am I to tell WP how harshly to come down on users determined to qualify for the tag? If you think the tag comes down too hard on a user, change the template, or change WP:WARN to make clear that it is not intended to flag a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse." The only credible basis you can possibly have for criticizing my adding the tag is if it is completely obvious that User:Wnjr's record vis-a-vis the minor edit label does not qualify as a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse" under either the ordinary meaning of those words, or as some WP term of art which I'm unaware exists. See [66].Simon Dodd 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You added a strongly worded warning that you failed to read first! How is this not going to be the issue? Off the top of my head, thats a WP:UCS violation and since the user only has 300 some edits, WP:BITE too. Either it was a mistake for the minor edits, as I pointed out, or a good faith inerpretation of the rules, as the user said (and I might actually side with them, reverting edit wars and vandalism could easily be classed as minor) or its a long term pattern of abuse. 2/3 of those choices dictate you not use that template. And 3/3 (or 1000/1000 or however many reasons for adding warnings there are) dictate that you read it first so you know what it says. Ever wonder how no one whos commented so far says anything at all besides things related to these points? Instead of arguing this and still failing to get it, why not think that maybe, since everyone else feels this way, we might have a point? You could learn something. -M^ask? 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a user who has been a Wikpedian since January 2, 2005 and who has racked up well in excess of three hundred edits possibly raise a WP:BITE defense? Are you kidding? By that standard, your treatment of me here is out of line and in violation of WP:BITE, since I've only been on WP for three months longer than User:Wnjr! WP:UCS is similarly unavailing; common sense here dictates that if the user qualifies to be warned for serial abuse of the minor edit tag, if WP has a tag specifically intended to flag serial abuse, it should be added. But common sense does not dictate that I should be deciding what level of sanction WP decides to rain down on identified serial abusers. That's the problem with invoking "common sense" - as George Lakoff has pointed out, common sense is not a value-free construct, and what strikes one person as common sense can reasonably strike someone else as totally crazy. See Lakoff, Moral Politics (2002).

I also reject your argument that "2/3 of those choices dictate you not use that template." I didn't choose to use that template - WP did. I didn't write the template, and so far as I know, as a regular user, I have no authority to modify it. That I'm making this point in good faith ought to be underlined by the fact that I've suggested to those who do have authority to change this situation that it ought to be changed.[67] But in the meantime, WP has a tag to warn users who display a pattern of abuse, I identified a user with a pattern of abuse, and accordingly, I tagged that user with the tag WP makes available to report a pattern of abuse. That's all. Some tags have various warning levels, and the reasonable assumption here is that if a tag doesn't have various warning levels, it is to be applied when applicable. Here it was applicable, there were not various warning levels to choose between, so I applied the tag. Whether WP chooses to come down on people so tagged like a ton of bricks or as leniently as can be is absolutely, unequivocally and in no way my call. Your beef is with WP:WARN or the template itself, not me. I followed the rules as I understood them to be, and nothing you're said persuades me that I misunderstood the rules - particularly since it's been found that I was correct in identifying the abuse!Simon Dodd 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a user who has been a Wikpedian since January 2, 2005 and who has racked up well in excess of three hundred edits possibly raise a WP:BITE defense? Are you kidding? By that standard, your treatment of me here is out of line and in violation of WP:BITE, since I've only been on WP for three months longer than User:Wnjr!

You have far many more edits. I knew nothing at 300 edits.

But common sense does not dictate that I should be deciding what level of sanction WP decides to rain down on identified serial abusers.

Exactly. So why DID you make a judgement on the level needed? Did Wikipedia take over your account and warn this user itself? Is it self aware? You CHOOSE A TAG. You. You choose how to warn this user and how seriously.

That's the problem with invoking "common sense" - as George Lakoff has pointed out, common sense is not a value-free construct, and what strikes one person as common sense can reasonably strike someone else as totally crazy. See Lakoff, Moral Politics (2002).

Ohh, a strawman? for me? I love it.

I also reject your argument that "2/3 of those choices dictate you not use that template." I didn't choose to use that template - WP did.

See my earlier point on how we have not created an encyclopedia that is self aware, can hack your account and post its own warnings.

I didn't write the template, and so far as I know, as a regular user, I have no authority to modify it.

Well then, no one stopped you from reading it did they? You didnt feel the need to possibly review the warning you were to be posting?

That I'm making this point in good faith ought to be underlined by the fact that I've suggested to those who do have authority to change this situation that it ought to be changed.[138]

It doesnt need to be changed, users need to review things. We have a preview button for a reason. Long term abuse is covered by this template, if the template was inappropriate, its not long term abuse.

But in the meantime, WP has a tag to warn users who display a pattern of abuse, I identified a user with a pattern of abuse, and accordingly, I tagged that user with the tag WP makes available to report a pattern of abuse. That's all. Some tags have various warning levels, and the reasonable assumption here is that if a tag doesn't have various warning levels, it is to be applied when applicable. Here it was applicable, there were not various warning levels to choose between, so I applied the tag.

Well, obviously not everyone feels it was appropriate. In fact, no one but you thinks it was appropriate

Whether WP chooses to come down on people so tagged like a ton of bricks or as leniently as can be is absolutely, unequivocally and in no way my call.

Wikipedia does not choose anything, as I said above. Its not self aware. Me, you, and others, acting in a community, make decisions and carry them out individually

Your beef is with WP:WARN or the template itself, not me. I followed the rules as I understood them to be, and nothing you're said persuades me that I misunderstood the rules - particularly since it's been found that I was correct in identifying the abuse!

Well then, I might suggest you read the article on consensus and get back to us when your done. -M^ask? 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You have far many more edits. I knew nothing at 300 edits.

Totally irrelevant. That might have some valence if he'd registered in 2005 and then gone inactive for a couple of years and the three hundred plus edits were all in the last two weeks, but that isn't the case. WP:BITE doesn't define "newcomer" and contents itself with citing Newbie as its premise for what constitutes a "newcomer." That term is invariably understood to mean how new to a community a person is - hence the term, newcomer - not the level of familiarity the average user will have attained having been a member of the community for several years. Here, WP:BITE has no... Uh... bite. ;)

Exactly. So why DID you make a judgement on the level needed? ... You CHOOSE A TAG. You. You choose how to warn this user and how seriously.

Incorrect. The tag is for "Long term pattern of abuse." Unlike, for example, "Vandalism" or "Creating inappropriate pages," where there are several "levels" of warning, permitting a user to "choose how to warn this user and how seriously," i.e. to tailor the level of sanction to the infraction, {{Uw-longterm}} is binary: either there is a "Long term pattern of abuse" or there is not. Here, there was; the choice was either to include the tag with whatever sanction WP deems appropriate, or fail to include a tag that is explicitly directed at the conduct at issue, viz., "Long term pattern of abuse."

You didnt feel the need to possibly review the warning you were to be posting?

No, because as I keep explaining to you and you keep failing to grasp, {{Uw-longterm}} is binary! There are not several levels of sanction available; its criterion is either met or not. user:Wnjr's conduct met its criterion. What sanction follows from {{Uw-longterm}}'s criterion being met are the concern of people authorized to make that determination - which, so far as I'm aware, does not include regular users. If you're going to tell me that in fact, I can change the template, say so explicitly, and I'll go change it right now, and cite your reply when I get shot down.

It doesnt need to be changed, users need to review things. We have a preview button for a reason. Long term abuse is covered by this template, if the template was inappropriate, its not long term abuse.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Where is that written in WP policy? If the sentence for murder is death, and I think that's too harsh, can I reduce the sentence to manslaughter, notwithstanding that the crime was, in fact, murder? This is the template that warns a user, in such terms as WP has determined are appropriate, that they have been committing long-term abuse; if they have been comitting long-term abuse, then that is the template that I should add, notwithstanding that I might personally think it's a little harsh. To make the verdict rest on the sentence turns the process inside out!

Well then, I might suggest you read the article on consensus and get back to us when your done.

Might I suggest that you read WP:AGF and reconsider your wholly-uncalled for belligerent attitude towards me here? Simon Dodd 19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, absurdity factor has kicked in. Simon, smile, accept that you posted a template without reading it, which was a mistake, and move on. In the future, make sure you read the content of anything you transclude (template used) because the title on it may be something that can mean multiple things, and likely not the one you want. As with many things in life, you're responsible for the content you use as well as the cover of it. You also get further by nothing trying to say "Its not my fault because of this tiny detail here." Mistakes happen, I've collected quite a few. Accept, apologize, move on. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Auto, it's not in dispute that I posted the template without reading it. What's in dispute is whether that's a mistake when the conduct being warned for by the template falls squarely within the purpose of the tag and there are not multiple levels of sanction available.

It would unquestionably have been a mistake to not read the template had I been tagging user:Wnjr for, say, vandalism, because (assuming arguendo that s/he was, in fact, vandalising) there are five different levels of sanction available for that tag. S/he has to be tagged with one of them, of course, but I have to determine what level of sanction I use, and since that requires matching the harshness of the sanction to the infraction, obviously the template has to be reviewed. But that is not the case here! {{Uw-longterm}} has a binary criterion; there either is or isn't a long term pattern of abuse. There was here. It's therefore totally irrelevant how harsh the sanction is; what matters is whether the conduct the tag is for has ocurred. That isn't a "tiny detail." My understanding is that if someone commits an infraction to which multiple warning tags can apply, all relevant tags must be applied. Is that not the case?

I've made a lot of mistakes on WP, and if I thought this was one of them, I'd apologize, but I can't see how this is one of them. With all due respect, WP:WARN says that tag is for a certain kind of conduct, the conduct being warned of had occurred, and since there is no countervailing WP policy of which I'm aware, how was this a mistake? If an admin enforced the 3RR rule notwithstanding that they thought it was too harsh, would that be a mistake too? Simon Dodd 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... love me some wikilawyering in the morning. Dont be a slave to policy if policy is stupid (its not in this case, you you seem to think it is.) The next time that 'Wikipedia makes you put a warning' and it doesn't fit, the Ignore All Rules. Dont worry, you wont get yelled at. -M^ask? 02:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this right: Wikipedia has a policy that says that users should ignore all other policy whenever they feel as if doing so will, in their view, "improv[e] or maintain[] Wikipedia"? That is, without doubt, the most retarded thing I have ever seen in my life. Without any exaggeration. That beats everything that's ever been on America's Funniest Home Videos. That beats over a decade of Dilbert strips. From now on, any time anyone cites NPOV or NOR at me, I'm going to cite WP:IAR at them in service of "improving [and] maintaining Wikipedia." How does one propose deleting a policy? Good Lord!

And for that matter, while I was about to spend several minutes castigating this concept of "wikilawyering" -- which is virtually incoherent, btw; where is the policy's "spirit" written down? Of course, by definition, it isn't! Thus, how can a user possibly adhere their conduct to a rule that they have no possible way of knowing, and how can it possibly be consistently applied by admins when there is no authoritative statement of what the policy really means? A policy is its text. If it has a spirit, that's fine, and polite notes (which aren't what you and other admins have given me here, better described as insults abuse and threats) that the text may say "this" but the common understanding is "that," but it should only be the text that can serve as a basis for forming an admin lynch mob, which is what y'all have done to me on this page -- but really there's no point: You say I'm "wikilawyering," I say I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, so I cite WP:IAR in my defense!

And since Theresa's clearly established that y'all think I lack any comprehension of WP policy (apparently I'm dumb enough to think that the rules mean what the rules say; gee, what was I thinking) and template usage (same), and given that you seem to think (per notes above) that WP:BITE applies based on knowledge not any kind of temporal test, please conform any reply to WP:BITE.Simon Dodd 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I shall help you -- its a mistake. The minor tag is a minor issue, and not abusive by this user, or vandalism. There is no indication to believe that the user was acting with knowledge that somebody would be upset at what he was doing. This is what uw-1 stuff is for, or perhaps better yet nice custom written thing saying "I think you should have done... this is why..." I don't think you'll find anything further in continuing this discussion. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not serial abuse if it's not something the editor has been repeatedly warned about. --OnoremDil 02:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is "serial" defined anywhere in Wikipedia policy? No? Then its ordinary meaning applies. "Serial" in this sense means "effecting or producing a series; sequential," as in "serial killer." Hence the term serial. If something is abuse and it continues for a period of time, it is by definition serial abuse.Simon Dodd 13:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK...fine. Try assuming good faith and realize that if the user doesn't know that it is abuse, they aren't going to worry about doing it repeatedly. The abuse part is why it's my opinion that it wasn't serial abuse. If the user is not warned that what they are doing is wrong, there's no reason for them to know what they are doing is wrong, and I can understand a user being upset after you basically accusing them of long-term vandalism because you didn't check the template. I would think templates for "serial abuse" would be used after a user does something, is warned, does it again, is warned again, etc. I don't doubt at all that your original message was made in good faith, but when the discussion escalated on his talk page, the right thing to do would have been to apologize, not bring it here...but that's just my opinion. --OnoremDil 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• See discussion here and pages linked therein. This problem has arisen because of poorly-drafted WP policy, and I have taken steps to remedy the issue. Simon Dodd 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse on user page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Splash15hotel

Someone has been posting abusive comments on my talk- can something be done?

• It seems to have been 86.12.228.155 (talk · contribs) doing the harassing... I have blocked the IP for making personal attacks. --W.marsh 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah you can remove that harassing comment from your user talk page if you want. --W.marsh 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Further (very) abusive attacks were directed at me today, but reverted by someone else. They are viewable thru the last edit made by this IP on my talk. If he has been banned how is he still doing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash15hotel (talk • contribs)
      • The person did it after the 24h block expired. A new block is in place now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeanclauduc

Jeanclauduc (talk · contribs · block log) has stated that he's Jean-Claude Ducasse, CTO of MDS International [68]. He's been involved in edit warring in both MDS International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and a company he's in legal disputes with, MDS America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His English appears to be poor, so someone fluent in French would be helpful in determining if he's even trying to understand the cautions and warnings he's received, and what he means by his many comments that make little sense. Language problems aside, he's repeatedly made legal threats against editors and Wikipedia [69] [70] [71] [72].

MDS International is currently full-protected, and there is a COI/N. Ronz 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try that. But please guys keep calm and don't escalate the issue further. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This guy seems rightly pissed off at (what was) the contents of the article, which looked like a concerted smear campaign against the company, based on an anonymous attack site and original research. Though he is talking about lawyers, there are other editors whose edits are of concern. 76.109.17.236 (talk · contribs) and WizardOfWor (talk · contribs) seem to be making some troubling edits, as well as most of the warnings. It seems Jeanclauduc is not the only one with a conflict of interest. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While waiting for Jean Claude's response to my message, i share teh same opinion w/ zzuuzz. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if Jeanclauduc backs down and explains himself. The article is protected in a version that he should be happy with. --Ronz 17:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am much more concerned about the edits of WizardOfWor (talk · contribs) and 76.109.17.236 (talk · contribs) than those of Jean. I am not sure how much you are aware of the implication of the information posted at the article on wikipedia. But, i'll wait and see. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought it was priority to get help with Jeanclauduc's legal threats and poor English. Sorry if my focus on him was inappropriate. --Ronz 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Hoping to hear from his concerns first as he's the claiming party. We'll deal w/ the rest later on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help on this, Fayssal. It's a little hard to get to the root of this when both sides apparently have an agenda and I can't make heads or tails out of some of the statements. One other question: can you find a corresponding article on fr.wikipedia.org? I'm afraid that my high school French from 20 years ago did not get me very far. Kuru ^talk 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any article on MDS International in the French Wikipedia. EdJohnston 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing except the Tunisian political party Mouvement des Démocrates Socialistes. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

I received a message from User:Jeanclauduc but i needed some more clarifications. So probably i'll get answers this afternoon. I also contacted admin BD2412 who is an intellectual property lawyer to have his opinion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

72.19.4.235 (talk · contribs · block log) claims to be Kirk Kirkpatrick, CEO MDS America [73]. --Ronz 20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at RFA

Could I get a ruling as to whether this edit to an RFA was disruption?

Assuming the edit was disruption, how long would the block be? And what do I need to do to make sure I don't get my ISP's /16 or my company's /19 address blocked?

No cups of tea will be necessary in this discussion, though another beverage would be appropriate. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would considered disruption or something for which a block (which would be preventative, not punitive) would be imposed. He or she is certainly expressing his or her opinion strongly but it seems to be relatively polite given the editor's strong emotions and viewpoint. RfAs are meant to be discussions and those comments seem to be discussion to me. -ElKevbo 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not disruption, just a bit irrelevant. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not even irrelevant... Questioning someone else's opposition spree at RfA is hardly irrelevant, and it's certainly not "disruptive". Confrontational, yes, but sometimes it's almost unaviodable when someone has to take the fall and say what needs to be said. Grandmasterka 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone report themselves to AN/I before. Acalamari 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not disruptive and not remotely blockable. Sorry to disappoint. ;) Sarah 11:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of copyvios - need help cleaning up

Someone has added hundreds of links to copies of Stargate SG-1 screenplays hosted at media.dave.tv (see [74]). This is plainly a copyvio; unfortunately there are over 250 of the things now linked from Wikipedia. Would it be possible for someone to knock up a script to edit them out en masse? -- ChrisO 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

try wikiproject spam, they specialize in this sort of thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

technically its not a copyvio, wikipedia isnt hosting the information. Do agree it should go, though. -M^ask? 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently linking to copyvios is out (WP:EL; a guideline but presumably reflecting a policy on that point?) Notinasnaid 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Official policy is WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking to copyrighted works. Phony Saint 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbj

User:Rbj has been chronically incivil and insulting toward anyone who disagrees with him at Talk:Intelligent design. This is after multiple recent warnings there and at his talk page and a block 1 month ago for personal attacks there. People at Talk ID are becoming exasperated and Rbj just doesn't seem to get it, so would some admins here take a look at his history and recent comments there and his talk page and take whatever action is warranted and that will get him to participate positively. Odd nature 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a careful look at the relevant edit history. The problem is that Rbj is strongly opinionated but also highly intelligent and committed to NPOV. He tends to lash out too strongly against those who disagree with him. The recent edit does not merit a block because, as Rbj defended himself, he attacked the opinion as "made-up" rather than attacking the person as a "liar", which he has done in the past. I'm not going to take action, but the most that could be done is a warning against personal attacks, including labeling opinions as POV, with a block to follow if the warning goes unheeded. YechielMan 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether he's actually committed to NPOV is not the issue (and neither is it a given), his civility is. He's been warned many times already and blocked once as well and is still is at it. Something more needs to be done please. Odd nature 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is perennial. Doesn't seem to be related to the ID page, but this recent alteration of another's user page was pretty incivil. Over on Talk:ID, calling other editors' work "dog-shit" and brandishing the "you guys think your own shit don't stink" line again. And waving around the threat of meatpuppetry again. And calling another editors' arguments "bullshit". I didn't dig any further than that. No, he's not pleasant to work with. I've had too many disagreements with him in the past to step in, myself. I'm would not be able to act as a disinterested party. But I agree you shouldn't have to put up with this... — coelacan — 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive?

Related: #Soapboxing, possible disruption, possible deletion required

I've been in some conflict with User:Codeplowed who insists on putting a soapbox-like "rant" on the talk page ([75]) of Talk:DeVry University that I deem as partially a personal attack, partially uncivil, partially bad-faith and mostly bad because some comments on there are possibly going to cause problems if left public (the comment is far from nice and is all unsubstantiated).

After a little explanation on why I thought it was bad and why I removed it (I've removed it something like 3 times), he then, I think, tried to put a level 3 warning on me for vandalism (User talk:x42bn6#Vandalism Warming (sic), possibly taking offense to me removing his comments) and then a level 4 warning for inappropriately using talk pages (User talk:x42bn6#last warning) (!?).

I am loathe to report him to, say, WP:CN or WP:AIV because I think it's inappropriate for me to "gain the upper hand by getting him banned", so I was hoping someone could give his/her thoughts. x42bn6 Talk 23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, that's the Digimon guy. He's leaving "final warnings" on people's user pages. JuJube 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• I concur that User:Codeplowed has been significanltly disruptive for at least several days to Talk:DeVry University. I first encountered him when trying to help out with a report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Edit War Brewing on DeVry University. I have no agenda with that article and only showed up to help out. At first the editors at that page responded well and there was improvement (it's documented in the Wikiquette report). Then User:Codeplowed started re-inserting archived material and posting long rambling POV essays with bad formatting at various places on the talk page, and removing the talkpage header boxes repeatedly. He did not discuss constructively with any other editor at any time. He appears completely unresponsive to friendly comments. After a few days of watching the disruptions, I posted a warning at the top of the article talk page to respect the guidelines and a warning on his talk page to stop the vandalism. He responded aggressively, re-inserting the archived essays, inserting some nonesense into the middle of the page, and then began posting vandalism warnings with templates and long essays on my user page (not my talk page), and on other users pages as well. I don't have the diffs handy right now, but if you need them let me know and I'll find them. I request that this user be either strongly warned by an administrator, or blocked for a short time so he can get the message. He is apprently not at all interested in any feedback from ordinary editors. --Parzival418 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• There was a new comment added to the above noted related report today at #Soapboxing, possible disruption, possible deletion required. It seems it would make sense to combine these two reports into one since they are pretty much the same incident. I don't know if that is appropriate under the rules of this noticeboard, so I am posting the suggestion here rather than proceeding to combine them myself. --Parzival418 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I get more help on this? I suspect User:DiogenesRex is a sockpuppet of User:Codeplowed. While the latter has ceased action about Wikipedia, the former seems to replicating the latter's actions. He listed User:Parzival418 on AIV. Then there is a comment at WP:COIN#DeVry Inc. Vandals and Spammers. There is possibly one user with a conflict of interest but this user is sticking to the talk page as much as possible, and I doubt the rest of us have a conflict of interest - but throwing it around is still harassment. x42bn6 Talk 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Logging IRC

My understanding is that Wikipedia IRC is not to be logged or redistributed. It seems one user may have posted such a log to Conservapedia. He says he had permission but when I inquired as to details, he deleted the entire discussion thread.[76] There may be a perfectly good explanation but as an occasional IRC participant I'd appreciate some clarification. Is prior notice given when IRC is logged? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Haven't those who have violated the prohibition in the past been blocked? --Iamunknown 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  Blocked? I can see where they would be banned from IRC, but blocking seems severe for an off-wiki offense. Besides, blocking Ed Poor wouldn't accomplish anything. Sean William 00:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  For the record, I was there for all that, he got permission from the people, and the no-logging policy exempts relevent cuts with unrelated comments removed and the permission of participants. -M^ask? 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for the clarification. Good to know how these things work. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  Sean, I was thinking of someone (Karmafist maybe?) who was blocked for posting IRC logs. I don't have any diffs or block logs. Sorry. --Iamunknown 01:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't want to risk having your messages logged, you probably shouldn't be using IRC in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hidden notes interlaced into article edit page on Pimp My Ride; possible threats??

Interlaced into the article Pimp My Ride, I noticed that their are "notes." I copied them here for highlight:

On the first line to US Version =

• <!---- Please do not link one of the cars that are not shown in this article ---->

Right after Season 4 line =

• <!--- Do not link vehicles that has no articles, such as the Chevrolet Panel Van. Any ridiculous edits such as linking fictioal vehicles will result a 2 week block. --->

Embedded into Season 6 =

• <!---- Do not link the vehicle names without first putting the car owner's name and the vehicle's year. Also, do not link vehicles that has no articles. Any unsourced edits such as adding ridiculous episodes that was not aired will cause either anonymous or newly registered users will result a 4 month block. ---->

Are these acceptable in the article? The first one is confusing, the second one and third one have threats of blocking by someone who is not an administrator and seems to be extremely protective of the article given their edit history. I didn't notice them before I made a few edits and when I went back to do somemore cleanup, I then noticed the "notes." --293.xx.xxx.xx 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not, especially the "block" section. The editor who placed these notices has no authority to block anyone for doing these things, unless they did it repeatedly, and the editor was an admin. Feel free to remove them, as their only purpose will be to frighten off users. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And what of the user himself? All he's gonna do is revert my edits and it might turn into an ugly 3RR debacle.--293.xx.xxx.xx 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Discouraging editing and mandating "rules" like that is not in the spirit of WP. I'm going to remove them - Alison ☺ 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Already done by user: Kzrulzuall - Alison ☺ 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can think of circumstances where hidden comments, if they are conservative in quantity and in tone, are appropriate (see Jesus). I am unsure why they are justified here. --Iamunknown 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It was in fact Professional Gamer who added the threats (at least one) see this April 21 edit. WP:OWN-violating HTML comments in that article though go back for months. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with HTML comments per se. These are clearly unacceptable of course because of the baseless threats of blocking. --kingboyk 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they become a problem when they become a replacement for message on the talk-page... as I've seen often happen. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on how often the same thing happens. A great example is December 25 - practically every anon who stumbles on that page sees the list of births and thinks it's either correct or funny to add Jesus. So at some point someone added an invisible note asking people not to add Jesus. I have no idea if the anons actually follow the note, but it does inform a serious editor who stumbles on that edit that it's okay to revert and warn. But I agree that the threat of immediate blocking is excessively harsh. Natalie 04:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also the fact that comments on the talk page can get archived and thus a consensus may not be easily seen. Also I'm currently using them to try and get the attention of an anon. They edit from a different IP every day and do quite a bit of good work but also add a lot of redlinked categories and put redirects into categories which have to be cleaned up. Because they use different IPs they may never see the message and may not see the edit summary. So a message in the article may get their attention. Most of the date articles have hidden notes asking editors not to add redlinked names to births and death, not just Jesus. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd say that hidden messages may be used, if there is a extremely good reason (persistent additions, disputes etc.), and if they do not contain any threats or negative comments. A talk message referring to the discussion of controversial changes should be allowed, as opposed to threatening to block someone over it. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt Yesterday, 9:34pm Post #6

"This is stupid. Hive2 is going back up if those links aren't restored in Michael Snow's article within 24 hours." WAS 4.250 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He's grasping at straws for leverage. Sean William 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't really pay it any mind, there wasn't really any hope that whole situation could have been resolved so easily anyway. To do something like that over just a couple of links, though...yeah, I would agree with Sean. --Coredesat 01:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought links to attack sites were disparaged. Corvus cornix 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They are, although it's not policy yet. --Coredesat 01:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES is not likely to become policy, the last attempt ended in a train wreck. — MichaelLinnear 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the word generally used is "deprecated" rather than "disparaged". (grin) -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I knew that.  :) Corvus cornix 03:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think they should be returned but have been threatened with blocking if I do so myself [77]. And as someone outed by HM when I absolutely do not want to be outed re my name and location I feel stuck between hell and high water. Any helpful suggestions? SqueakBox 03:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is baldfaced extortion. It puts Brandt in an even worse light than he's otherwise had. I sympathize with Squeakbox. Through no special wrongdoing admins are treated like blackmail victims and threatened with exposure and harassment if demands are not met. Brandt is welcome to sue the Wikimedia Foundation if he wants to, but to use the identities, home addresses, photographs and other personal information of community members as leverage in a dispute is unethical and possibly even illegal. -Will Beback · † · 08:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is that article even there in the first place? Even putting aside WP:DENY, do we really need to gloat over blocked users? --BigDT 12:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate Wikipedia news story, had a major impact on last week at Wikipedia, may well be important in further relations with Brandt, who is one of our major critics. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether Attack sites has a "policy" tag on it, attack websites may be removed from Wikipedia. Silly demands should of course be ignored. --Tony Sidaway 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Brandt is going to do what he wants with his hive2 page, no matter what anyone else does, while justifying his actions in whatever way suits him. I understand Squeakbox's reasoning, but we do best to take the link out and move on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was extremely supportive of his unblock, because I felt the need to heal for all, as Jimbo did. I still knew that Brandt was a kook, but thought we could all recconcile. Now I realize I was had, and Brandt's not just a kook, but on a level only shared with Time cube. Ignore the threats, dont let him write our policy, and he can sue if he wants. Have fun with that. I don't know, but it seems most of his claims would be laughed out of the courtroom. -M^ask? 18:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

DON'T knock Time cube..... it's serious businesses. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hivemind's up again. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not surprised at all, really, it was likely a foregone conclusion either way. --Coredesat 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Nitraven copyright issue

Nitraven (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times in the past regarding copyright issues, must recently on the 18th of April. Yesterday, Nitraven created two more blatant copy-and-paste articles. I initially posted a notice about this user at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive83#Help_tracking_down_copyright_violations and thought I had handled the situation after going through all of the users previous page creations, removing the copyright violations or requesting speedy deletes for articles that were entirely copyright violations. I thought that would be the end of it after very specific warnings were given, but yesterday, the articles Sri Lanka Artillery and Sri Lanka Armoured Corps were created, lifted almost directly from [78] and [79]. Sancho 06:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Copyright violations should be taken as a very serious offense, and I will not be hesitant on applying an indefinite block if this behavior will continue. Michaelas¹⁰ 08:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Sancho 14:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently blocked user still able to edit

Not sure how or why, but Dhimwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be able to edit while supposedly blocked. Andy Mabbett 09:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A blocked user can still edit their own talk page. (for requesting an unblock)

It looks like a protected template was added to the page, but the page was never actually protected. --OnoremDil 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the latter I was thinking of. Is the most recent edit acceptable (removal of warnings/ block notices and replacement by allegations of harrasment)? Should the protection of that page me made real? Andy Mabbett 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected, the protection has expired. No comment on whether an editor is allowed to remove warnings. – Riana ^ऋ 09:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Eblem

This user has requested the speedy deletion of his talk page after having his unblock request declined. What strikes me is that his page was also deleted yesterday. Could an admin review him and check whether or not yesterday's deletion was for the same reason and if this user is just trying to remove his vandalism history? -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday's deletion was to remove vandalism warnings - not sure I agree with that. – Riana ^ऋ 11:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I put hangon on the page to point the patrolling admins to this thread. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not to remove vandalism warnings. As your post demonstrates, admins have access to the history - there's nothing hidden and no hidden agenda.

I am trying to zero the page out so it is not posted on so I can exit Wikipedia altogether. That's all that's going on. I couldn't make the request until the block lifted since I couldn't edit it. I then had a post about a request I hadn't even made inserted by Luna Santin.

The sooner I get this page deleted, the sooner I'm history.

Eblem 16:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

moved Eblem's comment to the right section. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Crap, I removed a part of the reply by mistake... Putting it back! Sorry... -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've protected and blanked his attack account talkpage. The parent account's page, user talk:eblem, is just being used for baseless complaints against Luna Santin. I'd like one other admin to review it before I blank and protect that page as well. — coelacan — 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He kept up the soapboxing; I've gone ahead and protected his talk page. Other admins should feel free to revert me if you disagree and I'm afk and not responding. — coelacan — 23:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User 212.88.34.124

Resolved

 – editor blocked - Alison ☺

This user has been given a last warning by Riana on the 23 April but is still vandalising. See edit to Oscar Wilde today. Natalie West 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Report to WP:AIV please :) – Riana ^ऋ 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - antisemitism

My userpage was vandalised - see [80]. Lpwq-55 (talk · contribs) put there picture with incription, that mean "Jew is our enemy". --Daniel Baránek 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite a severe translation, I've warned for userpage vandalism, which I feel is quite sufficient as it is only the users first edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of blocked users' Talk postings

In general, is it permissible to remove postings by blocked users, including sockpuppets, from article Talk pages solely because they were posted by those users prior to being blocked? --ElKevbo 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, no. If the user is banned instead of merely blocked, there may be justification for removing posts. Though there is no clear consensus on the issue, if the talk posts are personal attacks they can probably be safely removed. Finally, some talk page posts are pure vandalism, disruption, or trolling, and can be removed or reverted. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Only edits made between being blocked and unblocked can be removed. See also Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock/meat activity on wrestling-related articles

I was going through the new account log in search of positive contributors to greet, and I noticed what seems to be a series of throwaway accounts created for the purpose of removing information from wrestling-related articles. These accounts (all created within a few minutes of each other) make one edit, which involves the removal of a few lines' worth of information. None of them seem that odd by themselves, but taken together, I think they might be working as part of some kind of organized campaign.

The ones I've spotted so far:

• Slovenian WPE (talk · contribs)
• LWOfan6 (talk · contribs)
• Mikeyoha (talk · contribs)
• ACroven (talk · contribs)
• Pimpleless buzzard (talk · contribs)
• RCreilly (talk · contribs)
• LTaylorWM (talk · contribs)
• Reg swiinger (talk · contribs)
• Kruel Stripper (talk · contribs)
• EZmoneytites (talk · contribs)
• Hipflowter (talk · contribs)
• Laughingcras (talk · contribs)
• Kerach the Monster (talk · contribs)
• Hot Dogg Bunn (talk · contribs)
• Hardyboy44 (talk · contribs)
• Abss01 (talk · contribs)

There are probably more; those are just the ones I spotted in a coarse inital sweep.

Anyone have any idea what's going on here? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I should note that I don't see anything obviously wrong with the edits themselves, but the manner in which they're being made just seems odd. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JB196 is rather relevant here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have The Tools; how should this be dealt with? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get the admin who's been handling this. Probably time to go to CheckUser (again) SirFozzie 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, in the mean time, time to be the R part of WP:RBI. SirFozzie 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) No problem, it's become depressingly normal to clean up after JB. SirFozzie 15:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• No need for a checkuser... these are pretty obvious JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) puppets. I've blocked them though I don't have time to revert all of the articles per WP:DENY at the moment.--Isotope23 15:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know that I caught them all, though, and a CU might help turn up any that I missed. Still, it's your call. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• The only reason I was asking for a checkuser, is, I'm pretty sure JB's IP is currently rangeblocked, and was hoping to catch the open proxy he's been using. I took care of the Deny part for you. Thanks SirFozzie

Ah in that case, an IP check might be helpful to turn up any sleepers and OP's--Isotope23 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He's started up again. Just noticed the following:

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

-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Took care of it.. if you see any more that you're fairly sure are JBSocks, go ahead and revert them, and add it to the WP:RFCU I've started. (in the IP Check section). Will still need an admin to block the socks as they pop up, but hopefully, we can get a CU to shut down the proxies he's using. SirFozzie 18:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, vandalism and 3RR violations for User:Hughey, also IP User:164.156.231.55

Resolved— coelacan — 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Al Franken page we have one editor and an IP (they edit the same articles) who continue to put in unsourced POV statements into the article, with a citation that doesn't support those statements. The User has been warned, and it's now just vandalism. Can you please put a block in? They have already violated the 3RR rule to put these statements in, and been warned several times. He removes warnings from his Talk page. It is User:Hughey. --David Shankbone 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sockpuppetry was inadvertent. Anyone can see that I simply did not sign in and that the result was to show my IP address instead of my username. Had I signed on with another username that would be a different thing. This is an ongoing situation between myself and two other editors. I have not vandalized that article, I am only reverting back to an original article that I did not even write. The article seemed to have been properly cited and was not NPOV. I have left properly worded on warnings on my Talk page. Hughey 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New user, had not been warned for 3RR before. Further reverts will result in a block, but we'll call this resolved for now. — coelacan — 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism -Antikurdish

The Turkish Users Makalp and Cat try to remove all categories from a lot of numbers of articles, It seems that they are not only removing the category, but also every reference to Kurdistan and Kurdish People- including the ethnicity. In any case; I'm not used to dealing with category blanking; so here's a list over articles I know where previously in this category:

• Bukan (removed by makalp with edit summary "cleanup", removed by Makalp again)
• Qorveh ("cleanup")
• Hermêle ("cleanup")
• Afrin, Syria ("cleanup")
• Sardasht ("cleanup")
• Saqqez ("cleanup")

Further Clean ups: [[81]] [[82]] [[83]] [[84]] [[85]] [[86]] [[87]][[88]] [[89]] [[90]] [[91]] [[92]]

Here, they make applications for moving and deletion of Kurdish related articles (The decisions of voting are almost keep)

[[93]] [[94]] [[95]] [[96]] [[97]] [[98]] [[99]] [[100]] [[101]] [[102]] [103]]

Could somebody go through their contributions right now.--Bohater 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My actions were inline with WP:V in a nutshell. "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." My actions are also inline with WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines #8. "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." -- Cat ^chi? 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC

Could you explain, for the benefit of those of us who are unfamiliar with Kurdistan, why you would remove a Kurdistan category from an article in which the text of the article claims the place is located in Kurdistan, but not change the text of the article? CMummert · talk 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is a verifiable and reliable source disputing this or any of the following assessments, I'd be happy to take it.

• As per: WP:V "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." Kurdistan does not claim to be a country nor does anyone (including Kurdish people themselves) claim Kurdistan to be a country. So I do believe declaring Kurdistan not to be a country in any sense is anything controversial. There are people who wish for an independent Kurdistan, fortunately/unfortunately Kurdistan currently lacks the basic merits even for a defacto country. This may change in the future and we can categorize accordingly. But right now there is no grounds to make such a claim and it would be WP:OR and would also violate WP:NOT#CBALL.
• Kurdistan lacks defined borders. Google image search spits out some examples of inconsistent maps. Even among neutral sources such as dictionaries there is a serious disagreement among the basic area of Kurdistan. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) defines it as "a mountain and plateau region in SE Turkey, NW Iran, and N Iraq: inhabited largely by Kurds" while American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "An extensive plateau region of southwest Asia. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been divided among southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia." on the other hand WordNet defines it as "an extensive geographical region in the Middle East to the south of the Caucasus". Webster says "The borders of Kurdistan are hard to define, as none of the states in question acknowledge Kurdistan as a demographical or geographical region."
• As per: WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines #8 states that "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." "Kurdistan" is a controversial term as per examples: (incident #1 (Pentagon apology), (Rumsfeld considers it unfortunate)) (incident #2 (Amsterdam University apology) - (turkish)). Putting a "Kurdistan" category on random cities, provinces, lakes, rivers, mountains, and etc appears as an endorsement of Kurdistan's borders and also implies Kurdistan a country status.
• Ignoring the guideline all together (and treating Kurdistan as a geographic region) cities are almost never categorized by geographic regions. Geographic regions are hard to define and often overlap each other. York is not categorized as being a part of Europe but a part of United Kingdom. Political borders are comparatively very easy to define and do not easily change. Practically every city article on Wikipedia is categorized by political borders (country/state/province/etc). I oppose any kind of "geographic" categorization of cities as per the rationale behind WP:OC#Intersection by location and WP:DNWAUC (an essay of mine).

-- Cat ^chi? 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, content dispute, so please don't label it as such. Moreschi ^Talk 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is a content dispute. But since it's here, we might as well look into it. The arguments Cool Cat are making are CFD arguments. I don't know whether the various categories relating to Kurdistan geography have been nominated before, but right now CFD has its fifth nomination of Category:Kurdish inhabited regions. It seems the most recent two were both by Cool cat. Have the geography categories been nominated before? CMummert · talk 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is Makalp too, not only Cat. --Bohater 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would most welcome that. I have been trying to find a solution to this problem for some time now. All of my attempts including mediation failed mostly because all parties involved refused to participate.

"Kurdish inhabited regions" is a census related category not geography. However there is no census data on the actual number of Kurds. Best thing we have is a CIA [gu]estimate. Which is encyclopedic enough to be on an article but not very reliable as a means to categorize (IMHO). Another interesting thing is Category:Hispanic inhabited regions was deleted about a year ago even though actual census data was available. Yet Category:Kurdish inhabited regions was kept as a no consensus which was nominated a day after Hispanic inhabited regions nom.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought about an RFC to get some outside comments on the issue? The difficulty is that as long as the categories keep surviving CFDs, it implies that some people do think that there is a way to populate them. You might start with an RFC to determine exactly what criteria are required to add an article to Category:Rivers of Kurdistan or Category:Mountains of Kurdistan. CMummert · talk 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The mediation case I mentioned was linked via RFC. I was trying to discuss Category:Kurdistan and all subcats. Some such subcats have been deleted over time either by my or other peoples nominations such as Category:Airlines of Kurdistan, or Category:Sport in Kurdistan. I also would like to add that a formal mediation was also filed which also failed due to a lack of participation. I would welcome a 3rd rfc but I am almost convinced it would be fruitless due to a lack of participation. -- Cat ^chi? 21:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a culture and historical area. Nobody speaks about a political country with official borders. Please don't politize everthing. --Bohater 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that in my opinion Bohater (talk · contribs) is using Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan for WP:CANVASSing purposes to the point of "advertising" commons copyright disputes. -- Cat ^chi? 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that is not true, I am Member of this project. On my Opinion, the all 18 members have the rigth to coment here. I don't see here for WP:CANVASSing. --Bohater 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific: WP:CANVASS#Campaigning -- Cat ^chi? 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this: User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts is very interesting. --Bohater 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Which lead to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick. I am starting to see parallelizations between that case and this one. -- Cat ^chi? 00:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Darkcurrent

Darkcurrent (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Well, look at my talk page and you'll get it. Also, Darkcurrent has attacked in here, and has harrased another user just a few days ago. Apparently, this user in question has the intention of ridding Wikipedia from undesirables ("vandals, trolls, POV warriors, and hypocrites") and supports users like Wile E. Heresiarch. However, I absolutely cannot respect, or condone his philosophy, as he had preached it... in a hostile and vulgar way. Sometimes, when one is too devoted to a cause, he or she can become an extremist, and I have every reason to believe he is one. At some point, he had contradicted his own edits, as they are filled with opinions and POV. (Hypocrites, anyone?), and even mistook other users (see the above links), perhaps including me, as those undesirables. I have tried giving a long reply to his insulting rant, but unfortunately, my browser seemingly crashed, and I have no more options left. Is there ANY way to impose disciplinary action on him, like blocking him from Wikipedia? Clearly, this place is better off without him. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^talk_GO'NUCKSGO!! 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but yeah, that's pretty bad as personal attacks go. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. I guess he just needs to calm down. John Reaves (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Says he's gone. Any relation to light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) do we think? Guy (Help!) 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• That occurred to me as well, but the editing style seems very different. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nah, he's not. He just copied Wile E. Heresiarch's userpage, but he still edits vicariously. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^talk_GO'NUCKSGO!! 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco Litigation

Resolved

This article was AFD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobacco Litigation as a news article. Myself and two other editors identified it as a blatant copyvio. User:BuickCenturyDriver then closed the AFD and redirected the article to Tobacco Lawsuits but left the copyvio in the article history at Tobacco Litigation. User:BuickCenturyDriver does not appear to be an administrator, so could not have deleted the history in any event.

1. - Can someone delete the copyvios from the article history?
2. - I'm a little rusty on AFD closing rules. Who is entitled to close an AFD? Who is entitled to close one early? Are normal users permitted to do either of those things? If they are, should they not close AFDs that require actions upon closing that only an administrator can perform?

exolon 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Anybody can close a unanimous AFD (though they may not want to WP:SNOW it), and anybody can close one that's been withdrawn by the nom (as long as nobody else has taken the nom's position in the interim). It's generally not a good idea for non-admins to close ones requiring admin action, for the reasons you've already noted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info - the copyvios are still in the history so that still needs doing. exolon 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorted. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet not blocked

Resolved— Michaelas¹⁰ 10:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:MUNCH0000 admitted on my userpage that he owns 22 sock puppet accounts, previously thought (and still suspected) to be sock puppets of User:Danh90. I reported this on AIV, but was told to come here. In my opinion, the user should be blocked, as their vandalism [104] and other edits [105] are the same as the Danh90 vandalism. All other accounts (below) were blocked after vandalising, I don't see why this is any different...

• User:Danh90
• User:Nonpayer
• User:Timewaste
• User:How3
• User:Lou22
• User:Thevandal999
• User:Kburps
• User:Notenough
• User:Idontliketheimage
• User:Theman0
• User:81.149.196.44
• User:135.196.237.139
• User:Oldman50
• User:Antitrampikeygroup22
• User:AntiAnemoneProjectorsgroup
• User:LICKMYSCUM
• User:Thejok
• User:ANTITRAMPIKEY
• User:MUNCH0000
• User:86.136.0.96
• User:86.147.104.9
• User:Antiben
• User:86.138.157.207

-Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danh90 -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd one

Stephen Pate - sdpate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has emailed OTRS (ticket 857097) to complain that the article Disability rights in Prince Edward Island is his own work and he revokes the license to use it; as we know, you can't revoke the grant of license so that's a non-starter. He's been blocked for blanking it. Two things come from this, though.

First, I encourage others to review that user's contributions. They appear to present a particular slant on Canadian politics (read: POV).

Second, the article on disability rights in Prince Edward Island seems rather odd. The subject rather specific, there is no link to the Prince Edward Island article, there is no indication that disability rights on PEI are in any way different to those in the rest of Canada, and the citations make it appear as if the entire thing is original research. Much as I hate to remove something when the author makes a baseless and ridiculous request, it does look a lot as if deletion might be merited for that article. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone's nominated it for deletion.

However, someone may want to help Stephan with the GFDL as he has now written on his user talk page:

The article Disability Rights on Prince Edward Island was written in April 2007 by Stephen Pate. Stephen Pate is the exclusive copyright owner of this work. The author has forbidden its publication, copying, use or modification by anyone, including Wikipedia and its agents.

Continued wrongful use of this article may result in civil penalties of any jurisdiction in North America and Europe being imposed on Wikipedia and any independent editors who violate the copyright. Please take heed of this notice.Sdpate 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing it out. --Ali'i 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

These he has emailed me with to point out the continued media pressure (?) he'll keep on the 'pedia if we dont delete it: http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=24649&sc=110 and http://peidisabilityalert.blogspot.com/2007/04/news-flash-wikipedia-editor-may-be.html -M^ask? 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit of background I know of: This week's signpost contains an article about an editing conflict in which this user was involved. He was most upset that the article was written by a protagonist in the conflict, and tagged it as {{pov}}. I reverted this change on the grounds that it was a newspaper article not an encyclopaedia article; however I think it is not generally a good idea to go writing Signpost articles about issues in which you are yourself involved. Sam Blacketer 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Continued wrongful use of this article may result in civil penalties of any jurisdiction in North America and Europe being imposed on Wikipedia and any independent editors who violate the copyright." Blocking Sdpate for legal threat. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late, Naconkantari got to it first. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I nominated it for deletion, because while ANI can get the guy blocked, it probably won't delete the article except under extraordinary circumstances. Nardman1 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The attempt to revoke the GFDL is obviously invalid, but the article is clearly not going to survive AfD. Any objection to my speedying the thing and saving us 5 more days of aggravation? Before anyone says this would set a bad precedent, I know it's been quietly done several times before. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do it, if it is a notable subject someone else will decide to write about it. It has absolutely no incoming links from mainspace. If someone wants to make pointy-headed, vaguely-threatening, GFDL positions then just be rid of their GFDL contributions. SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User User:Benapgar evading block by using IP User:24.57.157.81

The IP User:24.57.157.81 is contributing and when confronted with the simple question asking if they are User:Benapgar they evade the question. Not the first time, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Benapgar I do not know if the ANI was followed through.

1. Are they even remotely the same - see [106] from long ago in which the user clearly says this IP is the same.
2. Are the edits similar ?. The same subjects are being discussed i.e. Talk page for Atheism as an example.
3. Are they disruptive ?. If you see Special:contributions/24.57.157.81 they have done hundreds of talk page edits with what seems to be their WP:OR. For any other user probably let it ride but for a banned user there is no reason why the community needs to tolerate this traffic.

Is it possible to simply block the IP address ?. Ttiotsw 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The wording and issues that he cares about are almost identical. I'm going to block the IP. JoshuaZ 06:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Goatse image nominated for deletion

Somebody uploaded "goatse" to Wikipedia, and - predictably - it was soon nominated for deletion. The discussion has attracted a number of knee-jerk "keep" votes on the grounds that Wikipedia is not censored; my argument for deletion is the following:

• First, the image has no information on its copyright status. Second, it may well have been made by a professional pornographic performer, and its inclusion on Wikipedia would violate fair use criterion 2. ("The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.") Third, the non-censorship policy means that Wikipedia articles may contain objectionable images when their inclusion is warranted, not that obviously inappropriate images should be added for the sake of it. Wikipedia is not a shock site or a repository of pornography. Strong (and preferable speedy) delete as copyright violation and vandalism.

I don't want to unilaterally go against the opinion of the community, but WP:C and WP:FAIR are not negotiable; it seems to me that Wikipedia cannot use the file legaly, even if we wanted to. What do you people think? - Mike Rosoft 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.... I'll definitely comment on it......as soon as I get off work. :) ↔NMajdan•talk 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hah, glad to know that I'm not the only one that has to delay their activity in the manner. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I speedily deleted per CSDI4: image had no copyright tag (and was clearly copyrighted by the original goatse.cx site).⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Errr is the closing process for IFD different than AFD? Someone mind closing it for me, since the image has been speedied? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Good point, it is not currently detailed at Wikipedia:Deletion process and is only kind of detailed in a subpage of WP:IFD. --Iamunknown 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking "fair use" until you said criterion two. Good deletion, case resolved (I think). Abeg92We are all Hokies! 01:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be censored, but I think we should apply some common sense to exactly what we choose to display. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It was originally uploaded by some guy, its copyright status has never been clear enough for our terms. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm honestly appalled that someone was able to upload that picture of me, I will hang my head in shame. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bluwiki123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been accused of wiki-stalking by this...individual (sadly I cannot call him what I wish, per WP:NPA). [107]. False accusations of wiki-stalking probably violate a policy somewhere, although I'm not sure which. Any comments? Nardman1 22:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think you may be being a little sensitive here? Asking someone who nominates your user page for deletion to leave you alone is hardly an accusation of wikistalking. Its understandable that the editor will be upset with you. Disengage and go find something more useful to do. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well ok then. Nardman1 23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MfD closed and userpage(s) deleted. Daniel Bryant 00:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

US DOJ - Moved from AIV

• 149.101.1.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Vandal briefly stopped after second warning ... then once he saw that he wasn't being blocked (see previous report below), he started up again here with repetitive, redundant multiple links.

• Note: This IP matches the mask (149.101.0.0/16) in my special IP list which is marked as: "United States Department of Justice - See Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses for important information before blocking" HBC AIV helperbot3 22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• - despite two warnings continues to add repetitive, redundant multiple links at Harvey Awards. -- Tenebrae 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC) ^{(Moved by bot)}
• Note: This IP matches the mask (149.101.0.0/16) in my special IP list which is marked as: "United States Department of Justice - See Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses for important information before blocking" HBC AIV helperbot2 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No edits since recent warnings - leave on file for a short while and then delete. Ian Cairns 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this thread from admin intervention against vandalism, as it may warrant a little more discussion than tends to happen there. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What separates someone at the USDOJ (a huge cabinet level agency with tens of thousands of employees) vandalizing comic book articles from someone at some other employer? This isn't a situation that needs special handling just because the IP is from a special place. SchmuckyTheCat 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Public relations? --Iamunknown 23:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No discussion needed, I think. They were warned, no edits for a few hours, you can move on to your next victim :) --kingboyk 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

Not sure what the above comment means. The user stopped for a while, and when he saw nothing was happening to him, he simply started up again. I guess he's gone home for the night, but it doesn't seem right to keep having to rv his vandalism -- I could wind up a 3RR that way. --Tenebrae 23:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply if you are fighting vandalism. As it's a shared IP, we consider the vandalism warning enough; we don't block as "punishment", we block to prevent damage. As it's stopped, that's the of the matter. If it resumes, and you spot it, please feel free to drop another note here. --kingboyk 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, if anybody blocks that IP, someone needs to notify ComCom immediately. Sean William 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. But assuming it's stopped now, there's no reason to block. --kingboyk 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block: Poop15040

Well, I'm on a roll - second indefinite blocks in as many days

• inappropriate username (User:Poop15040)
• vandalism only acocunt (contributions)
• creation of attack page (Rico (Hannah Montana))

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a block review? If so, good block. — coelacan — 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate username+vandalism=indef. Seems clear enough to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And how. Natalie 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio at The Condemned

The article says straight out: "In the May 2007 issue of WWE Magazine, readers got a chance to see a collection of profiles of the 10 'contestants' for The Condemned." and then copies the content into the article. I removed it, and got accused of vandalism, so I'm bringing it to the Admins' attention. --69.22.254.111 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've remade what appears to have been your original edit. Please check and verify that all the offending material is gone, and thank you for catching this. Removing a copyvio is definitely not vandalism; in fact, it's one of the most helpful things you can do for Wikipedia. Picaroon 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! I agree it's important to remove blatant copyvios quickly.

But User talk:PureRED is insisting differently and leaving nasty messages on my talk page. It's escalating, and I'm not sure he understands WP:CIVIL and I know he doesn't understand Assume Good Faith. Please help. --69.22.254.111 03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And now I've seen that he's attacked other editors as well: [108] --69.22.254.111 03:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Glock 19 slow motion edit war about Virginia Tech Massacre link

There's a slow motion edit war in progress at Glock 19 over including or not including a section mentioning that a Glock 19 handgun was the primary gun used by the killer in the Virginia Tech Massacre. Talk page seems to be running majority but not consensus against (gun is notable in massacre, but massacre isn't notable from gun's standpoint), with a significant vocal minority arguing that the massacre is notable from the gun's standpoint. Multiple people on both sides are reverting it back and forth several times a day, each staying under 3RR but collectively up to about 10RR yesterday and about 6 today, on each side, if I counted right.

Talk page discussion has been ranging from reasonable to hot and cold running slander. I asked people to calm the discussion down and it failed miserably.

Could we have an uninvolved impartial admin review? I have a personal bias on which is the correct answer and don't want to touch any special buttons on this case. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• This came up before with the Beretta Cx4 Storm and Dawson College shooting, settled on not mentioning it in the gun article. There I would have actually not minded mentioning it, but Glock 19 has appeared in so many more places that it's not closely associated the way, say a Mannlicher-Carcano is with Oswald. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that by that standard, nearly ever U.S. police shooting would have to mention it, since Glock 19's are in use by a SIGNIFICANT number of offices and departments. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is also closely related to the Walther P22 edit war, it being the other handgun carried by Cho, which surprisingly enough has seemingly reached a more stable position, albeit one of non-consensus. Unlike in the Glock 19 article, this discussion has fallen more closely to a 50:50 split, with no clear consensus. A potential compromise has been proposed, to mention the Va Tech Massacre in only a See also section, and this has reached a semi-stable stasis in just the last 24 hours. As a former participant in the Glock 19 and Walther P22 debates, as well as in the earlier Cx4 debate, Dawson College, and several other shooting debates, I have intentionally tried to keep out of latest parts of the two recent discussions by not responding to potentially slanderous comments, although I did post an RfC on the Walther P22 page to try and take some of the heat away from the article itself. It seems to have helped the article reach the previously-mentioned semi-stasis. 3RR blocks have also helped calm some of the more vocal participants. Being that both sides are extremely vocal and convinced that their position is somehow the only one, I don't believe that a full mention, nor a complete non-mention, will ultimately work on either of the two articles. Yaf 04:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review requested - User:Yeager Welcome Bot

I have just blocked this bot for 2 reasons;

• t has not been approved.
• Welcoming bots are impersonal to new users and have been shot down everytime they have been proposed.

Pleaase could somebody review this block and unblock if required? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As an unauthorized bot, a block is definitely justified. WP:BOT does state that human assisted bots "don't necessarily need bot approval," but also states that a consensus should be made before making a large series of edits. Also note the speed at which the account is editing; appears unassisted. I'll leave whether the bot is necessary up to the bot proposal guys. - auburnpilot talk 01:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Assisted bots don't need bot approval, as I personally post every message the bot composes.

2) At this point, the welcome committee is not staffed to welcome any reasonable percentage of new users. I feel that any welcome (be it by a bot) is better then no welcome. I direct them to my user page if they need help, as well as giving them several links for help. This has been a success as i have already had users ask questions to me because they were not already welcomed and they didnt know where to go \ what to do. I've been able to successfully give advice to these user, who would have normally been lost.

3) I feel this message is personal, even although its not unique, it gives the user someone they can contact and count on for help.

4) In conclusion, I ask for my 'bot' (whom really just saves me time in composing the message) to be unblocked so that i may welcome new users and give them guidance and support that they otherwise would not receive (besides a small percentage).

Thank you for your time and I respectfully welcome any decision. My intentions were nothing but for the best. Thank you, Matthew Yeager 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

5) Although the speed of edits is high, every post is composed, then i review it. If i manually approve it, its added to the jobs to be completed. I can choose when to run the bots "edit" feature. For example, I can choose to have the bot compose 20 messages, then i would go through and ensure each message is correct, then i can tell the bot to edit and then it posts the messages. This can be seen as the edits are made quickly, but then there is substantial down time in between runs, as i am checking the messages. Matthew Yeager 01:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If the edits are approved manually, then the bot doesn't need approval. But the high edit rate is discouraged (the AWB folks also have to keep their edit speed down); a delay between edits should be added. I recommend lifting the block now that the operator is here, provided he agrees to lower the edit rate. CMummert · talk 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lowered edit rate agreed. down to say 5 - 6 edits a minute (pretty sure thats the guildline) unless you will allow me to do more, either way is cool with me. thank you for proposing an unblock. please let me know if/when it will/has taken place. Matthew Yeager 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've blocked several blatant vandals recently only to find a message from this bot already on their talk page welcoming them (eg User talk:Ockasekrockaway). There was a user the other day welcoming blatant Mr Oompapa impersonator socks [109], and thanking them for their contributions. Sometimes, auto-welcomes are just silly. It seems the height of impersonability. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

5-6 per minute is acceptable for AWB and so it should be fine. If nobody else (including Ryan Postlethwaite) comments in 15 minutes or so, since Ryan asked above for someone else to unblock if required, I'll do it. I'm going to reread the bot guidelines in the meantime. Either way someone will let you know. CMummert · talk 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the bot issue, it's still semi-automatic welcome messages, and something the community is not warm to. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot has been fixed to never over write previous messages. it should have never been doing that to start.

although the community is not 'warm' to the issue, as explained above, this seems to be the best way to help these new users who dont know what is going on. currently, without the bot, I watch 50 new users at a time go by without a welcoming, direction, or a person to go to for help.Matthew Yeager 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I made an announcement at the bot noticeboard to draw attention here.

I am willing to unblock the bot, to relieve any tension about it being blocked. But, in light of the objections raised here, I think it would be a show of good faith if you don't start the welcoming again until tomorrow (27 April). A delay will give others a chance to comment. Does that seem reasonable? CMummert · talk 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the block is justified. The Community has for good reason been long opposed to welcome Bots. This account is in rather a catch 22 situation. If it is a bot- its unapproved and should be blocked. If its not a Blot its name is against username policy and it should be blocked. In my opinion, if someone wishes to welcome users they should do it personally. Often users who are welcomed ask questions about Wikipedia to the account that welcomed them which a Bot cannot answer. Looking through the Yeager Welcome Bot's edits, it appears that users are welcomed indiscriminately. Accounts that have never edited have been welcomed, which is a waste of time and creates pointless pages. It also appears that a couple of usernames that are aginst policy were welcomed. Put simply, I believe that this "Bot" (while the creation of it was well-intentioned) is more detrimental to the project than beneficial. WjBscribe 03:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking the bot would be appreciated. I will withhold any actions from the bot until a decision is met. If its decided that the bot shall not be needed, then i shall wish to retire it as appose to having it blocked. This way it may be used to greet users the 'old fashion way'. Does this seem acceptable ? Matthew Yeager 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe - I think that the username is acceptable (the bot policy is somewhat complicated). The section on assisted bots says that they don't necessarily need approval and that a separate username is recommended. Since the user has agreed to discuss the issue, my personal opinion is that the bot account can be unblocked as a measure of good faith. I won't go over your objection, however. CMummert · talk 03:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This one area where username policy is fairly clear: "Names that... Imply an automated account, such as names containing "robot", "bot", or a variation thereof." In my opinion using scripts to welcome users is fine so long as:

• It is done by an account that doesn't claim to be a Bot- why have impersonal welcomes anyway?
• Only users who have actually made edits are welcomed.

I don't understand why Matthew Yeager doesn't just welcome users with his own account- which would seem much friendlier. That being said I have no objection to a courtesy unblocking while discussions continue if you really think that would help... WjBscribe 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree it would be more personal to use his actual username. I'm going to unblock, as a courtesy, since the M. Yeager has agreed not to run the bot setup until discussion proceeds. Even though the bot being blocked shouldn't affect much, I think if I were him I would breathe easier if my bot account wasn't blocked (and I have one). CMummert · talk 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks to both of you for the agreed unblock. the only reason i didnt use my own account is after ready the BOTS section which said that if you were planning on making edit a large number of edit for a specific reason then that would be allowed. so i figured that i would have a normal account specialized in editing and reverting vandalism and then a separate account for welcoming users and answering beginners questions, so that the normal account didnt get flooded with those questions. that reasoning + using scrips to compose the message sent to the user, i figured that justified "bot" being placed in the name, as the naming convention for human assisted bots does not mention not having 'bot' in the name, nor does it recommend a different word that should be used. so from that, i picked a separate account and to use the word bot in it.

I would be willing to apply for a name change and then use that separate account as originally intended, yet without the high rate of impersonalized welcome messages. a name without bot, but an account separate from my main account. example: Matthew.B.Yeager. sound reasonable ? Matthew Yeager 04:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me- I think a more personal username to welcome people with would be a lot friendlier. Please do check whether the accounts you welcome have actually edited. Unfortunately most new accounts never edit Wikipedia- there doesn't seem much to be gained from adding hundreds of pages a day to Wikipedia for such accounts. WjBscribe 04:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

awesome, it appears we have reached a solution that we agree on. I will be checking to ensure accounts have edited. thank you all for your time and i'm glad i was able to work with patient and reasonable administration. Matthew Yeager 04:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson Anderson reverted my User page & blanked other pages of mine

Is that allowed? I in the past have been punished for doing that to my own page. Also Jefferson Anderson has blanked other of my pages. Can something be done to retrieve the material? Please help? Sincerely --Mattisse 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC):

Please someone stop User:Jefferson Anderson from blanking portions of my user page, please. May I have my pages protected until I get a rest. I do not know what is still missing. There is material that I need that I can no longer find. Is there help for this? --Mattisse 01:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Matisse, please stop forum shopping. Users have already removed the speedy deletion tags. Regards, Iamunknown 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't think it's forum shopping, is it? Mattisse is just worried about what might happen overnight. I don't think protection is necessary, because I hope no admin would speedy these pages (WP:MFD is the correct venue, although I'm don't expect they'd be deleted). — coelacan — 02:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you have directly characterised my comment unfavourably in your edit summary, coelacan, I feel the need to explain: I did not intend to WP:BITE anyone. I don't know the history between these two users, all I see is a big black box on every single one of Mattisse's subpages characterising Jefferson Anderson unfavourably, and I can imagine that Mr Anderson might feel like he is currently wearing a scarlet letter and is being disparaged; whatever rift has come between them is not likely to go away because of such actions. Furthermore, forum shopping to WP:VPT, here, multiple other editor's talk pages is likely further to drive a wedge. I would appreciate your assumption of good faith on my part and not characterise me as something that I am not. Thank you, Iamunknown 02:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't characterized you as anything. If you were biting, it would likely be inadvertent, since as far as I know, you aren't a jerk. It's your choice to be offended if you want to, but I didn't intend it that way. — coelacan — 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was not intentionally forum shopping. I do not know about these various process of deletion. All I know that information was being removed from my user page by Jefferson Anderson. I received no responds from anyone I asked except Thatcher131 who said that it was not happening. I have managed to restore some. of it. Is that called forum shopping, trying to get a response from some one? Please, I would like to do the right thing here, but I have been harassed for many months and I am very tired and at this point I do not know what to do and can't think clearly anymore as I am frightened. Sorry to have irritated you. Sincerely, --Mattisse 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not necessary to raise the issue in so many places. One message right here on WP:ANI would be enough. Now you know. — coelacan — 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand now. And I apologize to both of you for getting all indignant. I guess I just saw what appeared to be a major rift between you and Mr Anderson and, while I don't know the background behind it, I wish it were not there. I don't assume that I am alone, and I should probably just mind my own business now. I apologize. --Iamunknown 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's cool. I don't think either of us intended to WP:ABF with the other. — coelacan — 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kira99er (talk · contribs)

• This user is frequently creating articles to publicize his own "ATB Productions" company, and I think someone needs to sit down with him and tell him about the rules. I'd do it, but I'm not really in any condition to reasonably talk about Wikipedia policy right now (high on Vicodin atm). JuJube 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar not willing to heed WP:BIAS, WP:RS and WP:NPA

Antaeus Feldspar has been aggressive against me personally repeatedly and it has been provenly impossible to resolve NPOV issues on talk pages with him. Just today he deleted - without prior discussion - several edits I did on Andreas Heldal-Lund here, here and here. Instead of trying to reach a consensus here is busy "collecting dirt".

I am asking for Admin assistance to settle with this person so that disruptive edits and PAs stop.

COFS 03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute over undue weight in the article lead, as well as you trying to insert WP:BLP violations using unreliable sources. I fail to see any personal attacks from Antaeus Feldspar. And that user is entitled to keep track of edits you've made that may be objectionable, as possible preparation for an RFC. In any case, try dispute resolution. — coelacan — 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears that Antaeus Feldspar was properly following our policy concerning Biographies of living persons and Undue weight. If you ensure that your future edits follow these policies you should not have further problems. Otherwise, pursue dispute resolution as suggested by coelacan. Newyorkbrad 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I will take a wild guess that COFS is a sock of User:AI. 75.62.7.22 05:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

False info on user page

A new situation I haven't encountered before is a user who has placed blatantly false info on his user page. My impression is that user pages are normally sacrosanct, but I am tempted to remove the material or blank the page. I blocked the user for repeated vandalism a little while ago. The user is User:ChrisMorello. Thoughts? Pollinator 04:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not happy about the userpage, which is misleading. If the user put up a "joke" template, like the one at WP:BJ, that would solve the problem. YechielMan 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See Sour Cherry. See 66.240.89.10 put in bogus information. See User:ChrisMorello get created. See User:ChrisMorello's first edit, to Sour Cherry. See User:ChrisMorello enshrine himself. See User:ChrisMorello get blocked for vandalism. Idohno, ya think he'll be a good-fella, and blank his user page? Shenme 07:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

False claim of Adam Savage's Death

Multiple anon IP edits to Adam Savage have just been reverted, which claimed the articles subject had passed away today. No information can be found to support this claim on the usual sources inc. Google News, nor did the change include any factual or cited source to back up the change. It has since been reverted by VegitaU. These unsourced edits were in place for a period of 7min total. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. If anyone feels it appropriate to undo the semi-protection, go ahead, but we should have a few people watching the article. Grandmasterka 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Crap... Someone did it to Jamie Hyneman too, a month ago, and it's still semi-protected. Someone's a little obsessed with killing Mythbusters. Grandmasterka 08:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayjg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel

I'd like to request that another administrator review Jayjg's behaviour in this matter.

Jayjg undid the actions of another administrator here, and imposed his own decision on the afd result. His actual decision may have been technically correct. However, I don't believe Jayjg should have been the person to close this afd, given his editing history on articles relating to Israel. CJCurrie 05:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you "merge" when the article is deleted, which would be a violation of the GFDL? hbdragon88 05:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be. --Iamunknown 05:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just posed a question for Jayjg at Doc's page, WjBscribe at Jayjg's page, maybe we should wait for further comments until we hear from em? --Iamunknown 05:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'd just noticed this myself and asked Jayjg to comment on it. It does seem very irregular. Better let him know that the matter has been raised here as well. WjBscribe 05:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has a long history of activism here with respect to Israeli issues. Fred Bauder 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• If the action was technically correct, a "tsk" is called for. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Upon whom? --Iamunknown 06:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well Jayjg's close cannot be correct because it goes against GDFL. We can't merge deleted content... WjBscribe 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I don't think Jayjg or Doc's close was correct, I don't see any consensus there on anything. Still, Doc closed it as he did, and isn't that what DRV's for, rather than to reverse the close unilaterally while calling it "nonsense"? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be taken to DRV, but as the delete/merge issue, the easy way to do handle that is to have it as a redirect with the edits in the history and then merge anything over. Still, this looks like it should go to DRV for now. I do have trouble seeing Doc's close given what the AfD looks like. JoshuaZ 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to be able to suggest that we wait to hear from both of them, but if we must I would suggest undeleting it and taking it to DRV, as that what should have been done had Jayjg not reversed Doc's actions. --Iamunknown 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sent to DRV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Should it be history-only undeleted during the DRV? I'm not terribly comfortable doing that since I listed it, but it might be helpful for those commenting to be able to see history. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As was already noted, Jayjg was right to correct the mistake (I hope unintentional). If anyone, it is not he who needs to be admonished. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What mistake? Jayjg disagreed with the other admin and undid his decision. His decision might have been right or wrong (I have no idea since I have not reviewed the votes Given the discussion, it seems to me that the majority voted for merging the information to other articles-whether that majority formed a consensus needs more experience which I don't have). His decision I think was right and was done in complete good faith but he should have stated his point through DRV but it was not respectful. --Aminz 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see where it was noted and I strongly dispute the statement. I think it was plain wrong. --Iamunknown 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi fellows! I just restored the AfD back to Doc's closed version and the article as well, but I left the DRV header up there, so people visiting the article could comment. I've a problem though; I'm rather ignorant when it comes to templates and have no idea how to get the DRV header to reflect that the article is not, in fact, deleted. Any assistance on this would be both welcomed and appreciated! Thanks in advance! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. (It's {{delrev}}, by the way.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. Thanks a lot to Seraphimblade for the help in getting the correct tag on the article! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the AFD result template to Talk:United States military aid to Israel. --Timeshifter 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I note many of the same editors who voted for "delete" of this article were involved in possibly illegally deleting another article about Israel. This one: Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The closing admin comment on that page was "No consensus. Keep, with strong encouragement to merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada on the basis of Wikipedia:Content forking. Jayjg has so messed up the naming and the redirecting of the article. The talk page is under a different name than the article name. See: Talk:Allegations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Every attempt to stop the possibly illegal deletion of that article was reverted by the same tag-team crew of editors. I thought the problem was more a problem with the name. I thought "war crimes" was too strong for all the various alleged human rights violations. So I tried undeleting the article and changing the name to Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada. But Jayjg again deleted the page, and redirected again to al-Aqsa Intifada. I have since decided that there are even better names. See my request for help at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict#Requests for NPOV help. Specific articles. Some possible names modeled after other article names. Names such as "Human rights in the Palestinian territories," or "Human rights under Israeli occupation," or "Human rights in Israeli-controlled territories" Tewfik initiated the AFD for the article. Same as for United States military aid to Israel. Jayjg backed up the deletion attempts on both articles. It now seems that both attempts at deletion violated wikipedia guidelines. Neither article had a consensus to delete. I personally think both articles are content forks, not POV forks. Both articles have too much material to be dealt with well in a few paragraphs in another article.--Timeshifter 09:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

concerns about harassment, personal attacks, wiki-stalking

I've recently added clean-up templates to Aldol condensation and Overman rearrangement because I'm concerned about the lack of any introduction to the articles. These were removed by editors who made no actual improvements to the articles, but in my opinion, removed them because they didn'tw want to fix the article. However, User:Quale has reverted the templates [110], [111], claiming I was being disruptive. However, I think that this is an unfair accusation that is based on his personal animosity for me, which is demonstrated in several personal attacks he has made against me. See: [112], where it's clear that he has developed some sort of personal animosity against me because I have concerns about the way Chess articles are handled. These concerns are similar to the ones these science pages have as well, but simply reverting them? I feel it is a harassment concern, and since I've tried Wikiquette without getting any kind of change in his behavior or attitude, I don't know what else to do. I don't want this problem to get worse. Mister.Manticore 05:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem continues. [113] with a revert claiming a request for further information be added to an article is disruptive. Mister.Manticore 07:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting temporary block of IP 74.123.39.201

Some user using this IP 74.123.39.201 has attracted warning messages from various users( See User talk:74.123.39.201). All edits are to Islam related articles and cannot always be termed vandalism. In fact in the case of Medina he/she has actually undone vandalism by another editor. However this user is being uncooperative by removing tags and making unwanted, sometimes haphazard edits. He/she has been ignoring warnings. A temporary block on the IP may be necessary to get them to the discussion table. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I reviewed their edit history. Warned repeatedly for vandalism. Removing tags from pages with no explanation whatsoever. Inserting various verses of the Qu'ran into articles. No dialog with anyone whatsoever. Behaviour continued after last warn. I've given them a 24-hour block - Alison ☺ 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some sock puppet accusers are more equal than others

If I were to do this on someone else's talk page, I'd be banned. This editor? Above the wiki law judging from his/her posting history [114]. I'm not the first to get this sort of harassment on my talk pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piperdown (talk • contribs)

Just a simple question I asked, based on your editing history. Your retort was as I expected.--MONGO 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That simple question is not generally tolerated from those of us who aren't playing ball with the corruption here. I'd be banned for it, you won't be. Checkuser me, and allow me the same leeway to request checkusers on editors who I know are sockpuppets without me being banned for doing so. Ain't gonna happen.Piperdown 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What corruption is that?--MONGO 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This question looks to me like it's a badly worded question, buit one which needs to be asked (in a nicer way). The wording What's your real account (the bold there I put in for emphissis) looks to me like an uncivil way to ask the question. Od Mishehu 07:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Davesmith33 (resolved)

Resolved

 – Community patience exhausted

Davesmith33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been disrupting Top Gear related articles for weeks now. He was recently blocked for one week. As soon as the block ended, he has continued to revert war. He has also been warned numerous times, by at least 3 different people (check the history of his talk page) for misleading edit summaries. He keeps claiming that he is reverting "vandalism" when in actuality it is him making a contentious edit, going against consensus. [115] He has also been claiming that his version is the one agreed on by consensus, when in fact it is not (see Talk:Top Gear (current format)). Regardless of the edit warring, the misleading edit summaries are disruption. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Myself and Gwernol are keeping an eye on him. He's a couple of edits away from another block. – Steel 10:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Steel for being on the ball. Cheers. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The inevitable has happened, let's tag this as resolved. – Steel 10:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Systematic wikilinking of years

Earthelemental99 (talk · contribs) is wikilinking all years in articles en masse, appearing to start from letter Z. While it was disputed area in the past, I believe that WP:DATE still discourages that practice. Should we take an action? Duja► 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)